|
|
NJ Reentry.Com Breaking News
|
 |
|
|
|
|
B.E.S.T. Practices “The Board” is a 501c3 tax exempt nonprofit corporation founded April 2007 for educational, scientific, and charitable purposes. The organization’s mission is clear…to keep men, women, and children from going back to prison. Our primary goal is to be helpful to reentry programs. We provide the most up to date trainings, continuing education seminars, and research knowledge on prisoner reentry to keep your reentry providers in the know and on the cutting edge of what works to prevent recidivism. Further, The Board provides program evaluation services, trainings, and toolkits for agencies wanting to outsource or implement outcome data collection and analysis services. First, we are a public charity and secondly, we are scientists. With that said, it is our hope B.E.S.T. Practices will become the first thing that comes to your mind when there is something you need to keep someone from going back to prison, no matter how big or small, from bicycles to program accreditation, we exist as a corporation for you! Please let us help today. Bookmark us and sign up for our newsletter for the latest state and national reentry research and news. Use the "Contact The Board" form to ask all reentry-related questions or to make general inquiries regarding donations, careers, volunteering, etc. Thank You! |
|
|
Crime & Justice News
|
|
|
How Do Drug Courts Work?
The Multi-Site Evaluation of Adult Drug Courts will report on a mediation analysis to empirically test theoretical pathways to desistance. The analysis considers the theoretical mechanisms through which drug court practices are meant to impact outcomes and how such pathways can be operationalized. A path model is proposed that delineates how drug-court practices affect modifications in behaviors and attitudes, and how these changes affect outcomes. Proposed mediators include changes in: perceived risk and
reward (deterrence), perceived legitimacy, and motivation to alter one's behavior. The analysis will suggest the pathways that are most crucial to desistance and the most
effective drug-court components that impact these pathways.
Do Drug Courts Reduce Crime and Produce Psychosocial Benefits? Methodology and Results From the MADCE
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation compares outcomes between offenders in 23
drug court and six comparison sites. Such a research design poses several potential
threats to validity, including selection bias (do drug court and comparison offenders vary
in background), attrition bias (do offenders retained for follow-up interviews vary from
the original baseline samples), and site-level bias (are the drug court and comparison sites
comparable in ways other than drug court status). In addition to outlining the analytic
strategy, simple outcomes are reported comparing drug court and comparison sites with
respect to criminal re-offending, incarceration, and other psychosocial outcomes.
Substance Abuse Findings from the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) : American Society of Criminology Conference - November 5, 2009
Several studies have found that drug courts reduce recidivism rates, but few studies have focused on the effect of drug courts on substance abuse. Substance abuse treatment approaches used in drug courts are identified based on data from participant surveys and process evaluation of the 23 participating drug courts. Baseline data for 1100 drug court participants and 600 comparison offenders is reported as descriptive analyses. However,
the focus is on reporting substance abuse impacts, including 1) the trajectory of recovery and whether drug courts work in terms of reducing drug use, and 2) for whom drug courts are most effective.
Every Kid Counts in the District of Columbia : 16th Annual Fact Book 2009
The 16th annual Fact Book is a comprehensive data source for indicators of child well-being in the District of Columbia. It tracks the progression of child well-being over time, as well as differences in child well-being across wards and races/ethnicities. It is organized to reflect the six citywide goals for children and youth in DC: children are ready for school; children and youth succeed in school; children and youth are healthy and practice healthy behaviors; children and youth engage in meaningful activities; children and youth live in healthy, stable, and supportive families; and all youth make a successful transition to adulthood.
Stories: Using Information in Community Building and Local Policy : Third Edition
The National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership (NNIP) is a collaborative effort of the Urban Institute and local organizations in more than 30 cities that operate recurrently updated information systems with neighborhood level data and work to ensure the data will be applied effectively in policy development and community building. This collection of brief case studies describes the local partners successes in using neighborhood indicators to improve their communities in several areas, including neighborhood development, housing, children and schools, crime and prisoner reentry, health and service delivery.
Hearing on "Halfway Home to the District: The Role of Halfway Houses in Reducing Crime and Recidivism in the Nation's Capital" : Before House of Representatives Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee
This congressional testimony summarizes research on the utility of halfway houses in
facilitating the successful reentry of former prisoners, emphasizing that not all halfway
houses are effective in preventing recidivism. Halfway houses that work have qualified
staff who use such evidence-based practices as needs assessments and tailored,
wraparound services. Halfway houses are most effective for medium- and high-risk
prisoners. However, they can actually be detrimental for low-risk prisoners, who would
fair better by simply returning directly to their families and communities. This research
suggests that the District of Columbia's halfway houses should be reserved for higher-risk
returning prisoners.
The Corporation for Supportive Housing's Returning Home Initiative: System Change Accomplishments after Three Years
In 2006, the Corporation for Supportive Housing launched its Returning Home Initiative (RHI) with two goals: 1) to establish permanent supportive housing as an essential reentry component for formerly incarcerated persons with histories of homelessness, mental illness, and chronic health conditions; and 2) to promote local and national policy changes to integrate the corrections, housing, mental health, and human service systems. The Urban Institute assessed the process of system change stimulated by RHI activities in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicagothree communities receiving significant RHI investment. This brief summarizes the influence of RHI-funded activities in each of these cities.
Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Self-Assessment Tool for Corrections
This self-assessment tool is designed to aid correctional administrators in evaluating and
improving their release planning practices. With funding from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation and in partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Urban Institute staff
developed and piloted a monthly assessment tool for individual correctional institutions
and a yearly assessment tool for correctional agencies to monitor overall departmental
performance. The policies and procedures identified as best practices in the tool are
drawn from <em>Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Guide for Corrections, Service
Providers, and Community Groups.</em>
An Evolving Field: Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey
Parole supervision has been a somewhat overlooked field in recent years, even as the challenges of prisoner reentry have attracted increasing attention. Parole supervision can and should play an important role in facilitating successful reentry, yet parole agencies must systematically adopt the practices and policies that have been demonstrated to work. To examine the current state of parole practice, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of parole supervision field offices. The findings of the survey are summarized in this report, and suggest that the principles of effective supervision are beginning to take root.
Intentions and Results: A Look Back at the Adoption and Safe Families Act
The Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), signed into law on November 19, 1997, was the most significant piece of legislation dealing with child welfare in almost twenty years. The ambitious new law aimed to reaffirm the focus on child safety in case decision making and to ensure that children did not grow up in foster care but instead were connected with permanent families. Twelve years after the law was enacted, the Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) in partnership with the Urban Institute co-sponsored this series of papers to examine effects of the ASFA law and its implementation.
The First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local Level : Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
The traditional approach to incarceration is to keep inmates locked upaway from societyto keep us safe. With little treatment and transition planning, most individuals are released with the same problems that got them locked up in the first place. In the past decade, we have realized that almost everyone who is incarcerated will eventually return home; this is especially true of the jail population. The big question: how do we incarcerate and release individuals in a way that makes them less likely to reoffend and more likely to work, support their families, pay taxes, and be productive members of society?
The Urban Institute's Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development: Understanding How Place Matters for Kids
A central goal of U.S. social welfare policy is to ensure that all children have the opportunity to reach their full potential as productive adults. Yet it is increasingly clear that where children live plays a central role in determining their life chances. This paper provides an overview of The Urban Institute's Program on Neighborhoods and Youth Development, which is dedicated to understanding the relationships between neighborhood-level factors and the well-being and development of children and youth and identifying and evaluating place-based, community-wide strategies to help children grow up to reach their full potential as adults.
Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assault and Related Acts of Violence in a Women's Prison
The application of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology to prevent inmate misconduct in a women's prison in Cleveland, Ohio was evaluated. An interrupted time series design was employed to analyze administrative data. Interviews were conducted with 89 inmates and 21 correctional and investigative staff. A process evaluation found that the advanced applications of the RFID system theorized to prevent inmate misconduct were not initiated. The resulting study evaluates RFID when employed at its most basic level as a perimeter control device and aid in investigations and finds that rates of inmate misconduct did not change significantly over the evaluation period.
City Backs D.C. Public Safety Research Center to Be Housed at the Urban Institute
A research and information center on crime prevention and public safety in Washington, D.C., is being created at the Urban Institute with an $800,000 grant from the Executive Office of the Mayor.
From the Classroom to the Community : Exploring the Role of Education during Incarceration and Reentry
This report surveys the current landscape of correctional education, discussing both the educational needs of people involved in the criminal justice system and the programs being provided to meet those needs. It reviews research on the effectiveness of correctional education; outlines the guiding principles for effective programming; discusses the issues involved in providing education in correctional settings; and identifies some potential responses to these challenges. The report closes by looking to the future and highlighting key issues and new directions in research, policy, and practice. More information about the Reentry Roundtables can be found at http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/index.cfm.
The Local Role of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) : Increasing Public Safety, Reducing Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-incarceration in the District of Columbia
Testimony delivered to the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, hearing on "The Local Role of the United States Parole Commission (USPC): Increasing Public Safety, Reducing Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-incarceration in the District of Columbia." The testimony summarizes work by UI synthesizing extant research and expert consensus regarding what constitutes effective parole supervision to reduce recidivism. Changes currently underway in the parole field and factors to consider in implementing the practices discussed are also presented.
Nancy La Vigne to Head the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center
Nancy La Vigne, an expert on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and the founding director of the U.S. Department of Justices Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety program, will become the director of the Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center on October 1.
The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education : Final Report
Increasing educational proficiency has shown promise as one strategy for assisting inmates in finding gainful employment after release and ending their involvement with the criminal justice system. This report examines the effect of prison-based postsecondary education (PSE) on offenders both while incarcerated and after release. In three states, prisoners who participated in PSE were less likely to recidivate during the first year after release.
Foster Youth Fall Through the Cracks Between the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice Systems
Timothy Ross identifies the obstacles frustrating service coordination and details ways to strengthen the fragile web connecting the many systems involved in protecting foster youth. Child welfare agencies often have responsibility for a child when a family crisis arises, but not the authority or capacity to resolve it without cooperation from other government divisions. When complex systems and bureaucracies have overlapping jurisdiction, fine-tuned coordination is the exception and not the rule.
Experiences of Exprisoners in Houston Analyzed in New Reports
"One in five of the 70,000 men and women released annually from Texas's state prisons return to metropolitan Houston. Four new reports from the Urban Institute analyze their experiences from the perspective of their families, their communities, and the former prisoners themselves.
One Year Out: The Experiences of Male Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas
Of the 61,000 men released from Texas prisons, roughly 13,000 call Houston their home. These men face challenges across a wide array of skill deficits and needs. In an effort to understand the factors contributing to successful reentry and inform policies to ensure a safer return for both prisoners and the communities in which they reside, the Urban Institute conducted a study of 210 men exiting Texas prisons and returning to the Houston area. This report presents findings from three waves of interviews with these men, conducted shortly before and at two points after their release.
Prisoner Reentry in Houston: Community Perspectives
In Houston, Texas, returning prisoners face many challenges, from securing housing and employment to rebuilding relationships with their families and support networks, while at the same time attempting to avoid old pathways to criminal behavior and substance abuse. The impact of prisoner reentry, however, extends far beyond these individuals and their families and friends. The communities to which former prisoners return and the local government and social service networks that serve these communities have a significant stake in the successful reintegration of returning prisoners. This research brief explores prisoner reentry from the perspective of Houston stakeholders and community members.
Women on the Outside: Understanding the Experiences of Female Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas
This research report explores the unique experiences of women exiting prison, focusing on a representative sample of 142 women who were released from Texas prisons and state jails in 2005 and returned to Houston communities. It describes the challenges women face in obtaining housing, reuniting with family, and avoiding drug use and criminal behavior after their return to the community. Recommendations for improvements in policies and practices specific to increasing the successful reintegration of women are also presented.
When Relatives Return: Interviews with Family Members of Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas
This research brief examines the challenges of incarceration and reentry from the perspective of family members in Houston, Texas. Prior research documents that returning prisoners expect and receive high levels of support from family after release, and that those who have access to family support fare better than those who do not on a range of reentry outcomes. Given the potential value of involving family in reentry planning, this report offers useful information about the family members who are closest to returning prisoners and the challenges they face in supporting their relatives.
The Impact of Marital and Relationship Status on Social Outcomes for Returning Prisoners
While a large body of empirical research indicates that marriage is associated with criminal activity, to date little research exists on the effects of relationship status on a population of offenders returning to their communities. This study uses data on over 650 former prisoners to examine the impact of relationships on recidivism, substance use, and employment during this critical period of re-entry. Findings suggest that marriage cut the odds of recidivism and drug use in half when compared to those in casual relationships.
