Reentry Best Practices

Transcription

THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE
CORRECTION AL ADMINISTRATORS
REENTR Y BEST
PRA CTICES:
DIRECT ORS’
PERSPECTIVES
REGIN ALD A. WILKINSON, E d .D.
PRESIDENT
Association of
State
Correctional
Administrators
Correctional Best Practices
Directors’ Perspectives
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D.
Editor
An ASCA Publication*Middletown, CT*July 2004
Contents
Foreword
v
Chapter 1
Prison Programs
1
Domestic Violence— Theresa Lantz
Inmate Skills Development Initiative—Harley Lappin
Preparing the Inmate from Day One—Richard Stalder
Computer Repair A+ Certification Program—Christopher Epps
Back on the Street, For Good This Time!—Christopher Epps
Nebraska’s Reentry Phase I Programming: In Focus—
Harold Clarke
Discharge Planning for Offenders at the Expiration of
Their Custodial Term—Devon Brown
Level of Assignment Management Program—Devon Brown
Project Power—Joe Williams
From Entry to Reentry—Glenn Goord
Nevada’s Reentry Programs for Offenders—Jackie Crawford
Positive Links in the Circle of Life for Offenders—
Reginald A. Wilkinson
Finding a Balance: Quality, Cost Effective Treatment
Programs—Jeffrey Beard
Short Term Offender Program—Jon Ozmint
Changes Program—Gary Johnson
3
9
13
19
21
Chapter 2
Transitional Programs
National Institute of Corrections’ Transition from Prison
to Community Initiative—Harley Lappin
Recidivism Reducing Programs—Harley Lappin
Planning for Opportunities—Thomas Beauclair
Going Home: A Collaborative Effort to Help Serious and
Violent Offenders Safely and Successfully Reenter
Iowa Communities—Gary Maynard
The Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women’s Pre-Release
Program—John Rees
Alternatives to Incarceration—Richard Stalder
Re-Thinking the Way We Do Business—Richard Stalder
Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP): Enhancing
Individual & Community Capacity—Mary Livers
The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative—Patricia Caruso
Born Again: Release Into Society—Christopher Epps
The Mississippi Reentry Program—Christopher Epps
27
33
37
43
47
51
55
59
67
69
71
73
77
81
85
91
93
97
99
105
109
115
The Free & Clean Programs in Kansas City and
St. Louis—Gary Kempker
Project Connect—Gary Kempker
Nebraska’s Mentoring Program for Children of Incarcerated
Offenders—Harold Clarke
REENTRY: A Faith-based Perspective— Devon Brown
Probation & Parole: Reentry Initiative— Joe Williams
Discharge Planning: Focusing a Department of Correction
on “Correction”—Martin Horn
Transitional Services Program—A Seamless Transition from
Prison to the Community—Glenn Goord
Reentry in Ohio: A Systems Approach to Offender Planning—
Victims of Domestic Violence and Batterer’s Intervention for
Incarcerated Offenders—Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D.
Partnership for the Reintegration of Offenders Through
Education & Community Treatment—Ron J. Ward
Risk Management and Offender Reentry—Ron J. Ward
Successful Community Reentry: A Reason to be Optimistic—
Joan Fabian
Reentry Initiative—Mike Chabries
Community Reentry and Female Offenders—Matthew Frank
Juvenile Corrections—Going Home Project—Matthew Frank
Chapter 3
Mental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
Transition from Incarceration Dependency to Community
Self-sufficiency Begins Upon Admission—Theresa Lantz
A Continuum of Care for Inmate with Psychiatric Disabilities—
Theresa Lantz
The Sheridan Program: A National Model in Clinical Reentry—
Roger Walker
Sisters Together Achieving Recovery—Gary Maynard
Iowa’s Mental Health Reentry Programs—Gary Maynard
Kansas COR-Pathways Program: Transitional Planning for
Offenders with Mental Illness—Roger Werholtz
A Pre-release and Transitional Services Program for Inmates
with Serious and Pervasive Mental Illness—John Rees
RESTART: A New Direction in Corrections Philosophy—
Mary Livers
DWI Treatment Unit—Joe Williams
Community Orientation & Reentry Program—Glenn Goord
Reentry: Transformation of Ohio’s Correctional Mental Health
System of Care—Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D.
ii
119
125
129
133
137
143
149
153
157
161
167
171
175
181
185
189
191
197
201
205
207
213
217
221
225
229
233
Consumer-driven Reentry Programs for Mental Health
Services—Ron J. Ward
Fellowship Community Reintegration Service a Reentry Program
for Mentally Ill Offenders—A.T. Wall
Reentry Drug Courts in Texas: Meeting the Challenge of
Reintegration—Gary Johnson
Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Program— Joseph D. Lehman
Elements of Release Planning for Mentally Ill Offenders—
Matthew Frank
Chapter 4
Chapter 5
Community / Supervision Strategies
237
241
245
249
255
259
The Indiana Sex Offender Management & Monitoring Program:
Managing Offenders Upon Reentry for Safer
Communities—Evelyn Ridley-Turner
The Shawnee County Reentry Program—Roger Werholtz
Victim Services & Offender Reentry—Roger Werholtz
Ceasefire Curb Violence Offender Meetings—Gary Kempker
A Treatment Engagement Strategy for Sex Offenders Released
to the Community—Devon Brown
Parole Violator Needs Assessment Survey—
Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D.
The Family Life Center: A Holistic Approach to Prisoner
Reentry—A.T. Wall
Reentry in Texas—Gary Johnson
Welcome Back Program—Gary Johnson
Collaboration, West Virginal Style—Jim Rubenstein
287
291
295
297
Promising or Unique Services
301
Helping Inmates Find The Way Home—Stanley Taylor, Jr.
Involving Multiple Agencies in Reentry by Means of Memoranda
of Agreement—Stanley Taylor, Jr.
Changing the Culture in the Idaho Department of Correction—
Tom Beauclair
Project Rise: Reintegration Into Society through Education—
Evelyn Ridley-Turner
Transitional Jobs Project...And Employment for All—
Mary Livers
Nebraska’s Reentry Initiative Pilot—Harold Clarke
Responsible Parenting Program—Devon Brown
303
261
265
269
273
277
281
307
313
319
325
329
333
iii
Going Home Initiative—Theodis Beck
JobStart II: Transitioning Inmates to Employment—
Theodis Beck
Reducing Homelessness Among Offenders in North Carolina—
Theodis Beck
Citizen Circles: Building Community Partnerships—
Fathers Matter and the Children of the Incarcerated—
Medical Parole Process in Oklahoma—Ron J. Ward
Project Bridge: A Reentry Program for Inmates with Infectious
Diseases—A.T. Wall
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative—Gary Johnson
Washington State’s Law Enforcement Notification Program—
Joseph D. Lehman
Victim Wrap Around—Joseph D. Lehman
The Path to Victim Empowerment—Jim Rubenstein
Connecting the Dots—Jim Rubenstein
ASCA History
Camille and George Camp
339
343
353
359
363
367
371
375
379
383
387
391
397
Bibliography
403
Reentry Resource Guide
417
Addendum
ASCA Committee Members
ASCA Regional Map
ASCA DOC’s with Parole/Probation Responsibilities
ASCA Michael Francke Award Recipients
ASCA Corrections Directions—Select President’s Corners
Reentry From the Washington Beltway
ACA Support Letter to Members of Congress
White House Press Release
The Second Chance Act of 2004 Overview
The Second Chance Act of 2004
437
439
445
447
449
451
455
457
459
461
465
iv
Foreword
President, ASCA
The publication of this monograph, Reentry Best Practices: Directors’ Perspectives, reflects the
continuing commitment of the Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA) to excellence in all facets of correctional practice. It draws its inspiration from two previous publications entitled Correctional Best Practices: Directors’ Perspectives produced under then
ASCA President Joe Lehman in 2000, as well as the ACA publication Best Practices: Excellence in Corrections in 1998. The articles that follow in this volume are unique in focus highlighting outstanding initiatives and programs associated with the growing national movement in
corrections targeting offender reentry.
As correctional administrators confront growing demands for accountability, it is critical that
correctional best practices become part of the mainstream of how the field does business. This
new monograph recognizes that the effectiveness and success of best practices supportive of
reentry need to be shared with others. It is organized to convey some of the more notable reentry innovations now underway both as a means to recognize what is being accomplished, and to
offer examples that other jurisdictions may choose to replicate.
A publication of this kind displays a commendable willingness on the part of association members to engage in an ongoing dialogue about reentry with others. The jurisdictions represented
across these pages took the time to provide one or more submissions to showcase reentry best
practices they believed worthy of consideration. The directors and staff from these agencies deserve the gratitude of individuals within the field who are now positioned to know more, and to
contribute more relative to sound and effective correctional work in the professional areas for
which they are responsible.
Initiatives such as this occur with a lot of hard work by a lot of people. The first time I was appointed to an ASCA Reentry Committee, Gary Johnson, Executive Director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice was the Chair. Thanks to Gary and the Reentry Committee for
their dedication, inspiration, and support of this project. I appreciate the ongoing contributions
and leadership of our Executive Directors, Camille and George Camp, as well as the rest of the
ASCA/CJI team, especially Marla Clayton, for their expertise with this and many other initiatives.
I owe a special debt of gratitude to the staff of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Many of them have spent countless hours on the editorial- and production-related details of converting a collection of individual articles into a thoughtful and very readable product.
These individuals include Dr. Edward Rhine, Amy Hollingsworth, Linda Diroll, Debra Hearns,
Angi Lee, Irene Lyons, and Brian Niceswanger. In addition, Chief of the Ohio Prison Industries, Robin Knab, and Larry Krist are owed a deep thank you for their conscientious oversight
of the printing of this document.
v
The association understands that the successful transition of offenders from confinement to the
free world carries enormous implications for public safety and community well being. Doing
reentry well makes good sense. The articles contained in this work point to many impressive
initiatives underway across the country. Their content offers strategic and programmatic pathways that might be fruitfully pursued by correctional leaders, practitioners, academicians, community members, and many others with an interest in the successful return home of incarcerated
offenders.
vi
Chapter One
Pr ison Programs
Domestic Violence
Connecticut Department of Corrections
Theresa Lantz, Commissioner
It has become abundantly clear in recent years that our country’s correctional systems must do
more than simply confine offenders. The “get tough” sentencing policies of the early and mid1990s served their purpose in decreasing the crime rate and thus increasing the levels of public
safety. But budgetary and societal pressures, which are no longer supportive of the resulting
growth in prison populations, are demanding that corrections gets back into the business of correcting the individual. There is a growing expectation that offenders should leave our facilities
better off and more productive than when they arrived and that recidivism should be positively
impacted as a result.
