States Report Reductions In Recidivism I Reductions In Statewide .

1y ago
2 Views
1 Downloads
823.73 KB
8 Pages
Last View : 1m ago
Last Download : 2m ago
Upload by : Nadine Tse
Transcription

September 2012States Report Reductions in RecidivismIn many jurisdictions, state and local governmentofficials have intensified their efforts to reducerecidivism. As policymakers are under tremendouspressure to cut spending wherever possible, Republican and Democratic elected officials alike have madethe case that improved efforts to reduce reoffense ratesamong people released from prison would save moneyand increase public safety. Their position is backedby an extensive and compelling body of research thatdemonstrates the impact that policies, practices, andprograms can have in reducing the likelihood thatsomeone released from prison or jail will reoffend.The report of the 2010 National Summit on JusticeReinvestment and Public Safety highlighted four principles that the research reflects are critical to any effortto reduce recidivism: focusing resources on individualsmost likely to reoffend; investing in research-driven,evidence-based programs; implementing effectivecommunity supervision policies and practices; andapplying place-based approaches.1Many states are now presenting data that indicate declines in statewide recidivism rates for adultsreleased from prison. This brief highlights a cross-section of states with robust, current data that reflect suchimprovements.2 It is not a comprehensive researchreport, nor is it an evaluation of any state’s recidivismefforts, assessing how changes in the recidivism ratein each state correlate to particular changes in policyor practice.Instead, this brief summarizes recent data providedto the Council of State Governments Justice Center’sNational Reentry Resource Center by a select group ofstates that carefully monitor changes in their recidivism rates. For each state highlighted, this brief alsoreviews strategies that, according to their own qualitative assessments, these states believe have contributedto the decline in their recidivism rates.1. Marshall Clement, Matthew Schwarzfeld, and Michael Thompson,The National Summit on Justice Reinvestment and Public Safety: AddressingRecidivism, Crime, and Corrections Spending (New York: Council of StateGovernments Justice Center, 2011).Reductions in StatewideRecidivism Rates for 2005and 2007 Prison ReleasesThis brief highlights significant statewide recidivismreductions achieved in Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi,Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and Vermont. For each state, thisbrief compares three-year post-release recidivism ratesfor two cohorts: people exiting prison in 2005 and thosereleased in 2007. This data is among the most currentavailable for statewide three-year recidivism rates.Some states saw particularly sharp reductions duringthis period, such as Kansas, which achieved a 15-percent decline, and Michigan, which saw an 18-percentPercentageChange inRecidivism Rate*for 2005 and2007 ReleasesNumber FewerReturnedto Prisonfor the 2007Release Group Percentage change in recidivism rate is calculated by dividingthe percentage-point change by the initial recidivism rate, whichyields the percentage by which the recidivism rate changed.Throughout this brief, percentage figures are rounded to thenearest whole number. To see percentage figures rounded to thenearest tenth of a percent, see Figure 1 in the Appendix.**This figure is determined by subtracting the number ofindividuals who returned to prison in the latest data-year fromthe number that would have returned had the state not reducedits recidivism rate. The number is calculated based on a singlerelease cohort, but if the number of people released and recidivismrates were to remain constant, the number would also representan annualized average. See Figure 2 in the Appendix for furtherillustration.2. Results from a national survey on recidivism may be found in the2011 report State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons, inwhich the Pew Center on the States compares the three-year recidivismrates for 1999 and 2004 prison releases. The report shows that, inaddition to the states highlighted in this brief, many other states havealso achieved recidivism reductions.