Evaluation of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Corporation for Supportive Housing's Pilot Program : Interim Report: Oct 2007 - Sept 2008
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Corporation for Supportive Housing Ohio Office developed a pilot program that provides permanent supportive housing to individuals released from several Ohio prisons. The Pilot intends to reduce recidivism and homelessness/shelter usage and decrease the costs associated with multiple service system use. The Urban Institute is evaluating the Pilot to explore whether it is meeting its intended goals. This Interim Report covers the first year of the evaluationdescribing the Pilot and its eligibility requirements; the UI evaluation methods; and the characteristics and preliminary outcomes of the Pilot's first 57 clients.
Assessment of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative : Testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
This testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies focused on an evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. Funded by the Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services departments, SVORI supported innovative reentry programs at the state and community levels. As part of this effort, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive process, impact, and cost evaluation of SVORI programs by RTI International and the Urban Institute. Preliminary results of the evaluation were presented to the subcommittee.
City in Forefront of Scientific Policing
A National Academy of Sciences report addresses the science-or lack thereof-in America's crime labs and criminal justice system. John Roman explains why a new era of scientific policing may be at hand.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
This study examined the prosecution of the commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth (CSEC) in the United States. The research took the form of a national analysis of federal prosecutions since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000, answering the following research questions: (1) Is the United States enforcing existing federal laws related to CSEC? (2) What are the key features of successfully prosecuted CSEC cases? (3) Have the U.S. courts increased penalties associated with sexual crimes against children? (4) What are the effects of CSEC legislation on service providers who work with victims? This assessment provides policy makers with a means of assessing the effects of legislation aimed at combating CSEC.
Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful Supervision and Reentry (Policy Brief)
In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of community supervision. The goal of these meetings was to articulate participants' collective best thinking on parole and probation, violation and revocation practices, and what contributes to effective community supervision. Over the course of these meetings, participants identified the supervision policies and strategies that would help policy makers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayers' dollars. The 13 strategies outlined in this brief are the result of these discussions and a review of the research literature.
Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Paper)
In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of parole supervision. The goal of the meetings was to articulate participants' collective best thinking on parole supervision, violation, and revocation practices and to identify policies and strategies that would help policymakers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayer dollars. This paper, the result of those meetings and a review of the research literature, describes 13 key strategies to enhance reentry outcomes along with examples from the field. A companion Brief, published by Pew Charitable Trusts, is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411800.
SVORI Evaluates the Effectiveness of Re-Entry Programs
Funded by the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) supports innovative reentry programs at the state and community level. As part of this effort, the National Institute of Justice is funding a five-year evaluation of SVORI programs conducted by RTI International and the Urban Institute. This article, published in the August 2006 issue of the Probation and Pretrial Services System Newsletter, outlines the research questions to be addressed by the evaluation as well as the methodologies employed- implementation assessment, impact evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis.
Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States
In this brief, we explore the reality of finding employment after prison from the perspective of 740 former male prisoners in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. Interviews were conducted as part of a comprehensive, longitudinal study entitled Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Eight months after prison, 65 percent of respondents had been employed at some point, but only 45 percent were currently employed. Those who held a job while in prison or participated in job-training programs had better employment outcomes after release. Respondents who were employed and earning higher wages after release were less likely to return to prison the first year out.
Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
This report presents findings from the Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). The results of our initial in-prison interviews with SVORI participants and comparison respondents are included, in addition to an overview of the SVORI programs observed. The report describes the characteristics of the adult male prisoners we interviewed, the services they reported needing, and the services they reported receiving prior to release. Overall, SVORI participants reported receiving more services of a variety of types than members of the comparison group, although there was considerable variation in the levels of services among the sites.
Mapping Community Data on Children of Prisoners: Strategies and Insights
Children of incarcerated parents are often an invisible population, but analyzing and mapping local-level data on these children and their parents can help policymakers and advocates better understand their experiences and needs. This brief discusses the mapping of community data on these families, drawing on the experiences and insights of partners in the Urban Institutes Reentry Mapping Network (RMN). The brief discusses the value of analyzing and mapping data on children of incarcerated parents, outlines potential data sources, and explores the process of working with and mapping data on this population.
Release Planning for Successful Reentry : A Guide for Corrections, Service Providers, and Community Groups
This report is designed to help the corrections community, service providers and community groups prepare prisoners for the moment of release from prison and the time immediately following release. It describes the eight most basic and immediate needs returning prisoners have when they exit prison, recommends minimum policies practitioners can institute to meet these needs, and highlights the opportunities and challenges practitioners face when trying to improve their release planning policies. The report also uses the results of a UI survey of 43 departments of corrections to illustrate what release planning procedures are currently being implemented across the country.
Charting a New Direction: Exploring the Future of Justice Mapping
Computerized mapping technology has become a valuable tool for law enforcement, criminal justice agencies, state and local policymakers, service providers, and community organizations working to understand and address problems related to crime, incarceration, and prisoner reentry. This research brief highlights innovative applications of mapping in the criminal justice field and discusses strategies for using mapping to inform justice policy and practice. The brief is based in part on a December 2007 meeting sponsored by the Urban Institute that brought together representatives from national criminal justice, social service, and government organizations to discuss justice mapping.
Illinois Prisoners' Reentry Success Three Years after Release
This brief analyzes data from 145 men released from Illinois prisons (2002-2003) and tracked for three years afterwards through personal interviews and reincarceration records, as part of the study Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Three years after release, 59 percent were reincarcerated-up from 34 percent at 16 months out. Those successful at avoiding reincarceration were older first-time releases with no illegal income or family violence prior to prison, and those who found employment and housing after release, reintegrated into new, less disorganized neighborhoods, avoided antisocial peers, and had a physical/mental health condition (which may have restricted activity outside the home).
The Case for Evidence-Based Policy: Beyond Ideology, Politics, and Guesswork : (revised 2008)
U.S. public policy has increasingly been conceived, debated, and evaluated through the lenses of politics and ideology. The fundamental question--Will the policy work?--too often gets short shrift or even ignored. A remedy is evidence-based policy -- a rigorous approach that draws on careful data collection, experimentation, and both quantitative and qualitative analysis to determine what the problem is, which ways it can be addressed, and the probable impacts of each of these ways. Examples of how evidence informs good policy and lack of evidence can invite bad include health insurance coverage, welfare reform, sentencing policy, and redress for housing discrimination.
Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Wellness Court
The primary goal of this research is to estimate the costs and benefits of serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC), a specialized court employing principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. The Urban Institute conducted an impact and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the effectiveness of the AWC. The study focused on the impact of the program on reducing the prevalence and incidence of new criminal justice system contact. Costs were collected to estimate the opportunity cost of the AWC. Recidivism variables were monetized to estimate the benefits from crime reductions. Outcomes were observed at 24, 30, 36, and 48 months.
Returning Home on Parole: Former Prisoners' Experiences in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas
Using data from the Urban Institute's Returning Home study, this brief examines post release supervision experiences in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. The authors focus on addressing three questions: What are the parole experiences of those being released from prison? How do experiences on supervision affect post release outcomes? Does supervision benefit some groups more than others? Overall, parolees reported positive relationships with their parole officers but received relatively little tangible assistance finding a job or drug treatment program. Parole supervision was associated with increased employment and reduced substance use among former prisoners, but had almost no impact on self-reported crime or rearrest.
Preventing Shoplifting
This guide is designed to provide merchants and retailers with a framework for understanding the underlying causes of their shoplifting problems and developing effective strategies to reduce shoplifting. It describes ways in which data on shoplifting can be collected and analyzed; helps readers identify and close off opportunities for shoplifting; and provides guidance on measuring the impact of those strategies. The guide offers an array of shoplifting prevention strategies that may prove effective, including: conducting employee bag checks at the end of each shift; partnering with local schools on anti-truancy efforts; increasing visible security guard presence during after-school hours; and tightening inventory control protocols.
Preventing Public Disorder
This guide provides guidance to merchants and their law enforcement partners in developing strategies to prevent public disorder problems, such as public intoxication, vandalism, and loitering. The guide walks readers through the process of understanding the root causes of public disorders, identifying potential strategies, and measuring the impact of those strategies. While public disorder problems vary based on local context, promising strategies to address them include: broadcasting classical music; improving lighting in parking facilities and building exteriors; securing perimeters to limit pedestrian access; and establishing policies and sanctions regarding acceptable public behavior.
Preventing Retail Burglary
This guide is tailored toward private businesses interested in new approaches to the prevention of retail burglary. Designed to encourage partnerships between businesses and local law enforcement, the guide walks readers through the process of understanding retail burglary, collecting crime data, identifying potential strategies, and measuring the impact of those strategies. Several promising strategies for preventing retail burglary are highlighted, including: removing obstructions from windows to provide a clear line of sight into stores from the street and parking lot; improving lighting around doorways and other entry points; launching a public awareness campaign to inform would-be burglars of legal repercussions of burglarizing; andlimiting inventory on-hand.
Preventing Panhandling
This guide is designed to equip local merchants and retailers with problem solving strategies aimed at reducing panhandling in and around their properties. Focusing heavily on the value of partnerships with law enforcement, the guide walks readers through the process of understanding their panhandling problem; collecting crime data; identifying potential strategies; and measuring the impact of those strategies. Several promising strategies to reduce panhandling are described, including: providing informational brochures about available social services to panhandlers; requiring all vendors to have permits; initiating civilian patrols to monitor and discourage activity; and prohibiting the sale of single servings of alcohol through a city ordinance.
Preventing Vandalism
This guide is designed to encourage retailers to partner with local law enforcement to prevent vandalism occurring in and around their properties. The guide walks readers through the process of understanding the nature of their local vandalism problem, collecting and analyzing data, identifying potential strategies to reduce vandalism, and measuring the impact of those strategies. Promising strategies to reduce vandalism are described, including: monitoring vandalism prone areas; using graffiti resistant paint; and applying protective film to glass surfaces to minimize acid damage.
Preventing Car Crimes
This guide is designed to help merchants and retailers partner with local law enforcement to assess their auto theft, car break-in, and vehicle vandalism problems and to develop strategies to address them. The guide walks readers through the process of understanding their car crime problem; collecting crime data; identifying potential strategies; and measuring the impact of those strategies. While each jurisdiction's problems will be different, effective strategies may include: introducing bike patrols; improving lighting; restricting pedestrian traffic; and requiring tickets to both enter and exit parking facilities.
Using Local Data to Explore the Experiences and Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents
The Urban Institute partnered with local research organizations in three sites to learn more about children of incarcerated parents through the merging and analysis of local and state level criminal justice and human services data. The purpose of the project was to better understand the experiences and needs of children of incarcerated parents in each locality and to explore the involvement of affected families with the criminal justice, child welfare, and social welfare systems. This report presents findings from the sites and lessons learned regarding the merging and analysis of administrative data on this population.
The DNA Field Experiment : Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes
The study compared traditional crime solving to biological evidence techniques in hundreds of cases where biological evidence was available. When conventional investigative techniques were used, a suspect was identified 12 percent of the time, compared to 31 percent of the cases using DNA evidence. In eight percent of cases built on traditional evidence alone a suspect was arrested, compared to the 16 percent arrest rate in DNA cases. The average added cost for processing a single case with DNA evidence was about $1,397. Each additional arrest-an arrest that would not have occurred without DNA processing-cost $14,169.
DNA More Effective Than Fingerprints in Solving Property Crimes
DNA evidence isn't a typical tool for investigating property crimes like burglary, but a new Urban Institute report reveals that biological evidence can be remarkably effective in solving and prosecuting such crimes.
|
|
|
|
Justice Policy News
|
|
|
How Do Drug Courts Work?
The Multi-Site Evaluation of Adult Drug Courts will report on a mediation analysis to empirically test theoretical pathways to desistance. The analysis considers the theoretical mechanisms through which drug court practices are meant to impact outcomes and how such pathways can be operationalized. A path model is proposed that delineates how drug-court practices affect modifications in behaviors and attitudes, and how these changes affect outcomes. Proposed mediators include changes in: perceived risk and
reward (deterrence), perceived legitimacy, and motivation to alter one's behavior. The analysis will suggest the pathways that are most crucial to desistance and the most
effective drug-court components that impact these pathways.
Do Drug Courts Reduce Crime and Produce Psychosocial Benefits? Methodology and Results From the MADCE
The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation compares outcomes between offenders in 23
drug court and six comparison sites. Such a research design poses several potential
threats to validity, including selection bias (do drug court and comparison offenders vary
in background), attrition bias (do offenders retained for follow-up interviews vary from
the original baseline samples), and site-level bias (are the drug court and comparison sites
comparable in ways other than drug court status). In addition to outlining the analytic
strategy, simple outcomes are reported comparing drug court and comparison sites with
respect to criminal re-offending, incarceration, and other psychosocial outcomes.
