Research on the risk and protect factors of gang

No abstract

The movements of accused and convicted offenders in many countries around the world are increasingly being monitored with electronic supervision tools. Individuals can be placed on electronic monitoring (EM) by the justice system for numerous reasons and can be of varying risk levels. Currently, individuals are placed on EM as conditions of pretrial release, probation, and parole. EM is a versatile tool designed to aid correctional officers in their supervision of offenders sentenced to confinement or house arrest. There are many forms of EM devices that are designed to limit the freedom and monitor the movements of individuals to ensure they are in compliance with court-mandated restrictions. In general, EM is intended to be an alternative to detention in either jails or prisons and is an intermediate sanction that is more punitive than traditional probation but less punitive than imprisonment. The expanded use of EM in recent years is largely attributable to financial constraints and overcrowding experienced by many jails and prisons. However, the empirical research of the effectiveness and unintended consequences is limited. There are serious concerns that have yet to be addressed about possible net-widening associated with EM use and whether it truly is an effective alternative to incarceration.

Researcher–policymaker/practitioner partnerships (RPPs) have emerged as a successful tool for translating research into policy and practice. However, the available research has focused on RPPs with law enforcement and correctional agencies. Notably absent are studies that describe and evaluate RPPs between researchers and legislative bodies. Specifically, questions remain about the establishment, unique constraints, best practices for effective implementation, and sustainability of partnerships between researchers and policymakers. This study contributes to the literature by describing a unique RPP between a university and a state legislature. Through this retrospective case analysis, we describe the steps taken to initiate the partnership, its implementation, and outcomes. Importantly, in the context of the prior research, we describe the lessons learned, next steps, and implications for partnerships with policymakers.

The literature on crime control policy has developed from several areas of study. Included among these areas are general descriptive studies of the operations of the crime control system (police, courts, and corrections), studies of the causes of criminal behavior in relation to the rehabilitation of offenders, critical inquiry into crime control policies and practices, historical studies of crime control, studies of crime control reforms, studies of get-tough crime control policies, and studies aimed at linking crime control knowledge to public policy. A theme emerging from this literature has been a recognition of the patterned capacity of various crime control policies and reforms to have unintended consequences.