In the past year, the mission statement of the Connecticut Department of Correction (CDOC)
has been expanded to include the phrase, “…with opportunities that support successful community reintegration.” This strengthened commitment has provided us with opportunities for proactive and highly beneficial programming, among which is our approach to offenders with domestic violence issues.
Like all other states, the CDOC has always had incarcerated offenders who had committed acts
of domestic violence, even thought it was rare for them to be incarcerated for domestic violence
unless the domestic violence resulted in death or serious injury. Husbands or domestic partners
have always assaulted women, but it was not until recently that these men have been held accountable.
In Connecticut, change came in 1986 as a result of Title 46b of the General Statutes. This law,
which occurred on the heels of a nationally publicized domestic violence incident, required that
Prison Programs
3
Reentry Best Practices: Directors’ Perspectives
an arrest be made whenever police thought there was probable cause that violence occurred
among intimate partners. No longer was it necessary for the victim to file a complaint.
While not everyone who is arrested is incarcerated, the passing of this law resulted in a large
increase in men incarcerated for domestic violence in the CDOC.
Some CDOC staff had been involved with working with victims of domestic violence in their
communities. In addition, some had gotten exposed to newly emerging “batterer” intervention
programs. One counselor, with the support of one of the department’s wardens, developed a
brief batterer intervention program. Other than this effort, it was several years before any further development took place.
Five years ago the CDOC developed a new unit to more closely examine it’s programming,
with a desire to insure that these programs served to further its mission. One of the first areas
that was examined from this “mission-based programming” perspective was domestic violence.
One of the first questions often asked in this initial stage was, “how many offenders are incarcerated for domestic violence?” As it turned out this was not an easy question to answer since
perpetrators of domestic violence could be incarcerated under a number of different assault or
other charges. In addition, charges could be reduced as a result of plea-bargaining. We could
not accurately estimate the extent of the problem.
Therefore, a decision was made to create an addition to the CDOC’s computerized classification system. A “DV” sub-code was instituted in March of 2001. Upon admission or as a result
of regular classification reviews, offenders who were involved in a domestic violence incident
were classified as such in the new sub-code. A review one year later demonstrated that the
CDOC had many more such offenders that it had imagined with 2,530 sentenced male offenders. This included those whose instant offense was an act of domestic violence and also those
who had at some time committed an act of domestic violence.
When the CDOC learned just how many such offenders it had in its custody, it was clear that a
department-wide initiative was in order. That led to a closer examination of programming.
It was clear that the domestic violence programming needed to be extended to other facilities.
First, the curriculum that was offered was reviewed to determine to what extent it was supported by available research. This has led to a constant process of reviewing the CDOC curriculum as research evidence has unfolded about the effectiveness of batterer intervention programs.
As in other areas of correctional programming, there sometimes develops a pattern of doing
things that is based more on ideology than research. The good news is that there is now an
evolving body of literature that can help as programs are designed and implemented.
The bad news is that there is virtually no literature on the subject of domestic violence offenders who are incarcerated. It is likely that while there is overlap with community offenders, that
there are also considerable differences. More needs to be learned in this area, and the CDOC’s
4
Prison Programs
upcoming research effort, described below, is designed to begin answering these questions.
Following the development of a curriculum that was consistent with available research, the next
step was to extend it into other facilities. CDOC trainers were identified and other interested
counselors were trained. The facility-based component is now being conducted in nine of the
CDOC’s eighteen facilities.
By statute, offenders remanded to the custody of the CDOC for two years or less may be released into the community after they serve fifty percent of their sentence. This release mechanism, referred to as transitional supervision, includes having a sponsor with whom the person
can live. Community Enforcement officers provide supervision of the offender until sentence
completion. Given the perceived risk of placing domestic violence offenders in the community,
virtually no offender was place in the community. This fact was the next thing subject to scrutiny.
Community meetings were held with special domestic violence docket staff, the Connecticut
Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and others. The purpose of this meeting was to survey
their views on the practice of placing offenders into the community without a period of supervision and programming. The opinion was unanimous that it would be preferable to place them
in the community.
At that time this came as somewhat of a surprise to some CDOC staff. “What if one of these
men really hurts or even kills someone in the community under our watch?” The resounding
response was that everyone was aware of that risk, but also aware that the offender was either
going to come out with no supervision and programming or was going to come out in a more
monitored manner with people helping that person make a successful transition.
It is at such junctures that a critical decision must be made. What is the priority: to avoid the
possibility of being criticized by placing someone in the community, or doing what appeared to
be best from a public safety perspective? The CDOC chose the latter.
The first decision made in this process was that anyone being considered for placement in the
community would have to first complete the facility-based component. In addition to serving as
an introduction to domestic violence programming, participation also afforded an opportunity to
screen the offenders.
During the facility-based program, offenders are expected to assume some degree of responsibility for the domestic violence. They are encouraged to examine their beliefs and attitudes that
may contribute to the domestic violence. If an offender cannot positively participate in the
group, the CDOC took the position that he would not be an appropriate candidate for the community-based component of the program.
Based on our understanding of the literature we also established some exclusionary criteria:
•
•
Extensive criminal (especially violent) histories
History of stalking
Prison Programs
5
•
•
History of extremely violent domestic violence
No history of employment
The CDOC also wanted to insure that victims had an opportunity to participate in this process.
If the CDOC had a victim notification filed with its Victim Services Unit the victim was contacted to determine if they had any concerns about placing the offender in the community. In
addition, notification was sent to the judicial department’s Office of Victim Services.
All offenders considered for the program were placed on electronic monitoring. The logic behind this was that we wanted to provide extra structure to assist them follow conditions of release and also help identify those offenders who needed some other intervention.
The group format chosen was a twice-weekly group conducting for an hour and a half. The offenders had to complete sixteen weeks (thirty-two sessions). This continued for several years
and during that time a second and recently a third group was developed in other major urban
areas. These groups were contracted out with providers who had experience working with batterers.
In addition, in order to insure that the CDOC was delivering a high-quality program we contracted with an outside expert to provide training and consultation, not only to the facility providers but also the community providers.
There are a number of published and unpublished research findings that have shaped recent developments. First, there is some evidence that supervision for this group of offenders may have
more of an impact than treatment. Given that, and given a long waiting list to get into the community groups, a decision was made to shorten the length of time that offenders have to participate in groups from thirty-two sessions to twenty-four sessions. Offenders with more time remaining on their sentence continue to receive supervision until the end of their sentence.
Second, the CDOC also has a large number of offenders in the eastern part of the state who are
not geographically centered in one city. We have contracted with an experienced provider to
integrate CDOC offenders into their already existing court-mandated community groups in four
separate locations. The next question that we need to answer is, “Does it work?”
Thus far, after placing several hundred offenders in this problem, there has been one return to
custody as the individual violated a protective order. That does mean, however, that the model
the CDOC has been using is more effective than simply keeping them incarcerated until the end
of their sentence.
Evaluating program effectiveness is always a challenge in correctional settings. If, however,
the field is to advance, it is vitally important that research be properly designed and conducted.
It is for this reason that we will be implementing the following research protocol.
The following is the research design that will be implemented in upcoming months.
All those domestic violence offenders who complete the facility-based programs will be placed
6
Prison Programs
in two categories, those recommended for the community program and those not. Those recommended for the community program will essentially be placed in a first-come -first-served
manner that essentially will produce the same result as random assignment.
These groups will be followed for several years to determine if placement in the community
program has any impact on rates of recidivism.
The CDOC is essentially in the public safety business. As such it is dedicated to adapt policies
and programming that is based on evidence-based research. The confluence of research evidence and shifting public opinion supported recidivism reduction is going to provide the DOC
and criminal justice organizations across the country with unparalleled opportunities to significantly impact public safety.
Prison Programs
7
Inmate Skills Development Initiative
Federal Bureau of Prisons
Harley G. Lappin, Director
The Inmate Skills Development (ISD) initiative is the Bureau’s most comprehensive initiative
that addresses inmate reentry concerns. It is a process rather than a stand-alone program. This
initiative is derived from and directly tied to the Bureau’s mission.
Background:
In May 2000, the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ Executive Staff established an Inmate Skills Development (ISD) Re-engineering Workgroup to examine how the Bureau could improve efforts
to equip inmates with the necessary skills to succeed upon release to the community. The
workgroup began by investigating successful agencies, institutions, and programs in the field to
identify best practices. They held site visits and meetings with community corrections centers,
state Departments of Corrections, U.S. Probation offices, Correctional Service of Canada, the
National Institute of Corrections, private agencies, and other criminal justice experts. The
workgroup also conducted a comprehensive review of the relevant literature, concluding that
research consistently supports the effectiveness of sound inmate programs, not only as a means
to reduce recidivism and enhance reentry, but also as a management technique to reduce disruptive behavior in institution settings. This investigation confirmed the assumption behind the
workgroup’s creation: the Bureau could potentially do more to enhance inmate skills development and, in turn, enhance the likelihood of an inmate’s successful reentry to the community.
For the Bureau to make an organizational commitment to this initiative, shifts in philosophy
were needed to complement and re-emphasize the Bureau’s mission (to prepare inmates for release to the community). And, these shifts had to be communicated to all staff. Specifically,
Prison Programs
9
the delivery of inmate programs had to be expressly linked to the development of relevant inmate reentry skills; inmate skills development had to be viewed within the context of demonstrable skills with a focus on skill acquisition rather than simple program completion. Additionally, program resources had to be allocated to target high-need inmates with a high risk for reentry failure.
In order to provide a clear framework for service delivery and efficient methods for information
collection and distribution, the Bureau established the Inmate Skills Development (ISD) Branch
in headquarters. A multi-disciplinary committee was formed to provide oversight and support
to the Branch.
Inmate Skills Development Branch:
The ISD Branch’s mission is to coordinate efforts to implement inmate skill development initiatives across BOP sites and with external agencies. Responsibilities include the development of
an inmate skills assessment instrument, design of an individualized skills development plan to
monitor progress, coordination of program linkage to address skill needs, and development of
collaborative partnerships to assist with community transition.
Inmate Skills Identified:
Focus groups throughout the Bureau were used to assist in identifying skills that are critical to
successful reentry:
Daily Living Skills - Displays independent living skills commensurate with institution or community opportunities. Include maintenance of a clean residence, a responsible budget to include
a savings account, meal preparation, appropriate personal hygiene and appearance, and proper
etiquette. Obtains, maintains, and/or contributes financially to a legal residence and any necessary transportation. Obeys institution rules and regulations and local, state and Federal laws. Is
able to access community resources to assist with identified needs.
Mental Health Skills - Maintains sound mental health through avoidance of substance abuse/
dependence and other self-destructive behaviors and use of effective coping techniques. Participates in appropriate medication and/or treatment regime as necessary to address any acute or
chronic mental health issues.