Substance Abuse Findings from the Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation (MADCE) : American Society of Criminology Conference - November 5, 2009
Several studies have found that drug courts reduce recidivism rates, but few studies have focused on the effect of drug courts on substance abuse. Substance abuse treatment approaches used in drug courts are identified based on data from participant surveys and process evaluation of the 23 participating drug courts. Baseline data for 1100 drug court participants and 600 comparison offenders is reported as descriptive analyses. However,
the focus is on reporting substance abuse impacts, including 1) the trajectory of recovery and whether drug courts work in terms of reducing drug use, and 2) for whom drug courts are most effective.
Hearing on "Halfway Home to the District: The Role of Halfway Houses in Reducing Crime and Recidivism in the Nation's Capital" : Before House of Representatives Oversight & Government Reform Subcommittee
This congressional testimony summarizes research on the utility of halfway houses in
facilitating the successful reentry of former prisoners, emphasizing that not all halfway
houses are effective in preventing recidivism. Halfway houses that work have qualified
staff who use such evidence-based practices as needs assessments and tailored,
wraparound services. Halfway houses are most effective for medium- and high-risk
prisoners. However, they can actually be detrimental for low-risk prisoners, who would
fair better by simply returning directly to their families and communities. This research
suggests that the District of Columbia's halfway houses should be reserved for higher-risk
returning prisoners.
The Corporation for Supportive Housing's Returning Home Initiative: System Change Accomplishments after Three Years
In 2006, the Corporation for Supportive Housing launched its Returning Home Initiative (RHI) with two goals: 1) to establish permanent supportive housing as an essential reentry component for formerly incarcerated persons with histories of homelessness, mental illness, and chronic health conditions; and 2) to promote local and national policy changes to integrate the corrections, housing, mental health, and human service systems. The Urban Institute assessed the process of system change stimulated by RHI activities in New York, Los Angeles, and Chicagothree communities receiving significant RHI investment. This brief summarizes the influence of RHI-funded activities in each of these cities.
Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Self-Assessment Tool for Corrections
This self-assessment tool is designed to aid correctional administrators in evaluating and
improving their release planning practices. With funding from the Annie E. Casey
Foundation and in partnership with the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Urban Institute staff
developed and piloted a monthly assessment tool for individual correctional institutions
and a yearly assessment tool for correctional agencies to monitor overall departmental
performance. The policies and procedures identified as best practices in the tool are
drawn from <em>Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Guide for Corrections, Service
Providers, and Community Groups.</em>
An Evolving Field: Findings from the 2008 Parole Practices Survey
Parole supervision has been a somewhat overlooked field in recent years, even as the challenges of prisoner reentry have attracted increasing attention. Parole supervision can and should play an important role in facilitating successful reentry, yet parole agencies must systematically adopt the practices and policies that have been demonstrated to work. To examine the current state of parole practice, the Urban Institute conducted a survey of parole supervision field offices. The findings of the survey are summarized in this report, and suggest that the principles of effective supervision are beginning to take root.
The First Line of Defense: Reducing Recidivism at the Local Level : Hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs
The traditional approach to incarceration is to keep inmates locked upaway from societyto keep us safe. With little treatment and transition planning, most individuals are released with the same problems that got them locked up in the first place. In the past decade, we have realized that almost everyone who is incarcerated will eventually return home; this is especially true of the jail population. The big question: how do we incarcerate and release individuals in a way that makes them less likely to reoffend and more likely to work, support their families, pay taxes, and be productive members of society?
Evaluating the Use of Radio Frequency Identification Device Technology to Prevent and Investigate Sexual Assault and Related Acts of Violence in a Women's Prison
The application of radio frequency identification device (RFID) technology to prevent inmate misconduct in a women's prison in Cleveland, Ohio was evaluated. An interrupted time series design was employed to analyze administrative data. Interviews were conducted with 89 inmates and 21 correctional and investigative staff. A process evaluation found that the advanced applications of the RFID system theorized to prevent inmate misconduct were not initiated. The resulting study evaluates RFID when employed at its most basic level as a perimeter control device and aid in investigations and finds that rates of inmate misconduct did not change significantly over the evaluation period.
From the Classroom to the Community : Exploring the Role of Education during Incarceration and Reentry
This report surveys the current landscape of correctional education, discussing both the educational needs of people involved in the criminal justice system and the programs being provided to meet those needs. It reviews research on the effectiveness of correctional education; outlines the guiding principles for effective programming; discusses the issues involved in providing education in correctional settings; and identifies some potential responses to these challenges. The report closes by looking to the future and highlighting key issues and new directions in research, policy, and practice. More information about the Reentry Roundtables can be found at http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/index.cfm.
The Local Role of the United States Parole Commission (USPC) : Increasing Public Safety, Reducing Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-incarceration in the District of Columbia
Testimony delivered to the House of Representatives Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia, hearing on "The Local Role of the United States Parole Commission (USPC): Increasing Public Safety, Reducing Recidivism, and Using Alternatives to Re-incarceration in the District of Columbia." The testimony summarizes work by UI synthesizing extant research and expert consensus regarding what constitutes effective parole supervision to reduce recidivism. Changes currently underway in the parole field and factors to consider in implementing the practices discussed are also presented.
Nancy La Vigne to Head the Urban Institute's Justice Policy Center
Nancy La Vigne, an expert on crime prevention and prisoner reentry and the founding director of the U.S. Department of Justices Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety program, will become the director of the Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center on October 1.
The Effects of Postsecondary Correctional Education : Final Report
Increasing educational proficiency has shown promise as one strategy for assisting inmates in finding gainful employment after release and ending their involvement with the criminal justice system. This report examines the effect of prison-based postsecondary education (PSE) on offenders both while incarcerated and after release. In three states, prisoners who participated in PSE were less likely to recidivate during the first year after release.
Delivering Legal Aid after Katrina : The Equal Justice Works Katrina Legal Initiative
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita led to a myriad of legal needs in the Gulf Coast area at a time when the region's legal infrastructure was weakened. Equal Justice Works implemented the Katrina Legal Initiative, an innovative legal aid disaster relief program to assist the affected communities. This report details the implementation of this program; describes the program goals, activities, and impacts; analyzes whether the program met the stated goals; and offers recommendations for comparable programs in the future. Lessons learned from the Katrina Legal Initiative can help to inform future disaster relief efforts on the part of the legal community.
One Year Out: The Experiences of Male Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas
Of the 61,000 men released from Texas prisons, roughly 13,000 call Houston their home. These men face challenges across a wide array of skill deficits and needs. In an effort to understand the factors contributing to successful reentry and inform policies to ensure a safer return for both prisoners and the communities in which they reside, the Urban Institute conducted a study of 210 men exiting Texas prisons and returning to the Houston area. This report presents findings from three waves of interviews with these men, conducted shortly before and at two points after their release.
Prisoner Reentry in Houston: Community Perspectives
In Houston, Texas, returning prisoners face many challenges, from securing housing and employment to rebuilding relationships with their families and support networks, while at the same time attempting to avoid old pathways to criminal behavior and substance abuse. The impact of prisoner reentry, however, extends far beyond these individuals and their families and friends. The communities to which former prisoners return and the local government and social service networks that serve these communities have a significant stake in the successful reintegration of returning prisoners. This research brief explores prisoner reentry from the perspective of Houston stakeholders and community members.
Women on the Outside: Understanding the Experiences of Female Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas
This research report explores the unique experiences of women exiting prison, focusing on a representative sample of 142 women who were released from Texas prisons and state jails in 2005 and returned to Houston communities. It describes the challenges women face in obtaining housing, reuniting with family, and avoiding drug use and criminal behavior after their return to the community. Recommendations for improvements in policies and practices specific to increasing the successful reintegration of women are also presented.
When Relatives Return: Interviews with Family Members of Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas
This research brief examines the challenges of incarceration and reentry from the perspective of family members in Houston, Texas. Prior research documents that returning prisoners expect and receive high levels of support from family after release, and that those who have access to family support fare better than those who do not on a range of reentry outcomes. Given the potential value of involving family in reentry planning, this report offers useful information about the family members who are closest to returning prisoners and the challenges they face in supporting their relatives.
The Impact of Marital and Relationship Status on Social Outcomes for Returning Prisoners
While a large body of empirical research indicates that marriage is associated with criminal activity, to date little research exists on the effects of relationship status on a population of offenders returning to their communities. This study uses data on over 650 former prisoners to examine the impact of relationships on recidivism, substance use, and employment during this critical period of re-entry. Findings suggest that marriage cut the odds of recidivism and drug use in half when compared to those in casual relationships.
Evaluation of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and Corporation for Supportive Housing's Pilot Program : Interim Report: Oct 2007 - Sept 2008
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and the Corporation for Supportive Housing Ohio Office developed a pilot program that provides permanent supportive housing to individuals released from several Ohio prisons. The Pilot intends to reduce recidivism and homelessness/shelter usage and decrease the costs associated with multiple service system use. The Urban Institute is evaluating the Pilot to explore whether it is meeting its intended goals. This Interim Report covers the first year of the evaluationdescribing the Pilot and its eligibility requirements; the UI evaluation methods; and the characteristics and preliminary outcomes of the Pilot's first 57 clients.
Assessment of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative : Testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
This testimony before the U.S. House Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies focused on an evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. Funded by the Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services departments, SVORI supported innovative reentry programs at the state and community levels. As part of this effort, the National Institute of Justice funded a comprehensive process, impact, and cost evaluation of SVORI programs by RTI International and the Urban Institute. Preliminary results of the evaluation were presented to the subcommittee.
City in Forefront of Scientific Policing
A National Academy of Sciences report addresses the science-or lack thereof-in America's crime labs and criminal justice system. John Roman explains why a new era of scientific policing may be at hand.
An Analysis of Federally Prosecuted Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children (CSEC) Cases since the Passage of the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
This study examined the prosecution of the commercial sexual exploitation of children and youth (CSEC) in the United States. The research took the form of a national analysis of federal prosecutions since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA) in 2000, answering the following research questions: (1) Is the United States enforcing existing federal laws related to CSEC? (2) What are the key features of successfully prosecuted CSEC cases? (3) Have the U.S. courts increased penalties associated with sexual crimes against children? (4) What are the effects of CSEC legislation on service providers who work with victims? This assessment provides policy makers with a means of assessing the effects of legislation aimed at combating CSEC.
Putting Public Safety First: 13 Strategies for Successful Supervision and Reentry (Policy Brief)
In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of community supervision. The goal of these meetings was to articulate participants' collective best thinking on parole and probation, violation and revocation practices, and what contributes to effective community supervision. Over the course of these meetings, participants identified the supervision policies and strategies that would help policy makers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayers' dollars. The 13 strategies outlined in this brief are the result of these discussions and a review of the research literature.
Putting Public Safety First: 13 Parole Supervision Strategies to Enhance Reentry Outcomes (Paper)
In 2007, the Urban Institute convened two meetings with national experts on the topic of parole supervision. The goal of the meetings was to articulate participants' collective best thinking on parole supervision, violation, and revocation practices and to identify policies and strategies that would help policymakers and practitioners improve public safety and make the best use of taxpayer dollars. This paper, the result of those meetings and a review of the research literature, describes 13 key strategies to enhance reentry outcomes along with examples from the field. A companion Brief, published by Pew Charitable Trusts, is available at http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=411800.
SVORI Evaluates the Effectiveness of Re-Entry Programs
Funded by the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) supports innovative reentry programs at the state and community level. As part of this effort, the National Institute of Justice is funding a five-year evaluation of SVORI programs conducted by RTI International and the Urban Institute. This article, published in the August 2006 issue of the Probation and Pretrial Services System Newsletter, outlines the research questions to be addressed by the evaluation as well as the methodologies employed- implementation assessment, impact evaluation, and cost-benefit analysis.
Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States
In this brief, we explore the reality of finding employment after prison from the perspective of 740 former male prisoners in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. Interviews were conducted as part of a comprehensive, longitudinal study entitled Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Eight months after prison, 65 percent of respondents had been employed at some point, but only 45 percent were currently employed. Those who held a job while in prison or participated in job-training programs had better employment outcomes after release. Respondents who were employed and earning higher wages after release were less likely to return to prison the first year out.
Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
This report presents findings from the Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). The results of our initial in-prison interviews with SVORI participants and comparison respondents are included, in addition to an overview of the SVORI programs observed. The report describes the characteristics of the adult male prisoners we interviewed, the services they reported needing, and the services they reported receiving prior to release. Overall, SVORI participants reported receiving more services of a variety of types than members of the comparison group, although there was considerable variation in the levels of services among the sites.
Mapping Community Data on Children of Prisoners: Strategies and Insights
Children of incarcerated parents are often an invisible population, but analyzing and mapping local-level data on these children and their parents can help policymakers and advocates better understand their experiences and needs. This brief discusses the mapping of community data on these families, drawing on the experiences and insights of partners in the Urban Institutes Reentry Mapping Network (RMN). The brief discusses the value of analyzing and mapping data on children of incarcerated parents, outlines potential data sources, and explores the process of working with and mapping data on this population.
