Evaluation In order to determine whether or not focusing on re-entry services helps reduce overcrowding in prisons a longitudinal outcome evaluation study will be used. The study will be completely voluntary and consent will be required at the beginning of the study. Participants are not required to complete the study; however, a monetary reward will be given for successful completion. Other than the monetary reward, no other incentives will be offered to participants. The focus will be on two prisons, one prison will have already implemented the re-entry services policy and the other will not. Our sample will consist of inmates who have served five to twenty years in prison and will soon be released. The ideal sample would consist of at least 50 inmates from each facility. Various demographic information will be collected such as, age, race, gender, highest level of education, and home city at time of arrest. Other basic information that will be gathered will include, whether or not they had familial support while incarcerated, and whether or not they have familial support upon release.
Upon release contact will be made with the former inmates periodically over a five-year time period. Ideally contact will be made once every year, five times in total. When one on one interviews are possible with former inmates they will be asked if they believe that the re-entry services have helped them substantially in becoming a productive member in society. If they did not
One major concern is the quality of rehabilitation the inmates receive while they are incarcerated. The question to ask is “Are our prisoners being properly rehabilitated?”
In order to evaluate the program, a quasi experiment was conducted which comprised of a treatment group, individuals participating in the Going Home project, and a control group, individuals who did not participate in the program. The assumptions were that lower recidivism rates would be observed among individuals who participated in the program. This assumption was based on the program’s objectives in assisting the offender and community with reintegration efforts. Together, the offender and community were given resources that assisted in alleviating transitional issues experienced by offenders. The goal of the project was to refer offenders to resources as they transition into the community; prepare communities for an offender’s return; and increase Department of Corrections staff communication to prepare
To support my assumption there is an immediate need for the implementation of a reentry plan; I have reviewed the opinions of other criminologist such as Reginald A. Wilkinson (2008). Wilkinson (2008) has written several articles on the need for incarcerated offender reentry plans. In one of his articles entitled "Incarceration and Beyond: A Personal Perspective” (2008), Wilkinson states, “the overarching idea is that prison reentry programming should commence upon each offender’s admission to the reception center” Wilkinson goes on to say that those released without a reentry plan will affect the percentage of those returning to incarceration and have a negative effect on a communities budget and security”. Consequently, I can assume that if a reentry plan is implemented immediately, the department will save and better spend its budget dollars and stop what I call “the swinging door effect”. I define the “swinging door effect” as the repeated return of offenders into incarceration within a short period of time such. Based on personal interviews along with release document reviews, I can assume a reentry plan was not implemented and likely created the “swinging door effect”. Consequently, I have found the repeated return of offenders into incarceration within a short period of time is a problem that keeps tax dollars from being spent wisely and will affect a community’s economy and security.
Our study aims to measure the retention rates of newly released inmates transitioning to treatment centers from MCIJ. We will do this by having our Transition Support Case Managers (TSCM) report data on attendance after each of the three follow up meetings: 5 days after arrival to treatment, 15 days, and 30 days. We will log attendance records on an encrypted document via the jail’s secured network.
The prison population in the United States has been growing steadily for more over 30 years, a great portion of this population are returned offenders. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics reports, each year more than 650,000 offenders are released into communities with at least 5 million of the ex-offenders being under some form of community-based supervision (James, 2010). In an attempt to curtail the rate of recidivism, the Bureau of Prison contracts with Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to assist inmates approaching release. RRC’s provide safe, structured, supervised environment, as well as employment counseling, job placement and financial management assistance (Prisons, 2017).
Offender reentry refers to when an offender has finished his term in prison and he is being released into the community or is being released to the community for community service before he finishes his jail term. It includes all programming that the system performs for the purposes of preparing the offender into the community (James, 2009). The one thing I found interesting is that though the idea of releasing these criminals is good, the system has not fully implemented the programs of assessing whether a person is actually ready for reentry. This is because in a significant number of instances these criminals result or continue with their habits of substance abuse and other anti-social behaviors causing a lot of problems in the community. Reintegration into the community starts from the decision of the authority to release the offender.