Wellness Skills - Maintains physical well-being through health promotion and disease prevention strategies, such as a healthy lifestyle and habits, routine medical care, regular exercise, and
appropriate diet. Participates in appropriate medication and/or treatment regime as necessary to
address any acute or chronic medical conditions.
Interpersonal Skills - Relates appropriately and effectively with staff, peers, visitors, family,
co-workers, neighbors, and members of the community by observing basic social conventions
and rules. Displays the ability to develop and maintain healthy relationships, while avoiding
co-dependent relationships and negative interpersonal influences.
10
Prison Programs
Academic Skills - Participates and progresses in educational activities commensurate with ability and occupation to serve as foundational skills for other reentry skills. Reads, writes, and
utilizes basic arithmetic at a level necessary to function in a correctional environment and in
society.
Cognitive Skills - Engages in accurate self-appraisal by acknowledging and correcting irrational
thinking patterns. Is cognizant of the importance of goal-setting. Solves problems effectively,
maintains self-control, and displays pro-social values. Acknowledges and appropriately corrects criminal thinking patterns and behaviors.
Vocational/Career Skills - Acquires and maintains employment in order to become selfsufficient and fulfill financial obligations. Engages in purposeful activity, develops abilities
useful in the acquisition and maintenance of post-release employment and the pursuit of career
goals.
Character Skills - Maintains a sense of accountability to self and others through attention to the
potential impact (short- and long-term) of actions. Seeks to engage in behaviors which reflect
pro-social values, thus creating a positive impact in their life and the lives of others. Displays a
healthy tolerance for delayed gratification. Displays the capacity for self-reflection and consideration of meaning in life in relation to a particular faith or personal philosophy.
Leisure Time Skills - Engages in meaningful recreational activities and hobbies, making positive
and effective use of free time and facilitating stress management and favorable peer affiliations.
Inmate Skills Assessment:
A major task for this initiative was to develop a valid and reliable Inmate Skills Assessment
(ISA) instrument that targets each of the nine previously-identified skill categories. The ISA
initiates and facilitates the entire inmate skill development process. It is a dynamic instrument
that uses information from a variety of sources, including court documents, a structured interview with the inmate, behavioral observations of the inmate, and selected supplemental assessment instruments. Supplemental instruments are administered selectively based upon identified
needs and include the Adult Basic Learning Examination (ABLE), Weschler Adult Intelligence
Scale - III (WAIS-III), Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), and the Psychopathy Checklist
- Revised (PCL - R.)
The ISA is administered at the beginning of the inmate’s sentence and provides staff with a
comprehensive picture of an inmate’s strengths and weaknesses as they relate to his/her release
readiness. The assessment information is continuously updated throughout the period of incarceration.
Individualized Skills Development Plan:
To monitor and guide reentry planning and programming, a comprehensive, individualized
Skills Development Plan is generated for each inmate from information obtained through the
assessment process. The plan identifies specific skill deficits; in collaboration with the unit
Prison Programs
11
team, the inmate sets goals to address these needs. Progress with respect to skill acquisition can
be monitored on an individual basis, as well as collectively to determine the population’s range
of needs. This feature allows resource planning and program development based on a broader
spectrum. This approach enables institution staff and outside agencies to track progress in
remediating an inmate’s deficits and highlight skill accomplishments, and provides for a consistent, timely, flow of information that will assist the community transition.
The Bureau of Prisons is committed to ensuring that release preparation begins the first day of
the inmate’s incarceration and culminates in a successful transition back to the community.
12
Prison Programs
Preparing the Inmate from Day One
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections
Richard Stalder, Secretary
Key Elements to Successful Offender Reentry
Key elements contributing to reduced recidivism, (and therefore the key elements of Louisiana’s offender reentry strategies), are basic education, job skills training, substance abuse treatment, and values development (to include voluntary faith-based initiatives.)
Basic Education
Education starts with beginning levels of literacy, and continues through the areas of reading,
social studies, mathematics, and writing. All of which provide a foundation for the offender’s
pro-social life skills. Louisiana also provides educational opportunities in basic literacy, Adult
Basic Education (ABE), and General Education Development (GED) preparation within the
institutions.
It is also important to make educational programming available to offenders released to supervision. The education level of individuals under supervision is generally low. Between 40% and
50% of offenders released to the greater New Orleans area for example, lack a high school diploma or GED equivalency. Many offenders cannot gain or maintain employment without job
readiness assistance, training, education, and employment counseling, which may be provided
while incarcerated if offenders are targeted.
The New Orleans Reentry Center provides pre-G.E.D. classes for probationers and parolees.
Upon obtaining employment, participants are not required to continue with the educational portion of the program. However, if participants have time to participate after work, staff will acPrison Programs
13
commodate them to achieve their academic goals.
Job skills training
Employment is a major concern for offenders returning home from prison. A significant percentage of inmates who enter prison are not employed at the time they commit the crime. The
availability of vocational programs in the institutions significantly improves the marketable
skills offenders can use upon release. Job skills training, job search skills, and job survival skills
are essential for offenders to remain employed after release. Additionally, it is important to
provide offenders assistance in making decisions regarding education, training, and employment. Creating new vocational programs and expanding existing ones provides more skillbuilding opportunities for offenders.
Louisiana offers a variety of vocational training including electronics, culinary, auto-body,
automotive technology, welding, office systems technology, carpentry, upholstery, HVAC, diesel technology, and horticulture programming. Vocational educational programs are provided
through a cooperative effort with the Louisiana Technical College system.
As of April 2004, the Department has identified sixty-six companies in the New Orleans area
willing to screen and interview ex-offenders for employment. There is also a website that
matches offenders with potential employers prior to release. Linking inmates discharging from
vocational trade programs to employers who need these skills is also important.
Substance abuse treatment
According to the United States Department of Justice, Corrections Program Office, approximately 70% of all offenders are in need of substance abuse treatment. Many offenders have
substance abuse problems that contribute to their criminality. Dealing with those problems is
an essential reentry objective.
Substance abuse awareness and education support individual well-being and public safety. Any
success in lessening an offender’s involvement with alcohol and drugs has the potential to increase that individual’s good judgment and lead to a safer society.
Louisiana has introduced therapeutic communities in the adult system by using federal dollars
authorized through the Federal Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program. The offenders
must participate in individual and group treatment activities designed to help them function responsibly when they return to the community.
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and Narcotics Anonymous (NA) chapters in the institutions expand and support substance abuse treatment and prevention. Working in conjunction with the
Criminal Sheriff of Orleans Parish, a 30-day Blue Walters Substance Abuse Treatment Program
was implemented to help curb the number of technical violators returning to prison. Suitable
adult inmates are assigned to the in-patient facility in southern Louisiana. The program is being
expanded to a 200-bed facility in northern Louisiana.
Drug convictions represent 44.1% of the offenses that offenders are paroled for in Louisiana
and 41.3% of the offenses for which individuals are placed on probation. Overtaxed resources
14
Prison Programs
are insufficient to respond to the many offenders who are returning to our communities. It is
unlikely that offenders who are in need of treatment, that is inaccessible, will succeed in the
community.
The Reentry Center in the New Orleans West District Office offers substance abuse treatment
contracted through a Board Certified Substance Abuse Counselor (BCSAC.) This group meets
twice a week and focuses on relapse prevention. Local publicly supported providers have a
large list of individuals waiting for services. Often before services begin, probationers and parolees are arrested on new drug-related charges. By providing services onsite, agents can monitor participation and arrange for appropriate interventions to lessen the likelihood of recidivism.
Values development
Most inmates have a values base that is inconsistent with what it takes to adjust in society. Inmates who make positive, substantial changes while in prison are less likely to return. Religious faith and the support of believers help people change. The continued establishment of
faith-based and character based programs is crucial to helping offset these deficits.
Personal skills
In December 1997, the Department launched the “Children’s Initiative,” a primary crime prevention program designed to make a positive impact on children from birth to age ten and thus
foster a generation of healthy, nourished and nurtured children who will be far less likely, as
they mature, to be involved in violence, drop out of school, or use drugs – all significant factor
linked to subsequent criminality. The Children’s Initiative includes three primary components,
parenting skills training, Steps to Success, and CHARACTER COUNTS! Staff is encouraged
to get involved at various levels possible to demonstrate the simple things that can be done to
support children and improve quality of life.
Parenting
Parenting skills programming offers an immediate way to make a long-range impact on crime.
It enhances the ability of current and future parents and grandparents, and other caregivers who
are presently under correctional supervision, to raise healthier, more nurtured children. Parenting skills are taught in our correctional facilities, providing every offender the opportunity to
gain valuable skills or enhance their skills as parents prior to release.
Many studies have shown that the father plays a valuable, unique, and irreplaceable role in rearing healthy children. A father’s absence is shown to be harmful to child development and well
being whereas the supportive father brings attitudes, values, and skills to the children and family that support growth, development, and stability.
Children who spend time with their fathers are more likely to complete high school and go to
college, avoid criminal activity, avoid abuse of chemicals and substances, and are more likely to
experience positive feelings.
In May 2003, staff at Dixon Correctional Institute introduced offenders to The Nurturing Father’s Program. The program was created to cultivate and support the attitudes and skills for
male nurturance, hoping to benefit men, women, and children in family relationships. OffendPrison Programs
15
ers learn the valuable, unique, and irreplaceable role of being a father. Offender reaction to the
program has been positive and encouraging.
Character Education
In May 1998, the Department joined the CHARACTER COUNTS! Coalition. Its goal is to
strengthen the character of America’s young people by encouraging them to adopt a consistent
set of ethical values: trustworthiness, respect, responsibility, fairness, caring, and citizenship.
Employees offer a valuable community service by volunteering to conduct training at local
schools, clubs, and churches.
Faith-based community - Keeping the family unit together
Religious programs will help an offender prepare for a successful re-entry into the community
by establishing a spiritual foundation from which he can make sound, moral decisions. Developing partnerships with faith-based institutions that can help the ex-offenders maintain their
good intentions and positive efforts are crucial to the success of CORe.
Results of a 3-year study by the Department show that when offenders are involved in an effective prison ministry, the percentage of those rearrested drops dramatically from 41 percent to
14%.
Dozens of chaplains and hundreds of volunteers comprise the heart of religious programming
available to offenders in all institutions. Space limitations force services into less than suitable
spots like cafeterias and classrooms. Louisiana’s response was the establishment of a nonprofit,
ecumenical Louisiana Prison Chapel Foundation to raise funds to build or upgrade twenty-one
interfaith chapels at Louisiana prisons.