Release Planning for Successful Reentry : A Guide for Corrections, Service Providers, and Community Groups
This report is designed to help the corrections community, service providers and community groups prepare prisoners for the moment of release from prison and the time immediately following release. It describes the eight most basic and immediate needs returning prisoners have when they exit prison, recommends minimum policies practitioners can institute to meet these needs, and highlights the opportunities and challenges practitioners face when trying to improve their release planning policies. The report also uses the results of a UI survey of 43 departments of corrections to illustrate what release planning procedures are currently being implemented across the country.
Charting a New Direction: Exploring the Future of Justice Mapping
Computerized mapping technology has become a valuable tool for law enforcement, criminal justice agencies, state and local policymakers, service providers, and community organizations working to understand and address problems related to crime, incarceration, and prisoner reentry. This research brief highlights innovative applications of mapping in the criminal justice field and discusses strategies for using mapping to inform justice policy and practice. The brief is based in part on a December 2007 meeting sponsored by the Urban Institute that brought together representatives from national criminal justice, social service, and government organizations to discuss justice mapping.
Illinois Prisoners' Reentry Success Three Years after Release
This brief analyzes data from 145 men released from Illinois prisons (2002-2003) and tracked for three years afterwards through personal interviews and reincarceration records, as part of the study Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Three years after release, 59 percent were reincarcerated-up from 34 percent at 16 months out. Those successful at avoiding reincarceration were older first-time releases with no illegal income or family violence prior to prison, and those who found employment and housing after release, reintegrated into new, less disorganized neighborhoods, avoided antisocial peers, and had a physical/mental health condition (which may have restricted activity outside the home).
Impact and Cost-Benefit Analysis of the Anchorage Wellness Court
The primary goal of this research is to estimate the costs and benefits of serving misdemeanor DUI offenders in the Anchorage Wellness Court (AWC), a specialized court employing principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. The Urban Institute conducted an impact and a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) to estimate the effectiveness of the AWC. The study focused on the impact of the program on reducing the prevalence and incidence of new criminal justice system contact. Costs were collected to estimate the opportunity cost of the AWC. Recidivism variables were monetized to estimate the benefits from crime reductions. Outcomes were observed at 24, 30, 36, and 48 months.
Returning Home on Parole: Former Prisoners' Experiences in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas
Using data from the Urban Institute's Returning Home study, this brief examines post release supervision experiences in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. The authors focus on addressing three questions: What are the parole experiences of those being released from prison? How do experiences on supervision affect post release outcomes? Does supervision benefit some groups more than others? Overall, parolees reported positive relationships with their parole officers but received relatively little tangible assistance finding a job or drug treatment program. Parole supervision was associated with increased employment and reduced substance use among former prisoners, but had almost no impact on self-reported crime or rearrest.
Preventing Public Disorder
This guide provides guidance to merchants and their law enforcement partners in developing strategies to prevent public disorder problems, such as public intoxication, vandalism, and loitering. The guide walks readers through the process of understanding the root causes of public disorders, identifying potential strategies, and measuring the impact of those strategies. While public disorder problems vary based on local context, promising strategies to address them include: broadcasting classical music; improving lighting in parking facilities and building exteriors; securing perimeters to limit pedestrian access; and establishing policies and sanctions regarding acceptable public behavior.
Preventing Retail Burglary
This guide is tailored toward private businesses interested in new approaches to the prevention of retail burglary. Designed to encourage partnerships between businesses and local law enforcement, the guide walks readers through the process of understanding retail burglary, collecting crime data, identifying potential strategies, and measuring the impact of those strategies. Several promising strategies for preventing retail burglary are highlighted, including: removing obstructions from windows to provide a clear line of sight into stores from the street and parking lot; improving lighting around doorways and other entry points; launching a public awareness campaign to inform would-be burglars of legal repercussions of burglarizing; andlimiting inventory on-hand.
Preventing Panhandling
This guide is designed to equip local merchants and retailers with problem solving strategies aimed at reducing panhandling in and around their properties. Focusing heavily on the value of partnerships with law enforcement, the guide walks readers through the process of understanding their panhandling problem; collecting crime data; identifying potential strategies; and measuring the impact of those strategies. Several promising strategies to reduce panhandling are described, including: providing informational brochures about available social services to panhandlers; requiring all vendors to have permits; initiating civilian patrols to monitor and discourage activity; and prohibiting the sale of single servings of alcohol through a city ordinance.
Preventing Car Crimes
This guide is designed to help merchants and retailers partner with local law enforcement to assess their auto theft, car break-in, and vehicle vandalism problems and to develop strategies to address them. The guide walks readers through the process of understanding their car crime problem; collecting crime data; identifying potential strategies; and measuring the impact of those strategies. While each jurisdiction's problems will be different, effective strategies may include: introducing bike patrols; improving lighting; restricting pedestrian traffic; and requiring tickets to both enter and exit parking facilities.
Using Local Data to Explore the Experiences and Needs of Children of Incarcerated Parents
The Urban Institute partnered with local research organizations in three sites to learn more about children of incarcerated parents through the merging and analysis of local and state level criminal justice and human services data. The purpose of the project was to better understand the experiences and needs of children of incarcerated parents in each locality and to explore the involvement of affected families with the criminal justice, child welfare, and social welfare systems. This report presents findings from the sites and lessons learned regarding the merging and analysis of administrative data on this population.
The DNA Field Experiment : Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Use of DNA in the Investigation of High-Volume Crimes
The study compared traditional crime solving to biological evidence techniques in hundreds of cases where biological evidence was available. When conventional investigative techniques were used, a suspect was identified 12 percent of the time, compared to 31 percent of the cases using DNA evidence. In eight percent of cases built on traditional evidence alone a suspect was arrested, compared to the 16 percent arrest rate in DNA cases. The average added cost for processing a single case with DNA evidence was about $1,397. Each additional arrest-an arrest that would not have occurred without DNA processing-cost $14,169.
Jails Packed? Cut Recidivism
Overcrowded jails and more spending for incarceration aren't predestined. In a Philadelphia Daily News commentary, two Urban Institute researchers explain how programs to help repeat offenders return successfully to society can cut crime and save money.
Community Collaboratives Addressing Youth Gangs: Interim Findings from the Gang Reduction Program
This report presents interim findings of the Urban Institute's evaluation of the Gang Reduction Program (GRP), a $10 million, multi-year, federal initiative to reduce gang crime in Los Angeles, California; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; North Miami Beach, Florida; and Richmond, Virginia. The evaluation found substantial variation in collaboration levels among partners in each site, but each site achieved significant implementation successes. The effects of GRP in each site were mixed, and only one site, Los Angeles, showed a significant reduction in crime levels. By late 2007, however, three sites had undertaken significant steps towards sustaining GRP beyond the federal funding period.
Helping Former Inmates Can Reduce Crime in Philadelphia
Working with inmates who leave jails as well as prisons is a milestone marking a major opportunity to reduce crime in Philadelphia and across the country. Amy Solomon and Jenny Osborne explain why in their Philadelphia Inquirer commentary.
Increased Collaboration Between Jails and Communities Can Improve the Return of Inmates to Society
"Life after Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community" is the first national resource focusing on jail inmates' transition from incarceration to society. It presents an overview of U.S. jails and their population and how reentry from jail differs markedly from reentry from state and federal prisons. The report examines concrete reentry steps, profiles 42 reentry programs around the country, and explores probation's role in the process. A companion report, "The Jail Administrators' Toolkit for Reentry," is a handbook on assessment of inmates' needs, identifying community resources, educating the public, and measuring success.
Alcohol Outlets as Attractors of Violence and Disorder : A Closer Look at the Neighborhood Environment
This report investigates the relationship between alcohol availability, type of alcohol establishment, distribution policies and violence and disorder at the block group level in the District of Columbia. We test whether density of alcohol outlets influences: (1) aggravated assault incidents, (2) calls for service for social "disorder" offenses, and (3) calls for service for a domestic incident, and examine variation in outcomes by time of day/day of week. Spatial econometric regression models are estimated using an information theoretic approach. The findings indicate that on-premise outlets, but not off-premise outlets are a significant predictor of aggravated assault.
The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry
Geared toward jail practitioners who are working to improve reentry in their jurisdictions, The Jail Administrator's Toolkit for Reentry provides key elements of the reentry process from jail staff issues and assessment screens to identifying community resources and coordinating stakeholders. The Toolkit also offers examples and materials taken from around the country to assist jail practitioners in developing reentry strategies that can serve a variety of jail populations, whether pretrial or sentenced, and in a variety of jail jurisdictions.
Life After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the Community
Each year, U.S. jails process an estimated 12 million admissions and releases. Substance addiction, job and housing instability, mental illness, and a host of health problems are part of the day-to-day realities for a significant share of this population. Given that more than 80 percent of inmates are incarcerated for less than one month, jails have little time or capacity to address these deep-rooted and often overlapping issues. Life After Lockup synthesizes key findings from the Jail Reentry Roundtable and examines opportunities on the jail-to-community continuum where reentry-focused interventions can make a difference.
Massachusetts Recidivism Study : A Closer Look at Releases and Returns to Prison
The Massachusetts Recidivism Study aims to better understand the experiences of recidivists and how their previous incarceration and time in the community relate to their returns to prison. The study consists of three interrelated components: an analysis of DOC administrative data, interviews with recidivists as they return to prison, and parole officer focus groups. This report provides findings from the analysis of administrative data on the 2002 release cohort comparing recidivists with nonrecidivists. The report compares the two groups across demographics, criminal history, offense type, time served, release type, and in-prison reentry preparation.
Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons
The Massachusetts Recidivism Study aims to better understand the experiences of recidivists and how their previous incarceration and time in the community relate to their returns to prison. This report presents findings from interviews with male prisoners returned to the DOC within three years of release. The report describes respondents' incarceration experiences, preparation for reentry, and life in the community, as well as criminal offending and the circumstances leading up to their reincarceration. We also examine the role of parole supervision in prisoner reentry and the connection between technical parole violations and underlying criminal behavior.
Massachusetts Inmates Report High Use of Prison Program, But Face Postrelease Challenges With Substance Abuse and Limited Employment
Former prisoners in Massachusetts are back behind bars at a significantly lower rate than the national average, new research from the Urban Institute and the Massachusetts Department of Correction finds. Thirty-nine percent of the 1,786 male inmates released in 2002 by the Department of Correction (DOC) were in prison again within three years, compared with the national average of 53 percent. Interviews with 178 men who returned to prison show that substance use and employment instability ranked among their greatest challenges while in the community.
|
|
|
|
Research in Reentry
|
|
|
| |
|
| Samuels, P. & Mukamal, D. (2004). After prison: Roadblocks to reentry:A report on state legal barriers facing people with criminal records., NY: Legal | Download |
|
| Smith, C.J., Bechtel, J., Patrick, A., Smith, R.R., & Wilson-Gentry, L. (2006, May). Correctional industries preparing inmates for re-entry: Recidivis | Download |
|
| Reentry,, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs | Download |
|
| Prisoner Reentry, Urban Institute | Download |
|
| Re-entry Policy Council (2005). The report of the Re-Entry Policy Council: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community. New | Download |
|
| Taxman, F.S., Young, D., Byrne, J.M., Holsinger, A., & Anspach, D. (2001). From prison safety to public safety: Innovation in offender reentry. Colleg | Download |
|
| What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning The Evidence | Download |
|
| Young, D., Taxman, F.S., & Byrne, J.M. (2002). Engaging the community in offender reentry. College Park, | Download |
|
| Twenty-Eighth Annual APPAM Research Conference | Download |
|
| The Re-entry Policy Council | Download |
|
| Travis, J.T., Solomon, A.L. & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institu | Download |
|
| Pew Report | Download |
|
| Cleveland Stakeholders' Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry | Download |
|
| Finding Work on the Outside: Results from the Returning Home Project in Chicago | Download |
|
| But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry | Download |
|
| La Vigne,N.G., Brooks, L.E., Shollenberger, T.L. (2007) Returning Home: Exploring the Challenges and Successes of Recently Released Texas Prisoners | Download |
|
| A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey | Download |
|
| From prison to work:The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry: A report of the Reentry Roundtable.(2004). Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice | Download |
|
| Lynch, J.P. & Sabol, W.J.(2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. | Download |
|
| Mapping for Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement and Their Partners | Download |
|
| La Vigne, N.G. & Cowan, J. (2005). Mapping prisoner reentry: An action research guidebook. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute. | Download |
|
| Hughes, T.A., & Wilson, D.J. (2003). Reentry trends in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. | Download |
|
| Independent Committee on Reentry and Employment. (2006). Report and recommendations to New York State on enhancing employment opportunities for former | Download |
|
|
|
|
NJ Reentry Blogs For the Nation
|
|
|
NJ REENTRY BLOGS FOR THE NATION 
Reentry Program Definitions, Models, and Research:
From Policy to Practice
Moderated by Jemour A. Maddux, Psy.D.Currently there is no uniform definition of “reentry” or a consistent vision of what comprises a “reentry program.” Is a halfway house a reentry program? Is a drug rehab a reentry program? Is a reentry program merely defined by the population it serves rather than the nature of its service? Can reentry programs be studied and compared without a uniform definition and a clear understanding of what a reentry program should include? These are some examples of the content you can find here at NJ Reentry Blogs for the Nation. You can also find critical analysis of the latest reentry research and policy, news about reentry from around the nation, and discussion of reentry methodology and practice models. Thanks for stopping by. Feel free to submit your work and email feedback to board@njreentry.com.