drop. When measuring recidivism changes over a longer period of time, the reductions for some states areeven more dramatic: Ohio’s recidivism rate declined by21 percent between 2003 and 2008, while Texas saw adrop of 22 percent between 2000 and 2007.The table on the previous page indicates reductionsin states’ recidivism rates for 2005 and 2007 prisonreleases. These states use a standard tracking periodof three years after release from incarceration, so therecidivism rate for 2005 releases was calculated usingdata from 2005 through 2008, while the rate for 2007releases was calculated using data from 2007 through2010.State-Specific Recidivism RateReductions and StrategiesKansas3Three-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleasesDecline inrecidivism rate39 percent33 percent15 percent In 2004, the Kansas Legislature created the KansasCriminal Justice Recodification, Rehabilitation andRestoration Committee, which developed a comprehensive strategy for reducing recidivism. Among otherinitiatives, the strategy included establishing the Kansas Reentry Policy Council and implementing two pilotprograms targeting parolees at high risk of reoffending. Community supervision officials provided intensivetraining to parole officers and strengthened supervision“The table also shows how many fewer peoplereleased from prison in 2007 returned to prison withinthree years because of the reduced recidivism rate ineach state. These numbers do not necessarily correspond to a reduction in the state’s prison population,as some states may have had an overall populationincrease or decrease due to other factors. These numbers do demonstrate, however, that even for states thatexperienced growth in their prison populations during these periods, the number of people returning toprison would have been even higher if the state had notreduced its recidivism rate.strategies that connect individuals in need of treatmentand services to community-based resources. State officials invested in reentry initiatives at the countylevel and partnered with local communities that wereexperiencing the highest rates of return from prison toconnect released individuals more effectively to housing and workforce development services. In 2007, legislation was passed to create a performancebased grant program for community corrections agencies to design local strategies to reduce revocations; italso established a 60-day earned time credit for successful completion of educational, vocational, and treatment programs. Strong partnerships with state and national government agencies and nonprofit organizations have provided critical financial support for efforts to reducerecidivism, as well as practical technical assistance,including valuable data analyses and guidance on theimplementation of evidence-based practices.One of my wardens constantly asks his staff, right down to the line staff, ‘What can wedo to reduce recidivism?’ This gets them thinking that reentry is an important part ofwhat they do that they can do something to improve the likelihood that the peoplewho leave their custody are successful when they return home.”Ray Roberts, Secretary of Kansas Department of Corrections3. The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC), through theAssociation of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA), definesrecidivism as “the number of inmates released from the DOC duringa given calendar year who returned to a Kansas prison within 36months after release, divided by the number of inmates released duringthat calendar year.” Neither the KDOC nor ASCA includes rearrests inrecidivism calculations. Recidivism-related information is gathered2States Report Reductions in Recidivismby analyzing data that is tracked for each released individual. Kansasmeasures recidivism based at three junctures after release—at 12months, 24 months, and 36 months. Separate rates are calculatedfor those persons returning to KDOC with new sentences and thosereturning with no new sentences. Kansas calculates its recidivism ratebased on the total number of releases.

