Browsing Justice by Subject "Fairbanks"
Now showing items 1-3 of 3
Creating, communicating and measuring strategic objectives through the application of a balanced scorecard: the case of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Police DepartmentThis project served to align the vision and mission of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Police Department with the needs of the University community through the employment of a balanced scorecard. The balanced scorecard itself is a strategic performance management framework that enables organizations to identify, manage and measure strategic objectives. While there have been instances where police agencies have attempted to implement the balanced scorecard in the past, these police agencies have been very large, and they failed to achieve the level of granularity in their balanced scorecard necessary to effectively identify and manage true strategic objectives. In case of the University of Alaska Fairbanks Police Department, the balanced scorecard served to answer four fundamental questions: how will they sustain their ability to change and improve, what business processes must they excel at, how should they be perceived by their community, and how can they be responsible stewards of the funds that they are given?
The Fairbanks Four: hopeless innocence and the flawed system that escorted them to stagnant wrongful convictionsThis project explores factors that lead to wrongful convictions with a case study from 1997 on the sensitive claim of innocence on the Fairbanks, Alaska community: The John Hartman murder. As the representative model throughout the project, this sexual assault and murder case of the accused Fairbanks Four will be examined. Through a multi-disciplinary scope, the topic will be approached through numerous accounts of research, interviews, and field-work. By dissecting the Fairbanks Four case and applying it to the research of the burdensome appeals process, the supporting factors are apparent in the practices that lead to wrongful convictions. In the synopsis, methods that lead to convictions, as well as the inconsistent wavering time table, will be disclosed. Further, counter methods to tactics currently practiced and how to avoid time delays of such a rigorous and often hopeless process will also be included. With underdog defense organizations such as The Innocence Project and The Alaska Innocence Project growth and expansion, we increasingly see success in the overturn of wrongful convictions throughout the United States. This paper will argue and highlight the systemic faults in the current convictions process and identify recommendations to modify such faults in relation to the case study of the Fairbanks Four.
Fairbanks juvenile recidivism case study: a comparison of criminogenic needs and case planning of recidivists and non-recidivistsResearch has shown that addressing criminogenic needs of offenders, both juvenile and adult, can reduce the likelihood of recidivism. Utilizing the Risk Need Responsivity theory (Andrews, Bonta, & Hoge, 1990; Andrews, Zinger, et al., 1990), the hypothesis for this small case study of youth recidivist and non-recidivists in interior Alaska was developed to compare data to determine if what is identified in research models to reduce recidivism correlated to what was applied in practice with juvenile offenders. Specifically this comparative case study intended to show that youth who had case plans which were identified to be "inadequate," that they had fewer than 75% of the identified criminogenic needs from their YLS/CMI addressed on their case plan, would be more likely to recidivate. Further, youth who had case plans which were identified to be "adequate," that they had greater than 75% of their identified criminogenic needs from their YLS/CMI addressed on their case plan, would be less likely to recidivate.The case study also compared case plans of recidivists and non-recidivists in the use of dynamic criminogenic needs and any subsequent impact on recidivism. After the statistical analysis of both the efficacy of case plans addressing individual criminogenic needs as well as the efficacy of case plans addressing dynamic criminogenic needs and their impact on reduction of recidivism, only the later analysis of dynamic criminogenic needs was able to reject the null hypothesis; that inclusion of criminogenic needs on a case plan has no impact on recidivism.