How Can We Study Something That Means "Everything?"
According to Travis and Visher (2003), reentry is defined as the inevitable consequence of incarceration. Clearly this definition's functionality is limited when aiming to define a "reentry program." It is simply too inclusive.
Petersilia (2003), also of the same opinion, indicated prisoner reentry includes all efforts to prepare the incarcerated to transition safely into the community and live a law-abiding lifestyle.
Others have suggested prison reentry is a philosophy that begins at sentencing and involves community partnership, legal collaboration, and family involvement (R. Wilkinson, Dir. of OH Dept. of Rehab. and Corrections). However, none of the above are useful for developing an operationalized definition of reentry that can be subjected to programmatic empirical evaluation. How do we study something that means "everything?"
The research of Seiter and Kadela (2003) into the "active ingredients" or "what works" in reentry programs was somewhat ground-breaking in that they developed an operationalized definition useful for the purpose of empirical evaluation. They defined reentry programs as organizations that have outcome evaluations and focus specifically on reentry into the public, or those that begin treatment within a correctional environment with methods to ensure continuity of care post-release.
Outcome evaluations…go figure! Yes, while this is beautiful to see in a definition of a reentry program from a scientific standpoint, it unfortunately eliminates the vast majority of reentry community efforts. Most folks at the Goodwill have not taken a graduate level statistics course.
In fact, using this definition, the authors were only able to identify 28 empirical studies that fit their definition and only 19 had controls. Furthermore, of the 19, 10 were drug rehabs. Yes, when you do the math, this albeit narrow definition suggests there have only been approximately 9 published studies between 1975 and 2001 on “reentry programs.”
The way we define reentry programs are important in science and in practice. Too often reentry partners may unknowingly be comparing apples and oranges when they discuss and study reentry programming. The ultimate solution would be the adoption of conventional definitions, although this practice may limit future progress. At a minimum, writings on reentry program research, policy, and practice must include how they defined "reentry program" because it is unrealistic to assume readers can infer what you mean at this point.
The Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign: \Re*["e]n"try\ n., A Definition
Prisoner reentry is the process of leaving prison or jail and returning to society. All prisoners experience reentry irrespective of their method of release or form of supervision. So both prisoners who are released on parole and those who are released to no supervision in the community experience reentry. If the reentry process is successful, there are benefits in terms of improved public safety and the long-term reintegration of the former prisoner.The National Media Outreach Campaign is in no way affiliated with B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc. or its partners. This information and image belongs to the National Media Outreach Campaign and was obtained from their website: http://www.reentrymediaoutreach.org/index.html
Re: How Can We Study Something That Means "Everything?": Policy Implications and a Proposed Model
In “How Can You Study Something That Means Everything,” the author stated, “when you do the math…there have only been approximately 9 published studies between 1975 and 2001 on reentry programs.” Considering these statistics, you have to wonder on what basis millions of dollars have been distributed to the various reentry efforts around the country. Have we gotten the cart before the horse or what?
Furthermore, most of the current reentry research that has attracted major funding (i.e., SVORI) will only be available to those who parole. Those who parole are a population that the research says is decreasing, while the population of those who max out or serve their entire sentence is increasing.
An argument can be made that those who max out have usually recidivated on a violation of parole, so evidence-based reentry programming for parolees may in fact reduce the number of people who do max out. Nonetheless, it is also true that those who do return on a violation of parole have in all likelihood not recidivated by committing the same crime they did in their instant offense. Thus, designing the ultimate tailor-made reentry programming that is matched to the instant offense of parolees (i.e., a serious violent crime) may be somewhat misguided.
The nature of persons’ in reentry pre-incarceration crimes need to be tested to see if it explains a significant amount of the variance in reentry success amongst this group. If the pre-incarceration crime or the instant offense is not predictive of the probability of recidivating, then matching reentry programs to these crimes is misguided, wastes money, and is an inefficient use of resources.
Furthermore, if someone returns to prison on a parole hit and maxes out, which an increasing number of individuals do, does it make good sense to disregard the transitional needs of this growing population the maxes out? The size of those returning home from institutionalization in this country requires more than a few or even several specified reentry programs matched with the instant offense of parolees.
Rather, it is my opinion we need a well-networked system of reentry agencies and an operationalized definition of a reentry program that captures the unique contribution of each service partner (i.e., employment, clothes, education, etc.). I predict the evaluation driven interactive effect that’s produced when these agencies work in concert to combat recidivism would outweigh the sum of its parts.
Reentry Policy in Newark, New Jersey
By David H. Kerr, President and Founder of Integrity House
Here are some thoughts on "reentry" from a website called www.njreentry.com and some of my thoughts on what I think reentry is considering our use of Operation reconnect. It is critical that we are all on the same page before we can actually operationalize and implement our ideas. I don't think we are there quite yet.
"Prisoner reentry is the process of leaving prison or jail and returning to society. All prisoners experience reentry irrespective of their method of release or form of supervision. So both prisoners who are released on parole and those who are released to no supervision in the community experience reentry. If the reentry process is successful, there are benefits in terms of improved public safety and the long-term reintegration of the former prisoner."
This is taken from The Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign
"Currently, there is no uniform definition of 'reentry' or a consistent vision of what comprises a 'reentry program.' Is a halfway house a reentry program? Is a drug rehab a reentry program? Is a reentry program merely defined by the fact they service people in reentry? Can reentry programs be studied and compared without a uniform definition and a clear understanding of what such a program should include?
Rather, it is my opinion we need a well-networked system of reentry agencies and an operationalized definition of a reentry program that captures the unique contribution of each service partner ( i.e., employment, clothes, education, etc.) and the evaluation driven interactive effect that's produced when these agencies work in concert to combat recidivism. It only makes sense that this interactive effect, if assessment and evaluation driven, would outweigh the sum of its parts."* see my thoughts below.
Considering that the Reentry Initiative in Newark is a political initiative from the Mayor it may take on a different definition altogether. The origin of the concern for reentry in Newark was to bring people safely from prison into the community and to prevent them from returning. As part of an overall Citywide strategy to help people and to mitigate crime the word reentry takes on a larger meaning. It needs to focus on reducing recidivism, gangs, addiction and and crime in the neighborhoods. It needs to work together with law enforcement to improve public safety. Looking at it this way you have to include the 3,500 probationers in Newark that are in fact reentering into the mainstream community as productive citizens.
You also have to look at the individuals referred by Drug Court treatment, who are not sent to jail by judges but who are expected to transition their lives or learn the skills to safely "reenter" into society. Many of these individuals face barriers of addiction and mental health issues that put them in what we might call a pre-entry condition or phase. These people can't support themselves and their families with income from a job until they are treated for their addiction or their mental health conditions.
Youth in neighborhoods with substandard housing and living conditions and high crime may also fall into the category of pre-entry. Much family and individual intervention and support and services need to happen before actual 'reentry' can happen. The Community Success Centers in areas such as Bradley Court, Baxter Terrace and Seth Boyden are examples of the services that need to be available in order for pre-entry to happen so that these youth will be able to mainstream into normal schools and jobs and find positive lifestyles. All of the 'student members' at Integrity House, CURA and Renaissance would fit the category of pre-entry in that they need long term treatment and support services before they are even ready to find a job or housing through the central services of Operation Reconnect.
The pre-entry - reentry model in Newark fits well with Operation Re-connect whose main purpose seems to be to take people from prison or on probation who are job ready and to train and place them in gainful employment while offering many other support services. After or during the latter phase of treatment, the pre-entry candidates in Integrity would be referred to Operation re-connect.
Calling all of the above by the single and undifined word "reentry" might be confusing if we use the definition stated above ie reentry only for people needing help as they return from prison . Also Integrity house gets referrals for mandated long term residential treatment directly from prison and Drug Courts and these individuals could not be allowed by the courts even to go to Operation Reconnect prior to their treatment.
In order to work towards an integrated system of "reentry", it might make sense to have an initial screening process that would be portable and used in prisons, probation departments, community centers and drug treatment programs to begin preparing individuals for preentry and reentry services. Here candidates would be entered on our web database(s) so that tracking and help will be facilitated not wasteful and redundant. This now begins to look like the integrated system described above.
Integrity, Inc., fondly referred to as Integrity House, is a carefully managed, highly effective Therapeutic Community (TC). Our long-term residential and outpatient treatment programs are licensed by the State of New Jersey to serve those with substance abuse problems and pre-release inmates. Since 1968, Integrity House has been committed to helping individuals change their lives. Our philosophy is echoed in the belief that “You alone must do it, but you can't do it alone!” The majority of Integrity House's programs have attained the prestigious CARF accreditation status. Integrity House has two locations in New Jersey—Newark and Secaucus. At any one time, Integrity House is actively treating 575 individuals and supporting hundreds more through outreach efforts, mentorship, and alumni activities. Integrity House works hard to educate the community on the realities of addiction and the true human and financial costs by working with the Division of Addiction Services, criminal justice system, by conducting symposiums, and by collaborating with local community leaders. Integrity House is synonymous with innovation and advocacy. We utilize cutting edge technology to insure all clients receive efficient and effective treatment. In addition, Integrity House is the lead agency for the United Way’s Bridge to Recovery, a consortium effort of over 200 agencies dedicated to helping those with addiction problems. Integrity House strives to continually improve itself and the continuum of care for the benefit of the client.
Send all correspondence to David Kerr at Integrity House, Inc., 103 Lincoln Park Newark, New Jersey 07102; Tel: 973.623.0600; Fax: 973.623.1862. Mr. Kerr’s opinions do not necessarily reflect those of B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc., its affiliates, or the City of Newark and Hon. Mayor Corey Booker.
Reentry Programs Should Be Defined By Who They Serve, That's What Makes The Definition So Broad
There is a serious need to define criteria for “successful reentry” programs. However, in defining “what works” , it is not necessary to become polarized on one side or the other of those who conduct research, review the literature concerning reentry, or of practitioners who work in the field. What's necessary are strong partnerships between researchers and practitioners in order to develop, evaluate, and accredit deserving agencies that are doing the work of providing assistance to those who are re-entering communities after time spent in jail or prison.
The first hurdle that must be jumped is coming up with working definitions of what constitutes “successful reentry”. I use the term “successful reentry” because reentry is simply not enough to describe what it is we should want for those reentering communities and families. It is a well know fact that the goal of the Department of Corrections and the Department of Justice as well as public agencies and politicians is to provide public safety and protection of the public. However, if public safety and protection is enough, then we are saying allowing felons to continue in a revolving door of imprisonment provides the safety the public needs. Clearly, this is not true. Most inmates are sent back to prison because of parole or probation violations and non-violent crimes that continue to present public safety concerns. With that being stated, the ultimate goal of reentry programs should move beyond reducing recidivism rates toward enhancing the quality of life for ex-prisoners, empowering them to have a sense of self-efficacy, and increasing their determination to live productive lives.
Reentry for most offenders is an inevitable process. The philosophy must be “successful reentry” and how this is achieved through programs that assist individuals in the transition from prison or jail to successful unsupervised life in the community. Just as Petersilia presents in the article What Works in Prisoner Reentry? Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence, where Gendreau and Ross indicated; the effectiveness of treatment programs can vary substantially to the extent that the offender’s individual differences are measured and taken into account. This impacts the delivery of services, differences in programs, and calls for more broad working definitions. Broad definitions of successful reentry make it hard for there to be a consensus of what works. However, the ultimate goal must be more than providing public safety and reducing recidivism rates. The goal must include enhancing the lives of people in reentry and the communities they reenter. This can only be done through the concerted efforts of academic researchers and practitioners in the field of reentry. That’s what works!
 Commentary on Ruddell and Winfree (2006): Let’s Talk Pardons
Canadians, our neighbors to the north, have not embarked on the experiment of mass imprisonment that we have here in the United States. In fact, they have taken progressive measures to tackle reentry-related issues that pale in comparison to ours in the United States.
In Ruddell and Winfree’s (2006) article (see research section), they discuss Canada’s policy of routinely setting aside criminal convictions after release from prison. Only about 5% of people in reentry are denied pardons after filing applications. Preliminary data suggests this practice contributes to reduced recidivism by reducing criminal record-related barriers to obtaining employment. In the United States, most people in reentry are denied pardons and over a dozen states can deny employment based merely on a history of arrests, not convictions.