Established in 2000, the Louisiana Prison Chapel Foundation reached 37% of its goal, raising
over three million dollars. As a result, Louisiana is able to provide enhanced religious programming by providing suitable space. New chapels have been completed and dedicated at five institutions. Fundraising is presently underway to build the next group of chapels. Meanwhile,
administrators and inmates at Levy Dabadie Correctional Center in central Louisiana constructed a chapel with monies from the Inmate Welfare Fund and Louisiana State Penitentiary
(LSP) applied rodeo proceeds to build a chapel at one of its out camps.
Unique in the nation is the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary’s Angola Campus at
LSP. The seminary offers two college-level degree programs for the inmate population, a twoyear associate degree and a four-year bachelor’s degree. As many of Angola’s offenders are
serving life sentences, the Department sees its role in the reentry process as mentors, helping
other offenders transition back into the community. Some inmates who have earned their
bachelors degrees are being transferred to other institutions, where they work under the supervision of the chaplain to strengthen religious programming.
The Department has begun to establish a relationship with faith leaders state-wide to encourage
them to develop and implement faith-based programs to meet the needs of children and families
in the community. In December 2003, the Prison Ministry Task force was formed with individuals from the faith-based community and Department representatives to develop a strong
16
Prison Programs
network to help offenders and ex-offenders prepare to successfully reenter society. With a vision of “Maintaining Our Identity – Uniting for a Cause” the task force sponsored a Prison Ministry Conference in March 2004 to begin developing and expanding this network. Representatives from the Governor’s office expressed support to the over 100 faith-based organizations
represented at the conference.
Governor Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco is committed to significantly reducing the rate of offenders returning to prison following their release and has a strong belief that faith and characterbased programming is a vital part of that initiative. In response to that, the Louisiana prison
system will pilot a 200-bed, faith-based and character-based program within one of the adult
prisons. Basic components of the program will include life skills, personal growth education,
mentoring, and substance abuse education. Inmates will live in a therapeutic housing community and will be provided seminars offering practical assistance dealing with reentry issues, to
include special contact with family members to help prepare reentry plans.
Community religious institutions can be a tremendous problem-solving resource because they
have organized resources already in place and the ability to provide moral guidance for offenders that discourages destructive and/or criminal behavior and provides a sense of responsible
living. Communities should begin to turn to their local faith-based institutions and organizations for preventive, early intervention, and rehabilitative services.
Prison Programs
17
Computer Repair A+ Certification Program
Mississippi Department of Corrections
Christopher Epps, Commissioner
Using discarded computers collected from state agencies and transported by the Mississippi
State Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), female inmates at the Central Mississippi
Correctional Facility disassemble computers, replace the broken parts, and update software and
other components to make them ready for Mississippi's public school students to use.
This program is designed to teach students the fundamentals of computer hardware repair.
Skills include diagnostic techniques to determine the capabilities of a computer. It includes replacement of malfunctioning parts such as a hard drive, modem, motherboard, floppy drive, and
installation of needed hardware and software to make the computer conform to industry standards.
The program, which began in February 2003, partners the departments of Corrections and Education with DEQ. It is the first and only computer-recycling program implemented in a correctional facility in Mississippi. The three-fold program is successful in rehabilitating inmates to
become productive members of society, keeping hazardous electronic equipment out of landfills, and providing needed refurbished computers to Mississippi’s public schools.
The classroom is set up for 20 workstations with a computer at each station. A mini lab consists
of an additional 5 computer workstations for lab exercises. Since this program is implemented
by teaching today’s technology techniques, the students are taught all aspects of Windows and
Microsoft technologies. Windows 98, ME, 2000 and XP are used for the operating systems.
Mississippi's school children reap the rewards of the computer recycle program. Mississippi
Prison Programs
19
was the first state in the nation to have Internet accessible computers in every classroom. This
program helps keep those classroom computers up-to-date, at minimal cost to the citizens of the
state.
In September 2003, as many as 40 female inmates applied for the 18 classroom seats in the second computer repair vocational class, an 18-week course. The first class produced 450 computers. The program is financed in part by an in-house inmate welfare fund. The program has
spent about $20,000 to $30,000 on supplies and tests.
This is one of the few programs in the U.S. that will give someone not only a job, but a marketable skill and a decent living. The program also increases their ability to become a taxpaying
citizen and contribute to society in a positive way. Inmates can take other vocational classes
within the facility, such as business technology or family dynamics, but an inmate must have a
high school diploma or GED to qualify for the computer recycling program, and must score
high enough on a test that gauges reading level, comprehension and other skills. Students are
tested weekly. Of the six inmates that participated in the project's first class, all received national hardware certification, and three also received software certification.
The long-term plan is to develop and implement at least two classes in male facilities.
In March of 2003, daily classroom instruction to 20 inmates began. In August, 675 computers
were refurbished. In September, the first six inmates tested for A+ Certification. In October,
four of the six inmates tested passed the A+ Certification Tests (A+ Hardware and A+ Software.) The second class began in October with 20 inmates. In January 2004, eight hundred
computers were ready for distribution.
This program is an example of government working at its best. It helps the inmates, the environment and the educational system all at the same time.
20
Prison Programs
Back on the Street, For Good This Time!
As inmates near the end of their incarceration period, treatment staff must face the overwhelming responsibility of offering the skills and tools necessary for the released inmate to make it
“on the street.” If not, recidivism rates will continue to rise and we, as corrections professionals, tacitly subscribe to Norman Mailer’s theory expounded by Campbell in The Executioner’s
Song.
“Campbell believed the prison system was a complete socialist way of life. No wonder
Gilmore had gotten into trouble. For twelve years, a prison had told him when to go to
bed and when to eat, what to wear and when to get up. It was absolutely diametrically
opposed to the capitalist environment. Then one day they put the
convict out the
front door, told him today is magic, at two o’clock you are a capitalist. Now, do it on
your own. Go out, find a job, get up by yourself, report to work on time, manage your
money, do all the things you were taught not to do in prison. Guaranteed to fail. Eighty
percent went back to jail.”
Norman Mailer, The Executioner’s Song
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) has adopted extensive measures to ensure
that inmates who are preparing for reentry are ready to meet the challenges they are certain to
face. Many who reenter society are unsure how to address the new talking gas pumps, ATM’s,
and other computerized interfaces. Often times they are also unprepared to eat in a restaurant
without resorting to their habitual prison manners and culture. In an effort to combat the problems and challenges an inmate may face upon reentry, each inmate, as he nears his release date
and becomes eligible, is placed in a Pre-Release/Job Assistance Program. This program is ofPrison Programs
21
fered to inmates in the general population, those in community work centers, as well as those
who are sentenced to the Regimented Inmate Discipline Program (Shock Probation.)
The program is staffed by directors, counselors, and academic teachers. It is designed to provide objective assessments through testing and a Career Decision Making System. An Individual Service Strategy (ISS) plan is created for each participant to include employment goals,
achievement goals, needs, expressed interest, and desires. This plan is monitored periodically
to evaluate the progress of each client in meeting the objectives of the ISS including an evaluation of progress in acquiring basic skills and job skills. Program services for the clients include
academic and vocational counseling. The academic curriculum includes achieving competencies in workplace skills, family life skills, and employability skills. The goal-oriented curriculum attempts to instill values, self-esteem, and self-reliance.
The multi-faceted program begins first with orientation and then the administration of the Test
of Adult Basic Education (TABE). The TABE is used as an indicator of each inmate’s achievement levels in basic subjects. The test results also offer information as to which special programs could possibly assist the inmate. While enrolled in the Pre-Release/Job Assistance Program, the inmate participates in daily classroom activities where he is taught basic skills in
these areas: intrapersonal communication, written communication, interview skills, personal
appearance, money management, social trends, value clarification, self-esteem, occupational
guidance, and even parole and probation rules.
Some of the basic program elements offered throughout the State of Mississippi to inmates approaching the transition and reentry phase are:
a. Tutoring, study training and instruction leading to secondary school completion, including dropout prevention strategies.
Individual tutoring is scheduled as needed within the time frame of the regular
classes. Study skills training and academic classes are ongoing activities.
b. Alternative secondary school offering.
Academic instruction is offered throughout the duration of the PreRelease Program.
c. Post-release employment opportunities directly linked to academic and occupational
learning.
Upon release from incarceration and reentry the clients receive employment opportunities. The clients are referred to jobs related to their ISS.
d. Work experiences
Upon a client’s release and reentry he is placed in employment, which is acceptable for job shadowing or internship. This provides exposure to the work force
22
Prison Programs
and its responsibilities and requirements.
e. Leadership development opportunities
Clients serve as tutors for those who need individual assistance with academic
problem areas.
Peer counselors are allowed to serve as group facilitators during group counseling sessions.
Clients are involved in leadership development activities such as: Citizenship,
Life Skills, Employability Skills Training, and Positive Behaviors.
f. Supportive Services
Residences are verified for those who are approaching reentry.
Alcohol and Drug Prevention classes are provided.
Clients are provided medical and legal services through regular institutional procedures.
g. Adult mentoring
Clients are provided aftercare services and also receive adult mentoring by volunteers as needed or requested.
h. Follow-up Services
Counselors track and follow-up with clients by letter, telephone, or visits in order to address any career or work related problems encountered in an effort to
obtain or retain employment.
i. Guidance and Counseling
Counseling is provided to assist the client in overcoming barriers, problems, and
individual needs.
j. Alcohol and Drug Treatment
Clients who are assessed with a history of alcohol and/or drug abuse are provided with counseling and treatment services. They are also provided referrals
to appropriate counseling upon their release from prison based upon individual
needs.
If an inmate does not have a high school diploma or graduate equivalency degree (GED), he is
placed in the GED program. There he has additional classroom instruction and tutoring in an
effort to help him obtain his GED prior to reentry. If he is not eligible for GED classes due to
minimal skills, he is offered a basic literacy program. Upon release, he is then referred to his
local Workforce Investment Network Job Center for additional tutoring, GED classes, and fiPrison Programs
23
nally GED Testing.
While incarcerated each inmate is assigned a counselor who assists with paperwork, selective
service registration, social security card applications, birth certificate applications, and skills
assessments. The counselor also provides individual counseling as needed and requested.
Upon the inmate’s expiration of sentence, he is then transferred from the temporary counselor at
his institution and assigned to a permanent counselor who provides services in the county where
he will be residing upon release. The two counselors work in cooperation to see that each inmate in the program leaves his institution with a leave itinerary indicating the names and addresses of local businesses that are hiring at the present time. The inmate is also provided with
the address of the nearest employment office and Workforce Investment Network Job Center.