Michigan4Mississippi7Three-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleases40 percent33 percentDecline inrecidivism rateThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleasesDecline inrecidivism rate18 percent31 percent28 percent9 percent In 2003, the state launched Michigan Prisoner Reentry (formerly known as the Michigan Prisoner ReentryInitiative), a program that targets individuals at greatestrisk for failure on parole and uses standardized risk andneeds assessments to inform the services they are provided in order to reduce their risk of reoffending. Between 1999 and 2004, state policymakers revampedthe state’s use of earned time credits and supervisionstrategies. Expanding the use of supervision options forpeople at low risk for reoffending has helped to alleviate system overcrowding, reserving critical resourcesfor high-risk or violent offenders. The Michigan Department of Corrections has foundthat participants in the program are 38 percent lesslikely to return to prison as compared to baselineexpectations.5 Corrections officials received expert technical assistance from a national government organization onthe use of evidence-based practices and validated riskassessment tools to help ensure that individuals withthe most acute needs were targeted for treatment andservices. Under the Prisoner Reentry program, corrections officials allocated 50 million annually to provide community-based housing for parolees, to subsidize employerswho hire them, and to maintain funding for community-based programming that provides transition support services. This funding was derived in part fromthe savings generated by the closing of 21 correctionalfacilities and minimum-security camps. Over a longer period, Michigan’s decline in recidivismis even more significant, with a 28-percent reductionin returns to prison between the 2000 and 2008 releasecohorts.6“ Policymakers are optimistic about continued improvements in recidivism rates, in part due to legislationenacted in 2009 that expanded the use of house arrestand allowed courts to consider the use of intensive community supervision for individuals who violate probation rather than returning them to prison. Mississippi’s inmate population decreased by morethan 1,300 from 2008 to 2010—the most significantdecline in prison population that the state has everseen. Despite recent signs of growth in the prison population, this growth is contained by the state’s efforts toimprove its recidivism rate.We know that the majority of those incarcerated will be rejoining society and theirsuccessful reentry is as critical to public safety as a sentence served. Effective prisonerreentry is an important component of smart justice. Michigan’s prisoner reentryprogram has been a major contributor to lower recidivism rates for the state.”Governor Rick Snyder (R, MI)4. The Michigan Department of Corrections defines recidivism as areturn to prison within three years of release for either a new prisonsentence or for a technical violation of parole conditions. Recidivismanalysis is based on follow-up data for three years after each individual’srelease, determining whether the offender returned to prison as aParole Violator Technical (PVT), Parole Violator New Sentence during theparole term (PVNS), or with a new prison sentence after the expirationof the parole term. Michigan calculates its recidivism rate based on thetotal number of releases on parole to Michigan counties (i.e., excludingparoles to other states or paroles to other jurisdictions’ custody).5. Michigan Department of Corrections officials report that theagency conducted an analysis of multiple release-year cohorts thatparticipated in the in-reach phase of the program. This internal analysisexamined outcomes against baseline expectations for the 1998release-year cohort, which was the year before the Michigan PrisonerReentry program began.6. See Figure 1 of the Appendix.7. Mississippi defines recidivism as a return to inmate status. Thestate calculates recidivism by tracking the return to inmate statusfor individuals who are placed on parole, Earned Release Supervision,house arrest, or probation, or who are released unconditionally frominmate status every calendar year. The rate does not distinguishbetween individuals on community supervision who are returnedto inmate status for technical violations of the terms of their releaseor those who return to inmate status for committing a new offense.Mississippi calculates its recidivism rates based on the total number ofreleases.States Report Reductions in Recidivism3

Ohio8Oregon10Three-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleases38 percent34 percentDecline inrecidivism rateThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleasesDecline inrecidivism rate11 percent30 percent27 percent8 percent The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction(DRC) worked closely with community corrections,drawing on evaluation outcomes from a series of studies conducted by the University of Cincinnati of thestate’s community corrections programs. These studieshelped to inform the implementation of evidence-basedpractices and the development of training programs forprobation and parole officers in areas such as conducting assessments and effective interventions, planningcase supervision, and improving communication skills. Over four years, the DRC anticipates investing 20million to improve felony probation supervision andprovide incentive funding for community correctionsagencies that successfully reduce recidivism. State officials anticipate that Ohio’s House Bill 86,passed in 2011, will be a key factor in reducing recidivism. The landmark legislation included multiplestrategies for reducing crime and recidivism, including mandating the consistent use of a risk assessmenttool across various phases of the criminal justice system, ensuring that individuals assessed as high risk areplaced under supervision upon release from prison,and improving reentry services for individuals returning from incarceration. In 2003, the state enacted legislation requiring thatprevention, treatment, and intervention programsintended to reduce future criminal behavior must beevidence based. The state provides every person released from prisonwith an individualized reentry plan that is informed bycriminogenic risk assessments. In-prison treatment programs and other services aretargeted primarily to medium- and high-risk individuals, and the counseling model has been adjusted to givecounselors smaller caseloads of medium- and high-riskindividuals who benefit from the additional attentionand resources. Over a longer period, Oregon’s recidivism rate fell from31.1 percent for 2003 releases to 27.7 percent for 2008releases—a decline of 11 percent.11 In 2011, the state reported a recidivism rate of 31.2percent for 2008 releases—the lowest rate since 1991.Compared with the recidivism rate for 2003 releases,this represents a 21-percent reduction in recidivism.98. Ohio defines recidivism as the individual’s first return to prisonwithin the specified follow-up period. The state calculates recidivismbased on returns to incarceration for a new crime, prison sanction, ortechnical violation of the conditions of parole supervision. Although anindividual may reoffend more than once in a given year, only the firstincidence of reoffense is reflected in the recidivism calculation for thatyear. Ohio calculates its recidivism rates based on the total number ofreleases.9. See Figure 1 of the Appendix.10. Oregon defines recidivism for individuals on parole as the totalpercentage of a release cohort convicted of a felony within the specifiedfollow-up period, including individuals who are convicted of a newfelony but are not reincarcerated. Technical violations are not counted4States Report Reductions in Recidivismin the recidivism rate. Recidivism for individuals on probation isdefined as the total percentage of an admission cohort convicted of afelony within the specified follow-up period. The state calculates itsrecidivism rate by tracking release and admission cohorts within aspecified period of time after the start of parole or probation. Releasecohorts include those who were released to parole supervision orwere sentenced to serve their first felony probation sentence. Releasecohorts exclude individuals released following a return to incarcerationfor a revocation. Although an individual may be sentenced more thanonce to probation supervision, each new probation sentence is countedseparately. Oregon calculates its recidivism rates based on the totalnumber of releases.11. See Figure 1 of the Appendix.