What are the implications of pardons? Ruddell and Winfree (2006) described practical consequences such as increased employability, which we know is part of “What Works” in reentry.  In fact, the authors cite Petersilia (2003), which is the call to what B.E.S.T. Practices appears to be attempting to answer. Clearly, any program that is a self-described “reentry program” should have programmatic strategies to increase employability of people in reentry. This should be a requirement for B.E.S.T. Practices’ accreditation.
The authors discuss other benefits such as the cognitive impact of having a fresh start. In my opinion, people in reentry shouldn’t have to file for pardons to secure their right to feeling the slate is clean post sentence. Rather, my reading of the law and understanding of our backwards looking approach to punishment suggests it is unlawful to punish someone twice for the same crime, during imprisonment and after release.
Unfortunately, many do not take advantage of Canada’s complicated process to acquire pardons. Ruddell and Winfree (2006) speculated this is related to the reading level of people in reentry, the $50 fee, the amount of time required to file, and the lack of efforts to make people in reentry aware of this opportunity.
Here in the United States various nonprofit organizations have been developed to assist people in reentry in this effort. However, the necessity for such organizations in the face of states’ inactivity to routinely pardon is another disappointing chapter in the United States history of ensuring the safety of our communities through evidence-based reentry practices.
What if New Hampshire and Montana Dissapeared?
During this 2008 primary election, many American’s eyes were focused on early states such as New Hampshire. Imagine after the polls closed, all of New Hampshire’s population simply vanished. Two hours later, the entire state of Montana also disappeared. The roughly 2.3 million people in these two states equal the number of American adults currently behind bars.
As Black History month 2008 closes, the release of the Pew Report for The States indicated 1 out of every 100 American adults is incarcerated. The numbers are even higher for African American men at 1 out of every 15. This is a historic all time high, and was covered by most majors including the New York Times, MSNBC, Fox News, ABC News, and several other sources. Some have reacted with criticism of the Pew Report citing the US Justice Department’s results indicating 1 out of 130 Americans are incarcerated. However, these differences are attributable to the Department’s use of the entire population rather than strictly using adult samples as in the Pew Report’s methodology.
The United States is the first nation to incarcerate so many of its own citizens. Naturally, the implications of this unprecedented social experiment will be unparalleled. States’ budgets for corrections have never been higher and they cannot keep up, let alone fund reentry programming.
However, considering there are more African American men in prisons than in schools, states have to ask themselves if they can afford to not fund effective reentry programming. This country must change its approach to punishment from being backwards looking to forward looking. If the United States continues to allow the cycle of recidivism to perpetuate intergenerationally, states’ budgets will break over the eroding foundation of minority communities.
New Jersey is Looking For a Reentry Coordinator
To my delight I discovered New Jersey is recruiting a Reentry Coordinator to oversee all of New Jersey’s reentry programs. I found myself intimidated by the job description despite being the founder of an accrediting body for reentry programs (B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc.), possessing a doctorate in clinical psychology, completing a dissertation, and having published empirical studies.
For instance, this Reentry Coordinator will be expected to work in the state’s capitol reporting directly to the Attorney General. This person will oversee and coordinate all of the reentry programs in the state, and be expected to design, implement, evaluate, and employ empirically supported strategies to reduce recidivism.
However, to my surprise the educational requirement for this position is only a bachelor’s degree and three years of public policy experience. Get real New Jersey! I completed my bachelor’s degree at Rutgers University in psychology at age 21 with one introductory statistics course on my transcript. There is no way someone with a bachelor’s degree is prepared to coordinate all of anything across New Jersey, let alone the reentry crisis faced by this state and nation consequent to 1 out of every 100 American adults being incarcerated.
Further, the three year public policy experiential requirement suggests New Jersey is less interested in scientific and programmatic competencies than writing contracts and grant proposals. Perhaps this bias towards policy explains why I find myself sifting through countless policy publications, task force recommendations, and roundtable discussions that amounts to nothing more than philosophical and pseudoscientific rhetoric, all in my search for controlled empirical studies on what works to keep people from going back to prison.
I am unsure if the limited educational requirements for the soon to be Reentry Coordinator of New Jersey is reflective of the state’s limited budget for reentry or a general lack of appreciation for the seriousness of the incarceration problem in this nation. However, at a minimum I believe it is safe to say the state needs to reprioritize their efforts to ensure the successful reintegration of people in reentry.
New Jersey, please spend the money to aggressively recruit someone with the qualifications to meet the needs of people in reentry. As the position currently stands, I certainly will not be throwing my hat into this ring. Apparently, I would be overqualified to tackle one of the largest domestic social justice issues of my generation.
Reducing Concentrated Poverty Through Reentry: the Impact of Lost Human Capital
The collateral consequences of imprisonment touches communities in many different ways. The financial costs alone have unspeakable effects that are detrimental to society. But, what about the human capital costs? Human capital is the value individuals bring to a society because of their individual attributes. In poor and disadvantaged neighborhoods throughout this country blacks are seven times more likely to be incarcerated than whites. In 1991, 1,895 per 100,000 blacks compared to that of 293 per 100,000 whites were incarcerated. Tonry[1] This means at a rate seven times higher than whites, black families and the communities they reside in are being damaged.
The implications of such disproportionate statistics means areas already categorized as disadvantaged will suffer more than non-disadvantaged areas from the effects of concentrated poverty due to a lack of human capital. Both concentrated poverty and imprisonment are correlated with high rates of unemployment, high school drop outs, predatory and violent offending, and single-parent households. For there to be any serious redress of these issues we must find a way to bring human capital back to areas of concentrated poverty. One of the ways in which human capital can be restored is to reduce recidivism rates. Programs that provide reentry assistance for former prisoners would be a great start.
As we have discussed previously, defining reentry has been slow coming and established research on “successful reentry” has been even slower. However, we as community members impacted by high rates of incarceration, and as tax payers from areas not directly impacted by high rates of incarceration, we all have a stake in making sure programs work to reintroduce former prisoners into the mainstream of society. For financial and human costs as well as public safety it behooves us to advocate for reentry programs that work.
[1] Tonry, Michael (1995). Malign Neglect: Race, Crime, and Punishment In America.
New York: Oxford University Press
Reentry and the Family
According to Damian J. Martinez[1], “a major source of support for formerly incarcerated individuals upon release, namely the family, has gone unresearched.” Researchers have been more concerned with family support in terms of reducing recidivism than how family support affects the family relationships after loved ones return home from incarceration (Martinez, 2006). In the current climate of mass incarceration and “reentry,” we cannot afford to overlook the family, which is a critical component to “successful reentry.” The family environment must be considered when researching, designing, and evaluating “reentry” programs.
For reentrants, renegotiating family life is integral, especially for people in reentry requiring post-release substance abuse treatment. Also, it cannot be assumed the emotional stressors and stigma behind incarceration are only experienced by offenders. The families of offenders and people in reentry experience stigma consequent to having an incarcerated family member. Further, they are subject to vicarious traumatization from their accurate or inaccurate beliefs of their loved one's prison experience. Taken together, the entire family unit, not just the reentrant, requires direction for a successful reconciliation of the family unit following imprisonment.
Although the cost of supporting entire families in the reentry process seem staggering, the collateral consequences of not investing in whole families may be worse. For example, the parent who violates parole and recidivates may recapitulate the initial loss and potential trauma they caused their child when first incarcerated. This recapitulation may further contribute to their child's risk for maladjustment and potential delinquency. Children who develop patterns of reactive disturbances in conduct during adolescence will generally become antisocial in their middle and late teens and as adults, thereby continuing a cycle of criminality. Biddle[2]
There has to be more research on former prisoners' and family members' renegotiation of social roles following release in order to discern: 1) the quantity and quality of family supports needed for reentrants; 2) how to address the needs of the family; and 3) the extent of the implications of family supports on “successful reentry.” Since family is considered a crucial component of “successful reentry,” research identifying the kinds of support needed for families is definitely needed.
[1] Martinez, Damian J. Informal Helping Mechanisms: Conceptual Issues in Family Support 2006
[2] Biddle, Jennifer. “Delinquency and Juvenile Justice” Rutgers University. Newark, 9
September 2007.
Overview of Expungements in New Jersey and Bill A-1771
After conducting a recent site visit and training at a northern New Jersey reentry program, B.E.S.T. Practices was informed their primary difficulties were in the area of decreased employability due to the criminal records of their clients. Our work with this reentry program motivated this article on expungements.
Expungement of a criminal record deletes the arrest and conviction, if present, from the record. This legally entitles a person to state without penalty of perjury the incident never happened (with the exception of applying for judicial-related positions). In New Jersey, lawyers are not required, but are beneficial to obtain expungements. To do it yourself, go to http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/prose/10557.pdf. There is an approximately $55 fee, loads of paper work, and potentially mandatory court appearance, particularly if filing in Passaic county.
New Jersey’s eligibility for expungement is based on several static and dynamic factors such as: the presence, type and number of convictions; sentence; timeliness of fine payment; history of expungements; and open charges. Even some felonies can be expunged. However, felony expungements are subject to a 10 year waiting period before filing, which is the longest waiting time across convictions by New Jersey statute.
There are some limitations to expungements. Only in rare circumstances are federal arrests and convictions expunged. In New Jersey, motor vehicle offenses (i.e., driving while intoxicated) cannot be expunged. Also, consequent to White v. Thomas, there is no reciprocal recognition of expungements between states due to their different eligibility requirements.
Finally, the New Jersey Superior Court decided 08/03/2007 that possession of a controlled substance with intent to “distribute” can be expunged, but not with intent to “sell.” The catch is there is no New Jersey law regarding intent to “sell,” only intent to “distribute.” Thus, anyone can apply, but there will likely be an objection by the prosecutor and a court hearing to make a final ruling.
Actually, New Jersey is currently being faced with a second opportunity to demonstrate their progressiveness regarding reentry. A bill has been reintroduced (A1771) to make expungements more accessible. Among other things, fine payment issues are addressed and eligibility would be given to people convicted of third and fourth degree convictions for intent to sell controlled substances.
On the topic of policy to facilitate successful reentry, it is hard to ascertain if New Jersey is at a crossroads or is yet to truly start the journey. A-1771 represents a shift towards reentry policy that is system rather than person-focused. It is problematic to push policy addressing the post-sentence rehabilitation needs of the person in reentry (i.e., vocational classes) in the absence of system-focused policy addressing barriers to expungements that are necessary for employability. Go to http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/bills/BillsByNumber.asp and enter A1771 to check the progress of this bill and inform your local representatives of your opinions on this issue.
Expungements and Privacy
Undoubtedly, one of the most challenging issues faced by people in reentry is obtaining employment. Partially, inaccurate background searches that wrongfully reveal expunged arrests and convictions are to blame for this formidable barrier to successful reentry. Recent investigation conducted by the Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices, Inc., has uncovered private data collection have historically been to blame for such inaccurate reporting despite receiving decreased negative attention over the past few years.
Privacy in America has come under attack consequent to legislation and internet technology. Several private internet companies provide customers the ability to purchase information on addresses, purchased/ sold properties, phone numbers, adoptions, bankruptcies, genealogy, birthdates, and even criminal histories. These companies are regularly used by employers to conduct background checks of applicants. However, employers’ human resource decisions are being contaminated by inaccurate information, which has negatively impacted an unknown amount of people in reentry.
Expungements legally free an applicant from the duty to report past arrests or convictions. Law enforcement agencies will produce background checks indicating “no record” in the case of an expungement. However, private companies that purchase arrest and conviction data are not as conscientious about updating their databases. Consequently, an applicant who expunged their past criminal record may be erroneously refused employment based on their denial of a criminal history wrongfully made known to an employer by a private data collection agency. Also, the applicant may simply be denied employment based on the nature of the crime they have taken judicial measures to have protected from public knowledge.
These issues hit the pages of the New York Times on 10/17/2006 in an article written by Adam Liptak. Since its publication there still has not been any resolution to this dilemma. Rather, government who in some cases sells this information points their finger at data collection agencies for failing to update their databases. Government also points their finger at employers, arguing it is the not the misinformation that is problematic, but the way it is used. Finally, data collection agencies maintain the legitimacy of their practices since customer complaints are 1:1000.
However, it is unreasonable to believe customers, the potential employers, would complain. In all likelihood, they would not take the word of the applicant after the wrongful information has damaged their credibility. Secondly, although the employer had no right to know the person’s history of expungement, it is reasonable to believe they will not change their employment decisions based on this information being wrongfully disclosed. The employer’s goal is to make known information indicative of risk, and they have no obligation to honor policy intended to cover it up.
