On Wednesday I conducted a training for trainers for staff from the New York State Division of Probation and Correctional Alternatives in Albany. They were trained on Family Justice's curriculum "Integrating a Strength-Based, Family-Focused Approach in Community Supervision," as part of an initiative supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. On Thursday they presented this material to probation agents and supervisors from throughout the state.

Many agents are already working with families informally and said the training helped them organize their practices better. Others liked that the family-focused approach does not require extra paperwork, but helped shift how they talk with participants about their social supports. When asked what they would do differently as a result of the training, some agents said they would use supportive inquiry with participants and consider their strengths instead of deficits when attempting to work through a challenge.

Kudos to DPCA director of training Kathi Pallotta and her team, including Nancy Andino, Cindy Trimble, Yvonne Behan, Bill Schaefer, Patti Donohue, and Bernard Wilson.

Last week I traveled to Richmond to convene a final meeting of the Measuring Family Outcomes project, which focuses on community-based case management. During the past two years, Family Justice has trained more than 65 community-supervision officers and staff members of community-based organizations, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance.

Despite funding challenges and limited resources, the leaders from Richmond's reentry community report that the strength-based, family-focused approach is taking root in their city in various ways. They have noticed subtle shifts in how families are considered throughout the supervision process. Agencies are revising forms to better reflect their participants' strengths and view individuals more holistically. Our colleagues have a heightened appreciation of collaboration and enhanced connections among community-based agencies and government. Plans for quarterly collaborative meetings are also in the works.

In other news, Martha Rollins, the CEO of Boaz & Ruth and organizer of the Long Walk to Freedom, is spearheading advocacy efforts to create a national service program called Restore Corps. The program is modeled on Americorps, but is geared toward formerly incarcerated people, who will perform meaningful service through social entrepreneurial ventures in communities where they committed crimes.

Along with my colleagues at Family Justice, I feel privileged to have worked with these fine leaders in Richmond's criminal justice community—and we look forward to seeing how their work progresses in this historic community.

Family Justice finished training Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections staff on the Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool last week at Black Canyon School in Phoenix. Staff are excited to take on the challenge of piloting the tool in the next two weeks so that Family Justice can analyze data from our three sites (including Ohio and Michigan) and finalize the tool by the end of October. The Juvenile Relational Inquiry Tool project is funded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Imagine not only being sandwiched between Chris Baird and Don Andrews to comment on risk/need instruments and "criminogenic" factors, but also having the panel introduced as "erudite and interesting." Clearly, I fell into the "interesting" category.

The setting was the 17th annual research conference of the International Community Corrections Association last week in Orlando. Chris Baird, executive vice president for the National Council on Crime and Delinquency/Children's Research Center, did a stellar job of articulating the challenges with current instruments: their widespread applications beyond risk, their predictive limitations, and their often cumbersome nature.

(Chris's paper, "A Question of Evidence: A Critique of Risk Assessment Models Used in the Justice System," was the focus of the plenary session; you can read it here.)

Dr. Don Andrews, a professor of psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa and coauthor of Level of Service Inventory, defended his view that these instruments remain invaluable. My job, as the peacekeeper in the middle, was to challenge our dependence on these instruments, their limited impact on supervision practice, and their failure to take strengths, assets, and relationships into consideration.

Not surprisingly, the discussion was stimulating and provocative!