Texas12Three-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleasesDecline inrecidivism rate27 percent24 percent11 percent In 2007, the Texas Legislature significantly increasedfunding to expand the capacity of existing treatmentprograms and alternatives to incarceration, includingtransitional housing for parolees, in-prison treatmentfor substance abuse, and outpatient substance abusetreatment for people under probation supervision. Policymakers supported the implementation of a system of graduated sanctions for parolees, allowing forthe diversion of technical violators of parole to an Intermediate Sanction Facility rather than returning themto prison. Over a longer period, recidivism rates in Texas haveimproved from 31.2 percent for 2000 releases to 24.3percent for 2007 releases—a decline of 22 percent.13Comparing Recidivism RatesThis brief focuses on comparing the change in an individual state’s recidivism rate from one period to another,as opposed to comparing that rate to another state’s recidivism rate, or to the rate of recidivism nationally.14There are several reasons for this focus: First, each state determines its own definition of recidivism and its ownmethodology for calculating recidivism. For example, some state measurements of recidivism account onlyfor reincarceration, while others include reconvictions that do not result in a prison or jail sentence. In Texas,for instance, parolees who are temporarily placed in an Intermediate Sanction Facility as an alternative toincarceration are not counted as recidivists, a distinction that has a significant impact on the state’s recidivismrate.In addition, the composition of each state’s prison population is distinct. Incarcerated populations canvary by risk level. For example, a state that sentences to prison large numbers of people who are at low riskof reoffending will logically have a lower recidivism rate than a state that uses its prison facilities for peoplewho are at higher risk of reoffending. The organization of a state’s correctional system can also influence itsrecidivism rates, as is the case for Vermont, which operates a unified correctional system where the state isresponsible for prison and jail operations and there is no county jail system.Because of these and other factors, comparing recidivism rates from state to state or comparing a staterecidivism rate with the national average is discouraged. In addition, national recidivism data should be usedonly to understand larger trends and developments in recidivism, not to determine specific areas for futureimprovement or investment.12. Texas defines recidivism as a return to criminal activity afterprevious criminal involvement. The state calculates separate recidivismrates based on rearrest and reincarceration for its state prison, statejail, treatment facility, and sanction facility populations. Individualswho violate the conditions of their parole and are sanctioned to anIntermediate Sanction Facility are not counted as recidivists; theyreceive a modification of their conditions of supervision instead of arevocation to prison. The recidivism rate included in this report is forreincarceration of releases from state prisons only, and it is calculatedby tracking reincarceration within a three-year period after release.Texas calculates the recidivism rate for state prison reincarcerationsbased on the total number of releases.13. See Figure 1 of the Appendix.14. The statistics provided in this report are focused on prison releasesonly.States Report Reductions in Recidivism5