Margaret Colgate Love described the nature of expungement as deceptive and stated the difficulties noted above are secondary to “building policy based on a lie.” I contend the problems noted above are secondary to a governmental system the buys and sells privacy for votes and financial gain. I can understand why people in reentry have not historically protested the attack on privacy in the United States. People in reentry are easily exploitable due to limited education and money, inability to vote, and their focus on larger concerns such as remaining drug free in an unforgiving world. However, I am less clear why people who are not in reentry have accepted the trade of our personal information for profit. Simply “Google” your name or visit www.searchsystems.net to learn how you are being impacted by these practices.
The Second Chance Act
Before the incorporation of the Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices, Inc. (“The Board”), our team members, like many of you, have discussed prisoner reentry as a philosophical issue. Reentry injustices were something to chat about with the class you were teaching or inmates you were counseling. At some point, the individuals who make up the Board started viewing the reentry practices of America’s prisons as something that could be changed. We believed we could help incite that change if community-based organizations would look toward us during their times of need, and if we could consistently deliver solutions.
Following our transition from passively watching to actively fighting for fair reentry practices, we have found ourselves sometimes feeling discouraged, apathetic, and unwelcome by the people we incorporated to assist; namely, those who provide reentry services. However, it is a good thing on most days we above all feel committed, which has allowed us to push forward in our work to share with other reentry providers a feeling of victory, at least for today.
On April 09, 2008, George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act of 2007. This act represents a victory in our combined efforts to advance the funding, research, and implementation of evidence-based reentry programs by the federal government, which is precisely the mission of the Board at www.NJReentry.com. The following is a summary of what this act provides to people in reentry and reentry agencies.
The “Community Safety Through Recidivism Prevention” or the Second Chance Act of 2007 requires the Attorney General to annually submit all reports required by the act to the Judiciary Committees of Congress. The act expands
existing resources for demonstration projects. It also requires reentry grant writers to incorporate 5-year measurable outcomes and advocacy efforts into their applications. B.E.S.T. Practices provides reentry programs applying for these grants data collection and outcome evaluation services to comply with this new requirement. Now, even the Federal prison system must report outcome data for their recidivism initiatives.
The Second Chance Act will immediately impact drug-related offenders by mandating federally funded residential substance abuse programs to include aftercare, expanding the definition of “treatment” to include long-term interventions and pharmacotherapies, and by broadening the definition of “violent offender” as used in drug courts to make resources more accessible to nonviolent drug abusing offenders.
Notably, the act provides grants up to $500,000 to develop courts for the purpose of monitoring people in reentry and providing them with access to reentry services. These courts report directly to the Attorney General. Other grants made available through this act will fund programs providing drug treatment, evaluations of prisoner education programs, technology career training, offender mentoring (pre- and post-release), and job-training and placement.
Reminiscent of another time in this country’s history, the Second Chance Act requires the discontinuation of policy that limited the incarcerated from accessing books and other educational material. Also, no longer will the incarcerated be released without proper identification. The act requires prisoners be provided identification documents such as birth certificates and social security cards prior to release. Furthermore, prisoners will be provided with information on health and nutrition, employment, literacy, education, and more.
The act addresses the ludicrous practice of keeping nonviolent offenders over age 65 incarcerated. It also educates employers on hiring people in reentry. Even the “high risk” reentry population is addressed in this act.
B.E.S.T. Practices has advocated for the funding of research in reentry since its incorporation. This act calls for the National Institute of Justice and the Bureau of Justice Standards to conduct research on juvenile and adult offender reentry. Some of this research will be in the area of addressing the needs of children who have incarcerated parents.
More people at the completion of their sentences will have the opportunity to enter community corrections from the federal prison system. The downside of this opportunity under the act is the prohibition of courts from sentencing individuals to community correction facilities rather than prisons. I suspect this mandate is to make space available to people in reentry.
We all know this act does not bring to a close our mission to keep men, women, and children from going back to prison. Although this act will cost Americans only $1.17 per person ($3.02 per avg. household), some feel it is not worth the expense. Nonetheless, the signing of this act represents a positive response on the behalf of a bi-partisan federal governmental effort to the outcries of the Board at NJReentry.com and you, our system partners.
Virginia Reentry Initiatives
In the state of Virginia 10,000 to 12,000 people are released from state correction facilities each year into communities across the Commonwealth. This figure does not include men and women released from jails and federal correctional centers (Virginia Department Of Criminal Justice Service, 2007). The process of efficiently re-integrating offenders back into the community has become a significant challenge for the state of Virginia and nationally. National studies show two-third of those released will be re-arrested within three years of release (Virginia Department Of Criminal Justice Service). In an effort to face the challenges associated with prisoner re-entry, the National Governor’s Association established the Policy Academy on Prisoner Reentry to help states develop strategies and effective policies to help reduce recidivism by improving pre-and post-release services for inmates.
In July 2003, The National Governors Association (NGA) Center for Best Practices announced the State of Virginia was one of seven states selected to participate in its Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy (Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Service, 2007 p.2). Through the academy the NGA partnered with Virginia to assist in developing effective
prisoner reentry strategies designed to reduce recidivism and its associated costs.
Other States’ experiences support the conclusion that reentry efforts do lower recidivism rates. A review of New York’s “Stay’n Out” pre-release program for drug offenders indicated fewer parole violations and a lower chance of re-arrest, reconviction, and re-incarceration for program clients as compared to those offenders who did not participate (Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services Division of Policy, Planning and Research, 2007). Effective and well-supervised pre and post-release programs and services help reduce recidivism. The Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices
Summer 2008 Reentry Staff Development Trainings
Call 1888 362 4591 ext. 4 to request or schedule a training
|
Self-Expungement Workshop:
*Reviews your state’s expungement laws
*Prepares staff to identify candidates for expungement
*Teaches completion of expungement documentation
*Receive expungement documents and resource manual
*Equips staff with ability to file reenter’s expungements
*Support contacts for follow-up questions and problems
*Cost: $350 for members/ $500 for non-members
Motivational Enhancement Interviewing For Reenters’ Seminar:
*Full day 8 hour seminar and resource manual
*Reviews research on MEI for reenters
*Didactic lesson on MEI techniques
*Videos and demonstrations
*Role play and supervision
*Support contacts for follow-up questions
*Cost: $600 for members/ $750 for non-members *
|
Introduction to B.E.ST. Practices Special Series on the Reentry of Formerly Convicted Sex Offenders
The purpose of this blog is to provide you with an overview of what is to come in our special series on the reentry of former sex offenders. This reentering population deserves special attention in our nation’s dialogue on barriers to successful reentry. Critics of sex-offender reentry policy attack the unconstitutionality of these practices. These critics argue punishment is suffered by reenters subjected to civil commitment and/or community notification practices under New Jersey ’s Megan’s Law, which makes them a form of double jeopardy. Defendants of these policies assert they are necessary to maintain public safety and dismiss the critics’ references to these policies’ punishing intentions or results. Later writings in this series will further describe community notification and civil commitment policy in New Jersey and its implications for people in reentry.
Risk prediction instruments are typically used to determine whether a person in reentry who has completed their sentence for a sex-related charge will be subjected to community notification or civil commitment. Recently, New Jersey has started using the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS) to classify juveniles convicted of a sex-related charge into risk tiers. These tiers determine the level of community notification, and in the case of adults, potentially civil commitment. Clearly, no one has a crystal ball to reliably inform whether or not somebody will reoffend. Nonetheless, sexual-recidivism instruments are widely used throughout the nation. Their results could mean the difference between freedom and indefinite incarceration in the case of the 194 civilly committed adults in New Jersey . Since risk prediction instruments do not lower risk tiers for served prison time, they clearly reflect the assumption incarceration does not help to rehabilitate. Also, since many of these instruments used to tier risk do not take into consideration dynamic variables like treatment response, they also reflect the assumption psychological treatment for sex offenders does not work. However, the scientific literature suggests neither of these assumptions is accurate. Later writings in this series will also detail the statistical properties and use of these risk predication instruments.
There is a chasm between our nation’s policy governing the reentry of people convicted of a sex-related crime and the published research supporting sex offenders are one of the lowest recidivating groups when people in reentry are studied by offense type. The gap between research and practice with respect to this group is why the Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices, Inc. has started this special series. Our mission is to keep men, women, and children from going back to prison by bridging the gap between research and reentry practices in the community. Mark Chaffin says it best in his May 2008 article published in the journal of Child Maltreatment titled, “Our minds are made up-don’t confuse us with the facts: commentary on policies concerning children with sexual behavior problems and juvenile sex offenders.” The mentality captured by Chaffin’s title is what we need to get away from to truly keep our communities safe for everyone, including the person in reentry who completed their sentence for a sex-related crime.
As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit local reentry news for our broadcast received by hundreds of readers just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply reply to this email or send a request from our website and we will visit you on-site to identify ways we can be of assistance to you and/or your reentry program.
Part 1 of B.E.ST. Practices Special Series on the Reentry of Formerly Convicted Sex Offenders
A convicted murderer or armed robber’s risk of reoffense at release is unlikely to impact the conditions of their reentry. However, when someone sentenced for a sex-offense reenters the community, their risk for recidivism determines who is informed of their criminal history (community notification), where they are allowed to reside, and potentially involuntary civil commitment. Therefore, risk prediction for sexual recidivism appears to be an appropriate place to begin the Board of Empirically Supported Transition Practices’ series on the reentry of sex-offenders.
Prediction of sexual recidivism is typically based on the results of an actuarial test. These tests are based on regression equations, decision trees, or arithmetic algorithms examining the relationship between predictor variables (i.e., number, age, and sex of victims) and future sexual recidivism. They are scored by mechanical and fixed rules. The Static-99 and the MnSOST-R are such tools. The former relies on a “static” form of assessment that by definition is unchangeable and cannot consider the palliative impact of the offender’s age, ameliorative effects of treatment, or nature of any existing functional impairment (i.e., mental or physical disability). On the other hand, the MnSOST-R relies on “static” and “dynamic” forms of assessment that takes into account the potential buffering effects of a range of moderating variables.
New Jersey has just approved the use of the Juvenile Risk Assessment Scale (JRAS) for classifying juveniles into risk tiers (low, moderate, and high) for sexual recidivism. These risk tiers form the basis of community notification and reporting requirements following reentry. Prior to the development of the JRAS, New Jersey incorrectly used an adult risk prediction instrument to tier juveniles. Adult instruments inflate juveniles’ predicted risk because histories of child victims on an actuarial test are predictors of reoffense. We all know that juveniles offend against other children, and rarely adults. It was misguided to liken the risk of a 30-year-old who molests a 12-year-old to that of a 16-year-old who molests a 12-year-old.
Also, the JRAS’ most robust predictor of juvenile sexual reoffense is a history of conduct disorder symptoms such as unlawful or delinquent behavior. This predictor outperforms other sex-specific predictors such as the number of victims and degree of force used during the offense. Further, the current research suggests that only 5-15% of juveniles recidivate by committing another sex offense. Although approximately half of convicted juvenile sex-offenders recidivates, it is usually by committing a non-sexual, conduct disordered offense.
While public safety is a vital concern, it is important to balance the needs of the community with the potential barriers to successful reentry caused by risk tiering, community notification, and reporting laws. Historically, juveniles in New Jersey have been incorrectly classified into higher risk tiers. Further, the current risk prediction instrument used for juveniles in New Jersey (JRAS) does not account for the ameliorative impact of sex-offender specific treatment on decreasing risk. While the inception of the JRAS represents an improvement, juvenile risk prediction warrants a greater sensitivity to a variety of dynamic factors that are not considered by New Jersey ’s static means of risk prediction.
Oklahoma Reentry
B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc. was recently contacted by a correctional psychologist in Oklahoma. She inquired about Oklahoma reentry resources and reentry assistance specifically designed for the mentally-ill. The support and successful reentry of mentally–ill offenders is a poignant issue birthed out of the failures of deinstitutionalization and “successes” of the trans-institutionalization of mentally-ill people from state psychiatric hospitals to state prisons. The following briefly summarizes the beginnings and current status of reentry in Oklahoma.
All states have historically neglected the needs of those in reentry. However, Oklahoma has lagged behind other states in taking measures to rectify this problem. In 2002, Oklahoma developed an Executive Reentry Committee through their participation in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), a national reentry research project. However, only within the past 4 years has the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC) sponsored reentry specific conferences.
Oklahoma practitioners and families desire change in how Oklahoma manages reentry. This hope was clear considering the approximately 300 people in attendance at this year’s 4th Oklahoma DOC-sponsored Annual Reentry Conference. At the same time, the DOC’s investment and commitment to reentry is questionable as indicated by Warden Standifird who commented the national reentry speakers in attendance were not paid for their time. In all fairness, this dialectic between reentry advocacy and financial appropriation is not unique to Oklahoma.