Employment opportunities and partnerships are formed as the counselors work throughout the
State in their assigned counties on a monthly basis. Appointments are made with businesses
and counselors request to speak to the owners or managers of the businesses and industries regarding the Pre-Release/Job Assistance Program and the opportunities it can offer to both employee and employer. A brief overview of the program is made to every potential employer
with careful elaboration given to the pre-release job training skills each inmate must successfully complete prior to completing the program. Potential employers are reminded that they are
under no obligation to hire these referrals, but are requested to allow them to interview when a
position becomes available. During this meeting, counselors determine if the business is willing to partner with MDOC and the pre-release/job assistance program in a combined effort to
place inmates in jobs once they are released from prison. Without this program and community
partnership many inmates would not have the self-confidence to attempt to find a job when
newly released from prison.
If a company or business is willing to become a partner, the counselor documents business
names, addresses, phone numbers, and comments, in a resource manual for a quick reference
when needed by any counselor in the State for the benefit of an inmate locating in that area.
Partnerships are not only formed with employees during the pre-release/job assistance phase of
incarceration, but are also formed with outside resources that are invaluable to each inmate both
prior to and after release. Such partnerships include, but are not limited to: social security services, workforce investment network job centers, local community colleges, army recruiters,
and business owners. These partners are invited to visit the inmates while in their classroom
setting and to provide a presentation on services and possibilities for the inmates. Each session
ends with a question and answer period. It is intended that the inmate, upon his release and reentry, will be ready for a job search rather than being inundated with the myriad problems and
challenges of the outside world.
The goal of the Mississippi Department of Corrections is to prepare the newly released inmate
with the skills and tools necessary to begin interviewing for employment. MDOC attempts to
meet this goal by verifying residence to ensure that the releasee has a home from which to make
his return to the job market. This base for beginning life outside is a necessity. Next, a leave
itinerary is provided on the day of release with job referrals, the address of the local employment office, and the name, address and telephone number of the counselor who is assigned to
the offender. Regular follow-up and assistance in finding employment for the inmate is pro24
Prison Programs
vided. The counselor is also available as a source of answers for the questions the offender may
have relating to his reentry, interview process, and job search. Continued contact is made between the counselor and the client. Follow-up continues for up to one year after release or until
the client has obtained employment.
The Pre-Release division has operated employment and training programs since 1976, and has
been successful is securing employment for over 12,000 inmates. While the Mississippi Department of Corrections is continually searching for new and innovative ways to enhance the
pre-release/job assistance program, the program has already proven to be very successful for the
Department and for the clients.
Prison Programs
25
Nebraska’s Reentry Phase I Programming: In Focus
Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
Harold Clarke, Director
The reentry of high-risk, serious, and violent offenders into communities in Nebraska and
across the United States has long been a source of additional serious crime. A significant number of released offenders will be rearrested within three years. Many will be returned to prison
for new crimes, and the cycle of victimization, crime, and punishment will continue.
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), which was developed by the
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, is a comprehensive effort to address
serious, high-risk offenders who are reentering society. It provides funding to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies that will ensure the safety of the community and
the reduction of serious violent crime. This initiative includes three critical phases, the first of
which is Phase I - Protect and Prepare: Institutionally Based Programs.
Phase I includes the selection of participants; therefore, a key first step in planning for and implementing the reentry initiative is to design an assessment process that will identify and rate
the risk and needs that impact an offender’s successful reintegration into the community. It is
during this phase that the Department of Correctional Services is undergoing a redesign of its
classification system. The redesign requires seven steps culminating with the implementation
of a revised classification system for Nebraska. The end product will be a validated objective,
dynamic risk/needs assessment process.
Nebraska’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Program work plan was created in July 2003,
to improve an offender’s access to services and to provide a more comprehensive form of case
management by coordinating service providers at both the state and local levels. Nebraska’s
Prison Programs
27
program will specifically address substance abuse and family relationships. The program will
target serious and violent offenders between the ages of 19 and 35. Approximately 60 to 90
offenders at high risk for recidivism will either be placed into the Nebraska Correctional Center
for Women, the Omaha Correctional Center, the Community Corrections Center – Omaha, or
be placed under the supervision of Adult Parole Administration. Risk and Needs assessments
will be conducted and offenders will be matched with the appropriate levels of services and supervision. The program will identify and provide critical services to a population of offenders
who pose the highest risk to the community. To be successful, the Department has contracted
with the University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) to facilitate and evaluate the Reentry process.
Success means working in partnership throughout all three phases of the initiative. If successful, the program should reduce recidivism for a number of serious, violent, high-risk offenders
within a targeted program in metropolitan Omaha, Nebraska.
Following are some of the programming, treatment, and reintegration challenges that must be
addressed:
1. Employment. Employment is a key factor as there is a clear link between crime and
work opportunity. The Nebraska In Focus program intends to work with offenders on
transitional programs that will ultimately connect offenders to specific jobs in the community. The goal of the program is to have an employer participating in Phase II of the
reentry process and waiting to receive the offender as a full-time employee in Phase III
with the support network still in place for the offender.
2. Education. A key factor to finding and maintaining employment is the development
of certain basic skills such as reading, writing, and arithmetic, necessary to succeed in
the labor market. Educational deficits will be identified in Phase I and a corrective plan
will immediately be put in place. Finally, during the critical follow-up period after job
placement has occurred, each offender’s support team will stay in contact with the employer to identify and avert problems. This support will provide positive motivation,
divert criminal activity, and support substance abuse abstinence.
The prevalence of communicable disease, mental illness, and substance
3. Health.
abuse, is much higher among former prisoners than the general population. Health and
health treatment play an important role in successful reentry programs. For the In Focus
offender population at Phase I, the Department’s health care staff will screen, manage,
treat health care issues, and work to prepare the offender for reentry. Offenders will be
released with an adequate supply of prescribed medications, recognizing that it takes
time for the offenders to establish themselves in the community. It is important for the
In Focus team to practice effective health planning for an offender’s return to society.
The offender must be connected to community services and must have access to Medicaid or Medicare benefits.
4. Housing. One of the most over-looked challenges facing prisoners returning to communities is finding housing. Reentry team partners must work to provide access to affordable and stable housing options to aid in the transition back to the community.
Halfway houses and pre-release centers can be effective tools in reducing recidivism
28
Prison Programs
rates. Housing and homelessness are key issues for individuals returning to prison. Nebraska intends to focus its partnership on helping the individual complete housing applications, access linkages to community support systems that can provide an array of services that help facilitate housing; and finally, gaining access to transitional housing.
5. Faith Community. Most offenders leave prison with only a bus ticket and at least a
hundred dollars in their pockets. Faith and institutions of faith should play an important
role in supporting the transition of returning prisoners and their families.
6. Family. Imprisonment of a loved one is often devastating on the family. Difficulties
include financial loss, emotional problems, and the social stigma attached to having a
family member in prison, and so forth. Perhaps the greatest impact in the cycle of incarceration is the impact on children. The ultimate hope is to involve family and community members who will participate in developing the plan for the offender and support the offender upon release and in all stages of the reentry process. Events in the
days immediately following release can make a difference between successful reintegration and failure, including re-imprisonment. Maintenance of family ties is a critical
factor in reintegration of offenders. Recognition that the incarcerated population overall
may have very fragile connections with family support means that the partnership must
support and strengthen that relationship.
7. Community Resources. There is a wealth of community resources that the partnership
can leverage to use in the reentry process. The offender’s family, along with employers,
faith-based organizations, community organizations, and mentors will play key roles in
the offender’s successful return to the community as a tax paying and law abiding citizen.
8. Individual Motivation. How can you motivate and prepare long-term violent offenders
who are at high-risk for recidivism for eventual release back into the community? Addressing individual needs is particularly challenging. To meet our goals, staff are rethinking, retooling, and changing the processes that have been historically used to transition through the Nebraska system. Offender families and other community resources
for the first time will be a part of the institution’s transitional phase. Institutional staff
are now concerned with developing linkages in the community for needs such as housing along with ongoing programming and support.
There are a variety of Reentry programs at the Omaha Correctional Center:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Criminal Thinking
Cognitive Thinking
Fatherhood Initiative
Pre-Release/Job Preparation/Job Placement
Victim Impact Classes
Recreation
Family and/or Support Groups
Classification Recommendations
Prison Programs
29
•
•
Parole Recommendations
Establishing Community Support (Individual /Group)
As necessary, offenders may also be required to participate in the following programs:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Substance Abuse (non-residential)
Mental Health
GED
Vocational Training
A.A./N.A.
Alternative to Violence
Resume Writing
Parenting Classes
Mentoring Program
Job Assignment
Community Service
Faith Activities
Cultural Activities
A needs assessment is completed on each offender to identify personal and social deficits. With
concurrence of the offender, families will be involved in Phase I planning for community placement and in helping to define overall needs.
Initially offenders will be offered MET (Motivation Enhancement Therapy). Intrinsic motivation of individuals is key to the process of determining what the offenders identify as important,
positive, and critical in their lives. This information is used in supporting and strengthening
fragile support systems once the offender leaves prison. Additional Pre-Release programming,
which involves assessment of vocational skills, job interviewing, writing resumes, and job performance expectations, will be completed at the Community Corrections Center. While at the
Community Corrections Center, offenders will be using this information almost immediately on
community work details and on work release.
Staff involvement at the Community Corrections Center will include unit managers, case managers, mental health staff, community corrections staff, parole officers, and the assigned transition officer. The transition officer will assist and follow up with the offender throughout all
three phases of the initiative.
The role of the institution in the reentry process is critical. In the institutional phase, decisions
must be made on where to house the offender, and the type of treatment programs to be made
available. During this phase, the seamless transition philosophy present finds institutional treatment staff discussing continuity of treatment issues with community treatment providers. Institutional-police partnerships include the sharing of critical offender data to ensure the success of
offender reintegration efforts. The institution is expected to play a prominent role in the development of institutional treatment plans and initial offender release strategies. Additionally, institutional staff may have a role to play in all three phases of the initiative.
30
Prison Programs
Phase I In Focus is anchored on protection and preparation as prison teams begin work on the
reentry process and is a dynamic start to the reentry process!
Prison Programs
31
Discharge Planning for Offenders at the
Expiration of Their Custodial Term
New Jersey Department of Corrections
Devon Brown, Commissioner
Background
The issues and concerns surrounding offender reentry and the concurrent impact of this reentry
on local communities received national attention in the late 1990s. So critical was this issue
that funding became available for states to explore ways to enhance community safety by removing barriers to successful reintegration. In 2000, the Department of Corrections partnered
with the New Jersey State Parole Board and Juvenile Justice Commission to seek federal funding under the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI.) New Jersey’s application focused on the reentry of targeted parolees being released into the depressed areas of Newark and Camden. These locales were selected not only because they represent the greatest concentration of offenders sent to the state's juvenile and adult correctional systems, but also because they represent opportunities for integrating services and resources through the Greater
Newark Safer Cities Initiative. These initiatives, based on George Kellings "Broken Windows"
model, bring together key stakeholders in the community's law enforcement, social services,
and faith-based sectors with the citizenry to restore order and promote collective ownership of a
blighted area.