Vermont15Three-yearrecidivism ratefor 2005 prisonreleasesThree-yearrecidivism ratefor 2007 prisonreleasesDecline inrecidivism rate44 percent41 percent6 percent In 2008, the Vermont General Assembly approvedHouse Bill 859, a comprehensive set of policies aimedat reducing recidivism and corrections costs, whichincluded the expansion of transitional housing optionsand job training programs, improvements in pilotscreening and assessment processes, the reorganization of several prisons, the establishment of a facilityfor male offenders with substance abuse treatmentneeds, and the expansion of a diversion program providing intensive community supervision. There has been an expansion of substance abuse programming, including increased capacity of community-based substance abuse treatment providers andrecovery centers, as well as the addition of a residentialtreatment option. Based on early successes, the state legislature has set agoal of reducing the state’s recidivism rate to 30 percentby 2015. Realizing this goal would represent a 27-percent decline in recidivism from Vermont’s most recentrecidivism rate of 40.9 percent for 2007 releases. Over a longer period, Vermont saw an 11-percentimprovement in its recidivism rate, from 46.2 percentfor 2002 releases to 40.9 percent for 2007 releases.16States Everywhere Committed to Reducing RecidivismIn December 2011, the Council of State Governments Justice Center co-organized a national forum on reentryand recidivism that was attended by leaders from all 50 states, in partnership with the Association of StateCorrectional Administrators, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Public WelfareFoundation, and the Pew Center on the States. Corrections directors, reentry coordinators, legislators, andjudges worked together at this historic event to develop concrete strategies to reduce recidivism in their states.In the weeks after the event, leaders of the state departments of corrections in 43 of 50 states completed asurvey, with results reflecting an overwhelming commitment to reducing recidivism, as well as a need forcontinued assistance in this area. Nearly all of these states currently measure recidivism, with 80 percent producing annual recidivism reportsthat show year-to-year trends. More than 80 percent of the 43 states have developed or are currently developing a plan to reduce recidivism. Leaders in 29 states have either already set a recidivism-reduction target or anticipate setting a target in thenear future. A majority of these states have identified specific action items to advance their recidivism-reduction plans. Nearly all states identified types of technical assistance that can help them set achievable recidivismreduction targets and connect with other states to share information about their successes and challenges inreducing recidivism.15. The Vermont Department of Corrections recently refined thestate’s definition of recidivism and tracking methods to provide amore accurate picture of who is reoffending and why. Vermont definesrecidivism as a conviction for an offense committed after release fromincarceration. The state calculates its recidivism rate by trackingindividuals who are released after a sentence of more than one year of6States Report Reductions in Recidivismincarceration and who return to prison within three years of releasefor a conviction of a new offense or a violation of supervision resultingin an incarceration sentence of at least 90 days. Although individualsmay reoffend more than once in a given year, only the first incidence ofreoffense is reflected in the recidivism calculation for that year.16. See Figure 1 of the Appendix.

APPENDIXFigure 1: Statewide Recidivism Rates for 2000 – 2008 Releases17To provide a broader view, below is recidivism data gathered for 2000 to 2008 release %46.2%42.4%43.2%43.7%45.0%40.9%n/aKansasFigures in bold are used elsewhere in this document.Figure 2: Reductions in Recidivism and Numbers Returned to PrisonPercentage-PointChange between2005 and 2007ReleasesPercentage Changein Recidivism Ratefor 2005 and sissippi-2.7%-8.8%Ohio-4.4%OregonNumberReleased in 2007Number FewerReturned toPrison for the 2007Release t-2.8%-6.4%5,025141Figures in bold are used elsewhere in this document.*Percentage change in recidivism rate is calculated by dividing the percentage-point change by the initial recidivism rate, whichyields the percentage by which the recidivism rate changed.**This figure is determined by subtracting the number of individuals who returned to prison in the latest data-year from the numberthat would have returned had the state not reduced its recidivism rate. The number is calculated based on a single release cohort, butif the number of people released and recidivism rates were to remain constant, the number would also represent an annualizedaverage.17. The states discussed in the following tables use a tracking period ofthree years after release from incarceration. For example, the recidivismrate for 2000 releases was calculated using data from 2000 through2003 and the rate for 2008 releases was calculated using data from2008 through 2011.States Report Reductions in Recidivism7