Corrections are an important part of the criminal justice system and they work in concert with law enforcement and the courts. Citizens in the United States expect criminals to be monitored, with some in secured facilities, so they will not fear of becoming continual victim of crime. To illustrate this expectation further, there are 2.5 million individuals on probation or parole and 1 million individuals in jails or prisons (Morris & Tonry, 2013, p. 370). However, does every individual confined in jails and prisons still need to be there or is there a better way to deal with certain special prison populations? Due to the large number of prisoners within the correctional system, certain special populations of inmates do not receive the rehabilitation or care needed to successfully reintegrate back into society. Additionally, these special populations create an undue burden on the correctional system in terms of financial costs associated with their confinement. There are changes that can be made to the criminal justice system to accommodate special populations of inmates. This paper will explore the alternative
Therefore, it is necessary to carry out a research interview on the people who have previously undergone through a recidivism process. However, in the United States of America, there are millions of individuals who have had previously undergone this process (Schneider, 2008). Therefore, it is impossible to interview this great number of population, and thus the researcher had to choose a sample from the population, which will lead to generalized results. In addition, the research sample size should be of a significant size. Nevertheless, the identification of variables is very essential for this
Many criminals are sent to jail on a day to day basis. Once they have completed their sentence they are faced with many problems once they are “free”. These problems can be but are not limited to housing, employment, and substance abuse. The prisoner, once they are released, has a tendency to go back to their old ways and to continue the life of crime they were a part of prior to prison. To avoid this, while a prisoner is in prison, the staff creates a reentry program for the prisoner. The reentry program takes affect once the prisoner leaves prison. These programs are created within the community to help the offender from committing new crimes and to integrate them back into society. These programs are also created to help with
Since the 1970s, America’s prison population rate has risen 700%. Despite the U.S. comprising only 5% of the world’s population, it is the largest jailer with 25% of the world’s prison population with one in 99 adults in prison and one in 31 under some type of correctional control (Mass Incarceration Problems, 2014, p. 1). According to 2013 data, 2.2 million are currently incarcerated in U.S. prisons or jails (Incarceration, 2013, para. 1), a figure that indicates a rising problem with prison overcrowding. While prison overcrowding increases the economic burdens on local and state governments, common factors leading to the high prison population is linked to the need for improved juvenile programs that deter criminal behavior and fund for rehabilitation for reentry into mainstream society. With effective programs to deter juvenile crime and to aid in offender reentry coupled with sentencing reforms, overcrowding in the nation’s prisons would decline.
About ninety-three percent of all people incarcerated are released eventually. Within three years, seventy percent of those released will be rearrested. states that inmates fail to successfully reenter society because of mental health issues, substance abuse, past criminal acts, total education level, economic standing, among other things. One an inmate is out they should have been rehabilitated in every way possible. They should be ready to enter a world that has evolved with no mercy towards them. Reentry in communities are determined by the amount of opportunity offered by the community itself. For example, the obtainability of housing, drug abuse treatment programs, health services, schooling and hiring opportunities are crucial for integration. One of the
The United States justice system can be described as a cycle, where people enter the prison system, are released, and upon failure to integrate into society soon find themselves back behind bars. Although the means in which the cycle is perpetuated can be argued, the rate of re-offenders is constantly trying to be reduced. One term used to define this type of convict is recidivism, which is the repeat criminal action of a convicted inmate. Recidivism is fastly becoming a issue in the United States as it has been shown that 70% of convicted offenders have been reconvicted within three years of release (Esperian, 2010, p. 322). As crime of any background can be detrimental to society, this high rate of reentry into the justice system has stimulated
One major problem of prison overcrowding is the effect it has on prison organizational stability. The more prisoners and people put in jail have made it harder for prison guards and staff to monitor and control them. The entire prison system must make enormous changes in order to accommodate for the number of inmates versus the number of prison guards (O’Leary). This often results in a misclassification of offenders. Many who come through the system are classified based on the amount of space available instead of on the security level and programs that would be most suitable for them (Howard). “It is not uncommon to find inmates, classified as medium security, incarcerated in maximum security institutions, while other inmates are in medium security who were previously considered candidates for maximum security” (Howard). Misclassifying offenders often leads to “slow progress through the corrections system as well as a slow exit” (Howard). This in turn only prolongs and increases the overcrowding problem (Howard). The corrections programs should be reformed to meet the needs of the inmates rather than the inmates having to adjust to meet the requirements of the system. Offenders need to be on specific rehabilitation programs that are customized to fit their needs, such as alcohol and drug abuse programs and so forth.
Research on recidivism reveals a variety of different ways to define and measure its effectiveness on the outcome. One instrument widely used in assessing offenders is the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R). The LSI-R was developed with short-term offenders and community supervisees. It assesses largely risk factor for recidivism and is designed to inform parole management decisions (Manchak et al., 2008). The 54 items of the LSI-R assess ten “risk-needs” factors: criminal history, education/employment, financial, family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, peers/companions, alcohol/drug problems, emotional/personal, and attitude/orientation (p. 478). Results indicate that the LSI-R moderately predicts general, but not necessarily violent recidivism (p. 477). The utility of the LSI-R in predicting community recidivism is well established for probationers and minor offenders.
The search strategies for this study resulted in the collection seven evaluations of common barriers that are believed to affect community reintegration for inmates returning back to the community, and successful interventions, that successfully reduced or increased recidivism. An additional evaluation was excluded for several reasons, including that it did not have a comparable control group and failed to show results of the program evaluations, and actual quantitative results to support the claims of the study. Additional studies were excluded for Inclusion if the studies were conducted outside of the United States, or were considered deterrence programs for first-time offenders, in lieu of prison time, in order to avoid false inferences