The conferences speakers included Terri White, the Commissioner of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, Cal Hobson, former Senator and Executive Director of Operations for University of Oklahoma Outreach, and New Jersey’s own Dr. Nancy Wolff, Ph.D. from Rutgers University (click here for her presentation), and William Burrell. Le’Ann Duran, of the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative was also in attendance. Michigan, whose state legislature has earmarked almost $30 Million for reentry services, is a national leader in effectively addressing the multidimensional needs of those in reentry (click here to learn more).
On the contrary, Oklahoma reentry Bill 2101, the Transformational Justice Act, initially appropriates only $100,000 to reentry services. Despite this relatively small amount of money for the large problem of reentry, the reentry bill did not make it through the Oklahoma HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES without criticisms, which included growing government, creating a new Office of Faith Based Initiatives, and little accountability for how tax dollars would be spent. Clearly, Oklahoma has a long way to go in catching-up to other states’ reentry efforts. However, the following are some of the key people and resources available to Oklahoma families seeking reentry assistance.
Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
Mailing Address:
Post Office Box 25352
Oklahoma City, OK 73125
Physical Address:
2400 N. Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, OK 73105
(405) 522-0606
(405) 521-6868 Fax
Robin Jones, Director
Deborah Price, Projects Manager
The State of Oklahoma
Offender Reentry
Executive Reentry Committee State Contacts
Oklahoma Reentry Professional’s Message Board
Oklahoma Reentry Resources (The Basics)
2901 N. Classen Suite 200
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
Local: (405) 962-6135
Office Hours & Additional Information
Monday - Friday 8am to 5pm
All Of Us Or None Oklahoma
C/O Oklahoma Health Care Project
Cobblestone Hollow
3556 North Spencer Road
Spencer, OK 73084
Phone: (405) 771-5582 //Fax:
(405) 771-4630
Email: okc_allofusornone@yahoo.com
Contact Person: Faye Tucker
Character First! Headquarters
Character Training Institute
520 West Main Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-2220
Phone
(405) 815-0001 (M-F 8:30-5:00 CST)
FAX
(405) 815-0002
OKLAHOMA PARTNERSHIP FOR SUCCESSFUL REENTRY
Anthony Zahn
14 Ne 13th St, Oklahoma City, OK 73104-1426
Contact Phone: (405) 235-5671
Oklahoma Reentry Network
Contact Carla Sparks at service@ad2okc.com for more information.
Other Key Figures in Oklahoma Reentry
Terri White, Commissioner, Oklahoma Department of
Ann Toyer, Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit your original local reentry news pieces for our website publication read by hundreds of people just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply send a request from our website.
Oklahoma Reentry (A Response)
B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc. recently received a response to our blog, "Oklahoma Reentry." We wanted to make this useful information available to our readers.
I thought I’d send you some updated info on what we’ve been doing in Oklahoma related to reentry for offenders with serious mental illness. I’ve attached an article from Open Mind and below is a link to the Council of State Government’s Consensus Project October 2008 newsletter. We have made significant strides in the last few years, but do recognize that we still have a long way to go. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the attached material.
All the best,
Bob Mann
http://consensusproject.org/updates/newsletters/2008-cp-newsletters/oct08news
Bob Mann, RN, LSW
Coordinator of Clinical Social Work Services
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
2901 N Classen Blvd, Suite 100
Oklahoma City, OK 73106
Phone 405-962-6137
As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit your original local reentry news pieces for our website publication read by hundreds of people just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply send a request from our website.
our website.
An Interview With David Kerr of the Integrity House, Newark New Jersey
David Kerr is one of the pioneers of New Jersey reentry services. He is also a friend of BEST Practices and someone I find to be personally inspiring. Kerr established Integrity House in Newark, which is a nationally recognized substance-abuse treatment center that has served the public since 1968. Kerr was recently interviewed and featured in the Star Ledger:
However, for the benefit of NJReentry.Com readers, here are segments of the interview that did not appear in the Star Ledger, courtesy of David Kerr.
So would you suggest expanding the Drug Courts in our state? I would and in fact the recent government appointed Sentencing Commission report recommends just that in addiction to an expansion of court ordered Intensive Supervision programs with drug treatment.
What challenges do recovering drug addicts face in trying to find employment? The biggest unmet need for all addicts reentering from prison is not only finding a job but adjusting to a work schedule and lifestyle. We spend much time and money securing employment for addicts who are not ready and can’t even get to work on time. Many untreated addicts think that work means putting in three out of five days per week or leaving work early for ‘personal reasons’ several days a week. So even if a job is obtained for an addict, without the essential treatment and work adjustment programs, the newly employed addict will often be fired within the first year of employment. Employers will say things like “when he wants to he is one of my best employees, but I just can’t count on him to be here on time and to give me a full week of work.”
Unfortunately, our state does not have much in the way of ‘work adjustment’ job programs linked to and/or part of treatment and addict reentry, and this failure in our approach ensures that even employed addicts will often loose their jobs and eventually relapse. Work adjustment programs require some type of low pay job with daily supervision over months and a focus on getting to work on time, working regularly, demonstrating a positive attitude and getting along with fellow employees. This is not a new concept but one we must incorporate into our reentry programs, especially for relapse prone addicts.
Considering all of these barriers, how does Integrity House help recovering drug addicts re-enter the workforce? We have strong success with addicts referred to us from the courts, probation or parole as long as the legal stipulation is at least two years. We recommend five years. When addicts are challenged in their treatment by other addicts who ‘know their game,’ they tend to begin the process of more permanent self help and recovery. If and when they relapse, we recommend quick custodial sanctions followed by continued treatment and support. This model is cheaper and far more effective than jail but more importantly it is the best solution to protecting the public.
How has the current economic downturn affected re-entry employment for recovering addicts? Addicts are finding it harder, but not impossible, to obtain employment just because there are fewer jobs. With the proper treatment and long term support and supervision, addicts will get jobs and sustain them. Thousands from Integrity are proof of this.
How can we best protect the public against relapsing addicts who then prey on people for money to feed their habits? Isn’t jail the best way to protect people by keeping them off the streets? There is no question that those in jail will not harm people in the community. But this is a very shortsighted and failure oriented approach according to research, and the mandatory minimum sentences enacted in the 1980’s by states like New Jersey and California have a proven track record – failure. Incarcerating these addicts just defers the problem at a great cost to the public. Addicts incarcerated will cost the taxpayer $40,000 per year, and the day an addict inmate is released without treatment and supervision is usually the first day of return to drugs and crime. Our taxpayers have to know that jail has to be used judiciously in short doses and again the Drug Court is a good model.
I would suggest though that we look into what I consider to be an equally safe and cost effective model also recommended by the Sentencing Commission called Intensive Supervision. This approach will allow some if not many ‘functional addicts’ to continue working while being treated and tested three times per week for two to five years. Any relapse here would be sanctioned by one day in jail followed by continued supervision and testing. This is the way to go – low cost and high effectiveness. An approach that will best protect the public since addicts in relapse are immediately incarcerated for a day and then returned to treatment and testing for a long time. Every relapse should be met with one day in jail – no delay and no discussion. This kind of thing is the ‘cold water’ that addicts starting relapse need to shock them back to sobriety before they acquire a habit. There is no program like this in our state to my knowledge but it will work and we should try it on a small scale.
What led you to start Integrity House? I didn’t intend to start Integrity house in the 60’s, but I did live in Newark with former parolees of mine trying to help them stay clean and sober. Soon and with the help of Dr. Donald Louria from UMDNJ and the Victoria Foundation, this approach became the start of the Integrity treatment program in 1968.
What future plans do you have for Integrity House? Integrity House has over 40 years of experience in the field of addict treatment and recovery. I will be spending much time with key government officials in different state departments and with legislators trying to convince them to spend less money on incarceration and more on treatment and supervision as recommended by the recent Sentencing Commission report. There are very specific proposals that need to be implemented and tested on a pilot basis if we want to mount a more effective statewide effort directed at the problem of addiction.
What do you like most about your job? I love our staff and our student members at Integrity. Their challenges become my mission and their vulnerability and efforts at self improvement and recovery motivate me to work harder for them. It’s like watching children try to walk and fall down often. I just want to love them and help them get up. My student members are intelligent and creative and productive and their achievements are amazing once they are free of the disease of addiction. Some are city councilmen or corporate executives or housewives or professionals or counselors or students. They suffer from the disease of addiction and once they move beyond this, the sky is the limit!
By David H. Kerr
Thanks David
As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit your original local reentry news pieces for our website publication read by hundreds of people just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply send a request from our website.
Stop Addiction Discrimination:
Expungement Bill to Be Voted on by Full Senate
B.E.S.T. Practices, Inc. encourages you to write your Senators and ask them to vote for this expungment bill. This bill lowers the time period for expungement by 50% (10 years to 5 years) and allows people convicted of drug offenses for small amounts to apply for expungements.
If passed, this bill will aid people in reentry with obtaining jobs. Here's a sample letter you can edit and send to your senator:
Please, I strongly urge you to vote in favor of S-3061/A-1771 because addiction is a treatable disease from which recovery is possible.
Crimes that will be expungeable pursuant to these bills involve small amounts of drugs: less than one half of an ounce or less than an ounce, depending on the drug. Individuals involved with larger amounts of drugs or who involve a person 17 years old or younger in such a crime will not be eligible to have their records expunged.
S-3061/A1771 does not provide for automatic expungement but allows a judge to hear the circumstances surrounding the crime as well as the rehabilitation of the offender before rendering a decision on expungement. Because the circumstances in each case are unique, informed judges are in the best position to make sure each offender pays a just price for his or her actions.
Many individuals in recovery from an addiction are unnecessarily prevented from obtaining employment due to a past criminal record. Lack of employment leads to recidivism. S-3061/A1771 has the potential to assist people transition successfully back into the community and become gainfully employed, while holding them accountable for their alcohol and drug affected behavior.
As always, contact us for your training, program evaluation, and any other reentry programmatic needs. We encourage you to submit your original local reentry news pieces for our website publication read by hundreds of people just like you in our national audience of reentry partners. Simply send a request from our website.
our website.
Bonnie Watson Coleman is Here!
Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman is in the building. She has taken bold steps by introducing 6 bills, which have been sponsored by five other Assembly Democratic legislators to address New Jersey’s budgetary and reentry problems. Rehabilitation in New Jersey prisons could save tax dollars by decreasing recidivism and giving reenterers a chance.
These are the Bills:
A4197 – Strengthening Women and Families Act
A4198 – Post-Release Employment Act
A4199 – Administration of Correctional Facilities Act
A4201 – Reduction of Recidivism Act
A4202 – Education and Rehabilitation Act
A4203 – Criminal Penalties Act
In summary, here are the bills:
1) Strengthening Women and Families Act: A4197
Eliminates disqualifications for TANF, General Assistance and food stamps based on drug felonies.
Eliminates surcharges for phone calls placed by prisoners
Interventions to strengthen relationships between incarcerated parents and their children
Appointment of an Assistant Commissioner for Incarcerated Women
Restriction on placing women in male institutions
Assigning classification so inmates are as close as possible to family
Establishes a new protocol to hear female inmate grievances
2 )Post-Release Employment Act: A4198
Allows for a limited-use driver’s license so reenterers can get to work, school, training, & doctor appointments.
Removes employment bans for certain positions.
Restricts criminal background questions on public employment applications
Prohibits job-discriminating based on criminal record
Requires managers to consider reenterers certificate of rehabilitation
3 ) Adminstration of Correctional Facilities Act: A4199
Increases the non-“taxable” amount accrued for inmate accounts
Establishes the Dept of the Public Advocate as the depository for all inmate complaints
Requires ACA-based correctional officer training as requested by officers
4) Reduction of Recidivism Act: A4201
Allows for a 90-day grace period for delinquent fines
Provides reenterers with: photo ID; medical records; rap sheet; and accounting of fines owed.
Removes the post-release Medicaid enrollment gap
Establishes a Prisoner Reentry Commission
Establishes a Blue Ribbon Panel for Review of Long-Term Prisoners’ Parole Eligibility
Mandates the use of “community corrections” for all those released from prison
5) Education and Rehabilitation Act: A4202
Reviews vocational programs in order to meet demand job skills and standards
Requires inmates to achieve 12th grade literacy with few exceptions
Requires DOC to make GED classes available to all inmates who request
Requires GED certificates to be issued by Dept. of Education (DOE)
Allows formerly incarcerated persons to visit any prison in the State for motivational purposes
Caps parole ‘hits’ at 3 years before being given another hearing
Allows inmates to enter agreements for ed, trng, etc that decreases parole terms
Provides credits for educational achievements
6) Criminal Penalties Act: A4203
Provides discretion to courts to reduce accumulated fines and penalties
Requires family impact statements on pre-sentencing reports
Includes restorative justice mediation as an alternative sentence
Expands access to expungement
|
|
|
|
|
Partners & Reentry Links
|
|
|
|
|
|