The grant was designed to provide enhanced discharge planning and case management to the
target population and included the utilization of a risk/needs assessment tool, namely the Level
of Supervision Inventory-Revised (LSI-R,) to identify risks and needs prior to release. Additionally, select parole and correctional staff received training in the utilization of the LSI-R in
Prison Programs
33
anticipation of incorporating this instrument into case management programming during reception, pre-parole, and pre-release.
The merits of addressing the needs of parolees within this project provided a framework to explore the resources and programs available both institutionally and within the community for
this population. That the target population would be supervised offered an additional support
for their successful reentry. More critical, however, was the reentry of those offenders being
released at the expiration of their terms, without any supervision.
In 2003, a total of 14,267 offenders were released from the New Jersey Department of Corrections to communities all over the state. One third, 33%, of these offenders were released at the
expiration of their sentence – without the benefit of any form of structured community supervision. Some of those released had the benefit of participating in a community release program
and were provided services to assist in their reintegration. Many, however, were ineligible for
community placement because of the nature of their sentence, criminal history, or institutional
adjustment, and therefore spent their entire sentence within the confines of a prison, unable to
transition slowly back to the community. Institutional pre-release programs, though available
throughout the state, only address the immediate needs of the offender upon release, and do not
address long term planning for successful reintegration to prevent recidivism. Forty percent, of
those released at the expiration of their sentence returned to Essex County.
An insufficient number of transitional step-down community placements for all offenders, coupled with the lack of structured supervision upon release, practically guarantees that many of
these offenders will fail, placing communities at risk. The stigma of having a criminal record
alone makes successful reintegration problematic. In addition, many of these offenders have
little formal education and limited employment skills, significant substance abuse problems,
mental health concerns, and limited access to safe and affordable housing.
Statistically, the most recent outcome study conducted by the Department of Corrections in
1998, with a cohort released in 1991, reveals that the overall re-arrest rate for adult offenders
previously incarcerated in a New Jersey state correctional facility is 53 percent, the reconviction
rate 41 percent and the re-incarceration rate 35 percent. Of those offenders rearrested, 52 percent were rearrested within nine months of release. It is clear that services must be provided
prior to release to reduce the re-offense rate.
Departmental Focus
The successful transition and reintegration of all offenders is a critical goal of the Department
of Corrections. By department staff becoming more proactive in the areas of case management
and discharge planning, those offenders most likely to fail will be provided with the tools necessary to become productive members of the community, rather than placing these same communities at risk.
Our challenge was to attempt to enhance discharge planning and the provision of services to aid
in offender reintegration into the community without the cushion inherent with parole supervi34
Prison Programs
sion. Consequently, a unit was developed to address the needs of this specific population.
Project Description
In an effort to more effectively transition offenders released from prison at the expiration of
their sentence and increase their success in the community, the Department of Corrections has
developed a comprehensive model of Discharge Planning. The goals of this initiative include:
The development of a standardized method of discharge planning for those offenders being
released into the community
Development of a comprehensive, systematic review process to identify targeted offenders
to provide assistance in securing services upon release
Development of a resource guide for accessing state, county, and local services. The database shall be developed to be updated as needed, and organized by county
Development of a standardized curriculum, including a pre-release questionnaire, to provide
the maximum amount of information to the target population, as well as offering specific
guidance to address individual needs
Utilization of a Risk/Needs Assessment tool to address areas of need
Development of an evaluative tool to access the effectiveness of the standardized curriculum
Identification and development of select correctional facilities to operate as regional discharge centers to centralize resources
The program is supported through federal funds received from the state's Edward Byrne Memorial Block Grant allocation. These funds have allowed the department to hire two social workers
to provide comprehensive discharge planning for a target population. Because of our prior relationships with the Greater Newark Safer Cities Initiative, as well as our keen awareness of the
problems associated with community safety in the Greater Newark area, it was determined that
the target population would be offenders housed at either Northern State or East Jersey State
prisons. The target population would only include those individuals who were planning to reside in the Greater Newark area. East Jersey and Northern State prisons were selected because
they house approximately 25% of all Essex County commitments, and the facilities are located
in or in close proximity to Newark.
The pilot commenced in July 2003 at the Northern State Prison. The social workers were
charged with the responsibility of identifying the target population and meeting with the offender four months prior to release to ensure adequate time to develop a comprehensive case
plan, which accesses needs and targets services. This critical first step allowed for offender
buy-in, and paved the way for honest relationships to be developed with both the social work
staff and the group of offenders whose needs were being addressed in the same way. A curriculum was developed to provide the targeted offenders with a social needs program to teach and
reinforce pro-social behavior enabling them to accept, understand, and internalize attitudes conducive to surviving as a law abiding citizen in the community. By empowering the offender
with these tools, it is anticipated that the offender becomes an “ex,” recidivism is reduced, and
stability is increased within the community.
The curriculum was developed to focus on areas of vulnerability within the offender population.
Prison Programs
35
Three weekly group activities, both motivational and instructional, address areas of selfawareness, substance abuse, and employment readiness. Participation in a group-based learning
environment is voluntary. Volunteers, therefore, accept that the activities will occur in an emotionally safe environment, where the display of vulnerability is tolerated and not criticized nor
preyed upon. The employment readiness section is supported by community agencies that provide bi-weekly training sessions on specific employment areas, including job skills, resume development, appearance and affect, and coaching. Some of the offenders have also been exposed
to institutional job fairs with employers throughout the state, where pre-employment interviews
are conducted and potential employment discussed.
Referrals to social service programs and employment agencies are completed before the offender is released to ease the transition. Eligibility for food stamps, welfare services, and Medicaid is determined pre-release to ease in the processing of paperwork upon release. This process
has allowed for almost immediate access to benefits upon their release. Accommodations are
made for offenders who are homeless early enough to ensure that housing is available. Medical
issues are being addressed through available channels and the offender is provided with sufficient medication in accordance with Departmental policy. Ideally, the social workers avail
themselves to any and all viable programs and services to ease the offender’s transition back to
the community.
Conclusion - Our Challenge
Offenders being released from prison at the expiration of their sentence do not have the benefit
of structured supervision and, therefore, are not accountable to the Department of Corrections
or State Parole Board. Most problematic with this population is the lack of accountability to either a law enforcement or service agency. While the offender may cognitively agree that the
positive contributions of service/law enforcement agencies are worthy, there is also recognition
that any failure to “follow the program” carries no legal liability, unlike those under supervision. With the enhancement and expansion of discharge planning services, it is hoped that with
proper training, coaching, and guidance, this most at-risk population will be provided with the
tools necessary to remain “ex-offenders." It is anticipated that collaborations with community
partners can be developed to assist this most at-risk population make the successful transition
into the communities across our state.
36
Prison Programs
Level of Assignment Management Program:
A Behavioral Management Initiative to Promote
Social Responsibility
Background
Level of Assignment Management Program (LAMP) is a behavioral management initiative to
promote social responsibility. Through the utilization of a creative carrot and stick approach,
the New Jersey Department of Corrections has begun to make significant normative changes to
an institution that was plagued with inmate discipline problems. A behavior management approach coupled with greater staff and inmate interaction has substantially improved the operation of a correctional facility for the young adult population. Inmates are learning behavior
management tools that are critically important for their sustained success upon reentry into the
community.
The Albert C. Wagner Youth Correctional Facility is one of fourteen major facilities in the New
Jersey Department of Corrections. It is located near the geographic center of the state and confines young offenders age range 18 to 32. Inmates are incarcerated in this facility for terms
ranging from several months for parole violations to as much as twenty years for major offenses. Many of the young offenders have extensive juvenile and young adult records. Generally, their assignment to the Wagner facility represents their second or third incarceration. Approximately 60 percent of the inmates have mandatory stipulations on their sentence. The majority of offenders at this facility come from the two major urban areas in the state, Camden and
Newark. Gang involvement is prevalent among this population with approximately 40% having
Prison Programs
37
known gang affiliations, e.g., Bloods, Crips, Neta, Five Percenters, and Latin Kings. Compounding the volatility of this type of population, the Wagner facility is considered the "last
stop" in the state's Youth Correctional Complex. Many maladjusted inmates are received from
the state's two other youth facilities and administrative segregation unit.
The facility houses approximately 1,400 inmates and includes a main building which opened in
1937, housing 846 inmates, two on-grounds minimum units, a separate maximum custody close
supervision unit (administrative segregation unit), and an adult boot camp located off site. The
main building's structure of primarily dormitory housing, antiquated security systems, and visual obstructions, coupled with the impulsiveness of the young and often violent offender is a
contributing factor to the frequent disturbances and security concerns that plagued this institution.
Over the years, this facility experienced a considerable number of group/gang assaults and melees, and gang recruitment efforts for domination and intimidation. Many of these incidents
resulted in serious inmate injury and facility lockdowns. The New Jersey Department of Corrections recognized the need to address these prevalent problems for the safety of the staff as
well as the offenders housed in this facility.
Implementation
The New Jersey Department of Corrections' Commissioner and facility administrative staff recognized the urgency to change this volatile and disruptive environment. Against this backdrop,
immediate corrective action was required to prevent even more serious outcomes. A meeting
was conducted with all senior officials including the Commissioner and his immediate staff,
and the newly appointed Administrator and security chief to "brainstorm" potential interventions. The program was developed by incorporating the best practices from multiple programs
existing within the New Jersey Department of Corrections, as well as other states and the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Among the ideas considered for incorporation in the program were restricted activity programs, incentive programs, and case management by treatment teams. Ultimately it was determined to combine all of these elements into a comprehensive system of behavioral based levels of reward and disincentives. This "level" system was complemented with
increased group therapy, inmate supervision, and guidance by a treatment team consisting of
custody and program staff.
The Program
The program was assigned the acronym LAMP representing Level of Assignment Management
Program in which four levels of varying degrees of privilege or incentives are ascribed to particular housing units. Inmate assignment to levels is based on overall inmate disciplinary adjustment, program participation, and performance. Each major housing unit is assigned an interdisciplinary staff team consisting of an instructor-counselor, social worker, teacher, administrative team leader, an officer, and an area supervisor. This team is responsible for monitoring
inmate adjustment through periodic assessments and scheduled interviews. The team makes
recommendations to the classification committee regarding inmate program, housing, and vocational assignments and, more importantly, what level of privileges an inmate receives. Integral
38
Prison Programs
to this recommendation is the premise of putting the most well adjusted inmates in dormitory
settings which previously had the most potential for group disturbance, and assigning disciplinary concerns to cell housing which afforded greater inmate supervision.