SourcesMuch of the data on statewide recidivism included in this report was provided by state departments ofcorrections. Additional data came from State of Recidivism: The Revolving Door of America’s Prisons (Washington, DC:The Pew Center on the States, 2011) and “Reforming a System: An Inside Perspective on How Ohio Achieved aRecord-Low Recidivism Rate” by Gary Mohr, Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction(National Reentry Resource Center Newsletter, March 12, 2012). The states featured in this report noted that they hadreceived support in developing and implementing recidivism-reduction strategies from various organizations,including the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Pew Center on the States, the Council of State Governments JusticeCenter, and the National Institute of Corrections.The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center isa national nonprofit organization that serves policymakersat the local, state, and federal levels from all branches ofgovernment. The CSG Justice Center provides practical,nonpartisan advice and consensus-driven, evidence-basedstrategies to increase public safety and strengthen communities.The CSG Justice Center’s Justice Reinvestment Initiative to address corrections spending and public safety is apartnership with the Public Safety Performance Project of the Pew Center on the States and the U.S. Department ofJustice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance. These efforts have provided data-driven analyses and policy options to stateleaders in 16 states.For more information, visit www.justicecenter.csg.org.This project was supported by Grant No. 2010-MU-BX-K084 awarded by theBureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a componentof the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the Bureau of JusticeStatistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice andBureau of Justice AssistanceDelinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view orU.S. Department of Justiceopinions in this document are those of the author and do not represent theofficial position or policies of the United States Department of Justice. To learn more about the Bureau of JusticeAssistance, please visit www.bja.gov.The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Truststhat identifies and advances effective solutions to critical issues facingstates. Pew is a nonprofit organization that applies a rigorous, analyticalapproach to improve public policy, inform the public and stimulate civiclife. Launched in 2006, The Public Safety Performance Project helps statesadvance fiscally sound, data-driven policies and practices in sentencingand corrections that protect public safety, hold offenders accountable, and control corrections costs. For moreinformation, visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.8States Report Reductions in Recidivism

rates for 1999 and 2004 prison releases. The report shows that, in addition to the states highlighted in this brief, many other states have also achieved recidivism reductions. September 2012 Percentage change in recidivism rate* for 2005 and 2007 releases number fewer returned to Prison for the 2007 release grouP ** Kansas -15% 289 Michigan .

Related Documents:

Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Percentage Change in Three- Year Recidivism Rates Number of inmates Released in 2010 Number Fewer Returned to Prison for the 2010 Release Group The declines in recidivism rates highlighted in this report have occurred while these states have each experienced declines in incarceration rates and crime rates.

of recidivism [25], citing the Northpointe practitioner’s guide to COMPAS that states, “scores in the medium and high range garner more interest from super-vision agencies than low scores, as a low score would suggest there is little risk of general recidivism” [30]. There

Bureau of Research and Data Analysis within the Florida Department of Corrections. The present study examines the recidivism rate of Florida's released inmate population. While the use of recidivism as a performance indicator of the state's rehabilitative efforts can be debated, the analysis itself is of significant public importance.

re-arrest data on its former inmates, has no performance metrics to gauge the RPP’s impact on recidivism, and does not currently make any attempt to link RPP efforts to recidivism. We also found that the BOP has not yet completed a recidivism analysis r

courts that do not follow these practices. Cost Savings 36% Recidivism 153% The judge spends an average of 3 minutes or more per participants during status review hearings Cost Savings 4% Recidivism 84% The judge was assigned to treatment court on a voluntary basis Cost Savings 17% Recidivism 35% The judge's term is indefinite

enthusiasm, and kindness to help me stay focused and push through the challenges of writing my dissertation. I extend my gratitude to my dissertation committee: Drs. Aaron Mann, Lambert . attitude, criminal associates, and recidivism among jail ex-inmates. 1.1.1 Recidivism and jail

principles of Evidence-Based Practice (EBP) to reduce recidivism, which are based on that research. These principles identify the key characteristics of successful recidivism-reduction programs. The first three principles answer the questions of "who" to target for such programs, "what" to target, and "how" to target: 1.

355 organization. Jong and Hartog (2007) reported that innovative role-modeling behavior of leadership is lined with putting efforts and championing in development, generating ideas, exploring opportunities,