The Level System
The program operates on a four level system with the first level being the lowest consisting of a
very restrictive environment for inmates recently out of detention. Restrictions include limited
personal property, limited television viewing except for educational programming and restricted
visits, phone calls, and commissary, in addition to assignment to menial jobs throughout the institution. The highest level, Level Four, is assigned to one of the newer dormitories. Inmates
assigned to this level receive increased personal property, visits, television viewing time, phone
calls, a later lock in time, and preferred job assignments. Inmates assigned to this level also receive other amenities such as occasional food packages and additional appliances in the housing
units. Levels Two and Three receive graduated amounts of visits, personal property, commissary items, television viewing time, and phone calls. Generally inmates assigned to the highest
level are those who are discipline free for 8 to 12 months and actively participate in or have
completed group counseling and educational programs.
Inmates may advance or regress through the levels based on their behavior and the treatment
team's assessment of their adjustment. It is important to note that many of the current incentives were previously offered to the general population without any behavioral stipulations.
Now inmates must earn these incentives through demonstrated positive adjustment. Inmates are
encouraged to participate in activities, conducive not only to their success in the facility, but
also to successful community reentry and maintenance of law-abiding behavior. Inmates are
also referred to ancillary staff, including parole, therapeutic communities, and community transition personnel as needed.
Staff training has been an integral component of LAMP. All of the social workers and counselors on the treatment team have been trained in moral reconation therapy, a cognitive-behavioral
approach designed to reeducate clients socially, morally, and behaviorally. Moral reconation
therapy, combined with interventions such as anger management, life skills development, victim empathy, educational, and vocational training, has better prepared the inmate for release in
terms of skill development and exercise of self-control.
LAMP was implemented September 2003 and initially only targeted new arrivals to the facility.
Gradually each housing unit was assigned a level designation and treatment team for implementation throughout the facility. Considerable efforts were made prior to implementation for staff
selection and training of staff and inmates involved. The gradual implementation served several purposes: First it permitted opportunity for staff and inmate acceptance of what was considered a major paradigm shift. Second, it provided an opportunity to mold the program by resolving logistical, environmental, and personnel concerns as the program evolved. An example of
one of the concerns that needed to be addressed was conducting meetings on the housing units.
Traditionally, staff was accustomed to working in offices or classrooms. The unit based meeting
concept was necessitated both by lack of programming areas in the facility and a desire to promote respect for staff and acceptable inmate behavior through increased staff/inmate interacPrison Programs
39
tion. As a result, inmate behavior improved during the team's presence and staff comfort levels
became enhanced.
Results
Although the program has only been in operation for approximately six months, early results
are encouraging. A comparison of total inmate disciplinary reports representing four months
immediately prior and following implementation of the program demonstrates a 16.3 percent
drop in infractions.
PRE-LAMP
NO. OF DISCIPLINES
May 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
234
242
191
203
POST-LAMP
Sept. 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
NO. OF DISCIPLINES
186
219
160
163
Again a comparison on a year-to-year basis demonstrates a decrease of 9.3% in infractions.
PRE-LAMP
Sept. 2002
October 2002
November 2002
December 2002
NO. OF INFRACTIONS
247
200
151
205
POST-LAMP
Sept. 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
NO. OF INFRACTIONS
186
219
160
163
While other factors such as improvements in the screening and assessment of inmates assigned
to this facility may have also contributed to the reduction in infractions, the impact of LAMP is
promising.
Other early indicators suggest a positive impact in the reduction of the number of inmates sent
to detention. Since the program's inception, there has been a significant drop in the number of
detention cases. Since January 2004, the number of detention cases has been reduced from approximately 40 or more a week to now an average of 28 to 32. Preliminary data also suggests a
reduction in security threat group activity and weapons infractions.
There have also been substantial reductions in the number of group disturbances on housing
units where LAMP was introduced. Additionally, there have been no lockdowns of housing
units implementing LAMP although some of these units have been implementing LAMP for the
entire six months. One of the highest level units (Level IV), which houses 118 inmates in a dormitory setting, has only had one discipline per month, resulting in immediate detention, compared to a norm of six per month per unit prior to the program. Finally, there has been a reduction in serious inmate injuries resulting in hospitalization. The first quarter of 2004 indicated
two injuries resulting in outside treatment compared to a total of 27 in the January 2002 - July
2003 period, or an average of 1.5 per month.
40
Prison Programs
Conclusion
Staff and inmate perceptions of the orderly and secure operation of the facility have improved
and early empirical results support the program's efficacy. It is believed that one of the most
effective aspects of the program is the increased staff/inmate contact. As a result of the program, 1,240 additional contacts occurred with inmates by an entire team of individual staff.
This staff is dedicated to the proposition that with appropriate intervention, and treatment, inmates can become prepared for a productive life beyond the confines of a prison environment.
With cautious optimism the New Jersey Department of Corrections is anticipating increased
benefit of the program now that it is implemented throughout the entire facility. Overcoming
the major obstacles of implementation and the review and reclassification of over 800 inmates
has allowed the facility to now focus greater attention to the development of additional counseling programs, treatment intervention and daily living guidance, thus further improving the culture and operation of the facility.
Although this undertaking requires additional staff responsibility, dedication, and administrative
support, the potential of improved staff and inmate safety, orderly facility operation, and improved service to the community are paramount. The behavior management and cognitive
skills the inmates incorporate in their daily lives through participation in the program should
help to sustain their pro-social adjustment once they return to their community.
Prison Programs
41
Project Power
New Mexico Corrections Department
Joe Williams, Secretary
Perhaps one of the most challenging issues facing corrections today is the effective management of female offenders. For too long corrections administrators have tried, with only limited
success, to respond to female criminality with the same strategies used to respond to male
criminals. The failure of this response has been felt nationwide – but in New Mexico, with the
assistance of a grant from the U.S. Department of Education – a new approach has been forged.
There are several reasons that inmate management has been primarily focused on male inmates.
Studies on criminal behavior and theories on crime prevention have historically included only
boys and men. This is not surprising considering the overwhelming numbers of male offenders
compared to the much smaller number of female offenders. Furthermore, male crimes are often
much more violent in nature and may have eclipsed the less serious type of crimes for which
women are routinely incarcerated.
The latest research on female offenders, as well as practical experience working with both genders, indicate that a male model of inmate management does not transfer well to the female
population. One of the results of assessing, programming, and releasing female inmates no differently than men is the ever-increasing numbers of female offenders. In the last two decades
alone, the number of women in U.S. prisons has increased six-fold, and a large part of this
number consists of inmates who recidivate. The statistics in New Mexico closely follow this
national trend. A secondary, although no less important result of this trend, is the adverse harm
caused to the children of incarcerated mothers.
In an effort to respond to this growing challenge, the New Mexico Corrections Department
Prison Programs
43
(NMCD) developed a task force to examine the issues regarding the incarceration of female inmates. The task force’s findings and ultimate recommendations became a critical part of the
NMCD’s strategic plan for the years 2003-2004.
Tasked with developing a realistic and workable response to the strategic plan, the NMCD’s
Education Bureau developed a three-pronged approach to help lower the high rate of recidivism
among female inmates. The NMCD initiative was named Project POWER (Providing Opportunities to Women for Effective Reentry) and included:
Discharge planning which starts at intake
Programming which responds directly to risks and needs of female inmates
Programming which helps strengthen family ties and responds to the needs of children
of incarcerated mothers
Discharge Planning Starts at Intake
•
•
•
A systemic and philosophical change to transition planning that adopts the approach of the
Transition from Prison to Community Initiative (TPCI) was developed for the women’s facility.
The practice here in New Mexico, as in most other states, had been to view reentry or “prerelease” as a stand alone program to be delivered during the last few months or weeks of incarceration. A key objective of Project POWER was to start planning for release at intake.
Successful reentry into the community, the workplace, and the family necessarily begins with
an accurate assessment of those dynamics (such as anti-social attitudes, substance abuse, educational and vocational deficiencies, etc.) that create barriers between offenders and the community at large. This first step is critical for both male and female inmates. Unfortunately, most
risk and needs assessments have only been normed and validated for male inmates, making the
job of taking this first important step with female offenders that much more difficult A careful
examination of the intake and assessment tools found them to be lacking in gender-specificity.
New tools that had been normed on women and an expansion of mental health and education
assessments were sought and implemented.
Programming Responds Directly to Risks and Needs
Step two of the process was the establishment of a comprehensive programming approach designed to meet the needs uncovered by the assessment process. The identified risks and needs
are shared with the offender who then has an opportunity to participate in the process of matching her needs to appropriate programming that will reduce her barriers to successful reentry.
The development of appropriate and effective programming occurred in two phases. Phase one
required a critical review of the current offerings to ensure that already available programming
was responsive to the specific needs of a female population. This consisted of a critical review
of programming options and a willingness to cut those programs that did not meet the new standards. Guidelines for vocational offerings were developed in conjunction with the New Mexico
Department of Labor. The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI) was relied on
heavily to help assess the intervention programs. Ineffective programs were identified and
eliminated. The next phase was to replace eliminated courses with new offerings that would
44
Prison Programs
contribute positively towards reentry as well as show promise for reducing recidivism.
With a realistic plan outlined, the NMCD proposed and was awarded a grant from the U.S. Department of Education. Returning to the Transition From Prison to Community Initiative model
for guidance, the seven dynamic risk factors were targeted to expand programming:
Anti-social attitudes, values, and beliefs
Anti-social peers and associations
Substance abuse
Educational deficiencies
Mental health problems
Life skills and social skills deficiencies
Characterological defects (anger, egocentricism, impulsivity, etc.)
New Mexico has long understood that dealing with anti-social thinking was the single most important part of public safety and offender change. As a result, the NMCD had already initiated
strong cognitive programs in all of its facilities. It was decided that the women’s facility could
benefit from a wider array of cognitive programs, and in particular, cognitive programs that responded more directly to the needs of female offenders.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In order to meet the many and varied educational needs of female inmates, part of the grant
funding was used to install a computer learning lab offering resources to those women working
in Adult Basic Education, English as a Second Language, employability skills, life skills, and
job skills.
In order to meet post-secondary needs, access to on-line classes were offered through a partnership with Eastern New Mexico University. This made it possible to offer a much wider variety
of classes than was ever before possible.
With all of the programming enhancements in place, the women are now invited to study those
risks and needs that have brought them to prison and match them with appropriate programming to diminish those liabilities. When women understand the dynamics of their needs, how
they impact their lives and the lives of those around them, and are presented with alternative
ways to address those needs, they have proven to be motivated to take action.
Programming to Strengthen Family Ties and Respond to the Needs of Children of Incarcerated
Mothers
The final component of the three-pronged approach recognizes the fact that many incarcerated
women are mothers who, before their incarceration, were the primary caretakers of their children. Current research indicates not only that improved family relationships may contribute to
lowered recidivism, but also that children with an incarcerated parent are six to eight times
more likely to become incarcerated themselves. It is also clear that these children are at high
risk for other problems and are in need of special attention that the corrections department, in
partnership with other state and local agencies, is in a unique position to provide.
Some examples of additional partnerships that the NMCD has formed are with the NM ChilPrison Programs
45
dren, Youth, and Families Department and the NM Department of Health to identify all children of incarcerated mothers who may be eligible for Medicare services. Additionally, a partnership with the NM Human Services Child Support Enforcement Division was created to modify the way in which unpaid child support payments can be met.
With strengthening families in mind, the current 6-month parenting and family reunification
program was extended to a 24-month program. The expanded program includes working with
families of inmates through a newly purchased family reunification video curriculum. The curriculum is designed to help inmates and inmates’ families realistically consider the many challenges they will face upon their return. It also provides a vocabulary and a means for discussing issues that may be very difficult for inmates and their families to raise on their own.
Finally, an overnight visitation center is being established for therapeutic visits between mothers and children during the last six months of incarceration. Some of the important parenting
skills that get taught during these visits are helping with homework, planning and preparing nutritional meals, getting children to bed on time, getting children up in the morning, getting
dressed, washed, having breakfast, and other tasks many of the female offenders may need.
The new reentry initiatives established at the women’s facility are changing the face of corrections assessment, programming, and reentry planning in New Mexico. Project POWER and its
three-pronged approach will hopefully help lower the high rate of recidivism among female inmates and begin the process of rebuilding families shattered by incarceration. The results of
these reform efforts may also benefit male offenders. Although specifically designed for
women, the NMCD will be monitoring closely those components that may also provide benefits
to male inmates. It is the hope of New Mexico to address the wide-ranging issues of recidivism
in all facilities while simultaneously meeting the challenge of effectively managing female offenders.
46
Prison Programs
From Entry to Reentry
New York State Department of Correctional Services
Glenn Goord, Commissioner
The position of New York’s correctional system has been, for quite some time that inmates’
transition back into the community begins as soon as they walk in the door of our reception and
classification center, continues throughout their period of incarceration, and intensifies three to
six months prior to release.
There is a tendency in the field, recently, to focus on only the last period, the three to six
months prior to release and to define that as the “reentry phase.” However, waiting until then is
a case of “too little, too late.” All of us who have been in the field of corrections for a while
know what inmates need to transition back into the community. This is not a new “program” or
new “approach” that recently developed. Looking at the inmate population when they enter the
system, you can get a pretty good idea of what we should be doing in order to enable them to
reenter society armed with the knowledge, skills and credentials necessary to succeed on the
outside.
Rather than review a host of statistics, consider the following:
Education - The overwhelming majority of inmates, although they may have attended high
school, have the functional reading and math levels we expect of a sixth grader. In addition, in
New York’s system, too many inmates have limited English proficiency and are illiterate in
their own language.
Employment - The vast majority of inmates have never held a job for very long and do not
have the skills to compete in today’s job market.
Prison Programs
47
Substance Abuse - Clearly, three-quarters of the inmate population have consistently abused
drugs and alcohol. Most have been through various rehab programs on the streets several times,
and have finally reached the absolute bottom in terms of their addiction.
Violence - During the 1980s, the majority of inmates in New York’s system were drug offenders. The development of alternative-to-incarceration programs, shock programs, and other initiatives to allow nonviolent offenders to earn their way out of prison early has over time
changed the make-up of the population to one which includes a much higher percentage of violent individuals. The myth persists that we have thousands of low-level drug offenders, whose
only crime was using drugs, and we would save millions of dollars if we would send them to
treatment, rather than prison. This, however, does not gibe with reality. Most inmates have
violence in their background. If not in their instant offense, clearly in previous probations and
incarcerations.
Sex offenders - The number and percentage of the inmate population incarcerated for a sex offense has grown steadily over the past three to five years.
Special needs - Perhaps due, in part, to our rather recent increase in sophistication in terms of
assessment and identification or, perhaps, as a result of the de-institutionalization of other systems, the number and percentage of inmates who have special needs, especially, mental health
needs, has grown dramatically.
As if any of these issues or needs, in and of themselves, would not be challenging, most inmates
need to address their issues during the average of two to three years of incarceration. Over the
years, we have developed successful programming models for most of these areas.
•
We have a good, solid education program which can move an inmate from illiteracy to
the high school equivalency diploma.
•
We have a vocational training program with up-to-date equipment and certified instructors who teach real skills needed for employment.
•
We have residential substance abuse programs that go a long way toward assisting inmates to identify, address, and learn to overcome their addiction.
•
We have a residential sex offender treatment program which does the same for sex offenders.
In addition to these high quality programs, in New York we also have in place a fairly sophisticated system for identifying inmate needs upon entry into the system; for tracking progress in
meeting these needs on a quarterly basis; and for evaluating our success in meeting these needs
prior to release.
We are now discovering through extensive research related to inmate programming, however,
as we suspected - the sex offender is often times a substance abuser, needs to address his violent
48
Prison Programs
behavior and, often has mental health issues.
We have learned the connection between domestic violence and substance abuse.
We have learned that our academic classrooms and vocational shops have many inmate students
who have mental health issues, issues with dealing with women, and addiction issues.
The next, logical step in inmate programming, if we are to really prepare inmates for reentry
back into our communities, is to develop specialized programming that addresses multiple issues at once.
Some progress has been made in the area. In New York, we have put in place a chemical dependence/domestic violence program and a chemical dependence/sex offender program as first
steps in addressing dual issues.
Unfortunately, we must acknowledge, that we may not be able to address every need an offender has in the time we have. In spite of the increase in longer sentences, a significant segment of the inmate population will be back on the streets in two to three years or less.
For short-term inmates, for example, we will undoubtedly have to limit our expectations, prioritize inmate needs, and do our best to do all that we can, given the time constraints, disciplinary
problems, inmate movement, inmate health issues and, in some cases, inmate unwillingness to
do what needs to be done.
Doing all we need to do programmatically, may be an impossible mission, but it is one for
which we will, clearly, be held accountable.
The key, then, becomes the transitional planning that will ensure that progress made on the inside, can be continued in the community.
We, in corrections, can no longer believe that our responsibility ends when the inmate walks out
the door because, if they come back, it is the correctional system that will be held responsible.
Even if an inmate gets a GED, completes vocational programming, substance abuse, violence
counseling, and sex offender treatment this may not be enough. We will have done our job, but
if we really want to reduce recidivism (our ultimate goal), we have to take the next step. We
need to be involved in the development of real, dynamic, and broad based networks of local
government, community-based organizations, faith-based groups, community leaders, and politicians who are committed to assisting inmates with transition back into the community.
Corrections needs to do the basics in the time we have - education, job skills, substance abuse
treatment, sex offender treatment, and violence counseling. Then, we need to work with the
individual inmate, with parole staff and with the network of community resources to make sure
there is a smooth, seamless transition from prison to the community.
Prison Programs
49
Nevada's Reentry Programs for Offenders
Nevada Department of Corrections
Jackie Crawford, Director
____________________________________________________________
Historically, Nevada's unofficial correctional philosophy was "three hots and a cot" so it was
not surprising that reentry assistance to offenders leaving prison consisted largely of a clean
pair of "prison blues" and gate-money in the form of a check for $21. While Nevada had a policy requiring retention of identification documents for inmates, the common practice was for
the property officer to discard them because they would be expired upon the inmate's release
from prison years later. So most inmates leaving prison could not even legally cash their gatemoney checks.
Nevada was challenged to change all that when the federal government solicited proposals from
adult and juvenile corrections for "Going Home, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)." The reentry initiative was intended to provide funds to "plug the gaps" in
prisoner reentry in the various states in America. But Nevada's entire reentry system was "a
gap," it was non-existent. The Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) is not allocated programming funds in its biennial budget so it had no transitional assistance programs at all and no
community partnerships to serve as a basis of support. Random correctional programs were
designed and implemented at the whim of individual wardens and without any organization or
oversight from the Director's Office. Nevada prides itself on its pioneer spirit and traditionally
resisted federal intervention of any kind. NDOC had never applied for grants and preferred to
keep "the feds" and others out of the department's business.
In May 2000, a new Director of Corrections was appointed in Nevada. The "new" Nevada Department of Corrections (which received legislative approval to change its name from Department of Prisons in 2001) set an agenda that recognized programs as a viable behavior managePrison Programs
51
ment tool for inmates. NDOC set out to "balance security with programs" and recognize the
importance of each in Nevada's correctional strategy. NDOC opened its doors to the media, the
community, and inmate advocacy and family support groups. NDOC began to forge relationships with non-profits and local governments, encouraging them to come into its prisons and
help in the mission. NDOC expanded its religious volunteer base by several hundred, recruiting
at the local churches. It ventured into the world of the Workforce Investment Boards that disperse federal Department of Labor funds, by applying for grants independently and in collaboration with community organizations that received the grants.
NDOC had to choose a target area for the SVORI grant, which would give Nevada $1.5 million
for a 3-year pilot project. Since 65% of its inmates release to Southern Nevada (the site of Las
Vegas, and the fastest growing area in America for 17 straight years), NDOC designated one of
our southern prisons, Southern Desert Correctional Center, as the site of the program, called
"Going Home Prepared." Staff began several months of regular meetings with local providers
and government representatives in Southern Nevada, including law enforcement from the three
primary cities in the area, Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, and Henderson. The support of the
Eighth Judicial District Court, which has eight drug courts, was enlisted to serve as the reentry
authority, following the drug court model. NDOC recruited 46 partner agencies for its reentry
program and that included 31 local providers, state, and local government agencies.
The reentry team is headed by a reentry coordinator, who was hired from the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce, due to her extensive knowledge of the business and non-profit community in
Las Vegas. A staff of two reentry caseworkers and one clerical support person provide assist to
her. The parole board is a grant partner and mandates the program as a condition of parole to
the selected inmates who qualify for “Going Home Prepared.” The community supervision entity, the Division of Parole and Probation, has assigned the same parole officers to all participants, who will be under intensive supervision for at least their first six months on parole. In
addition, NDOC paid for two social workers to work in the Division of Parole and Probation to
continue in the community the social services referral work begun by NDOC's reentry caseworkers inside prison. NDOC also paid for a clinical social worker to work with Southern Nevada Adult Mental Health, to conduct institutional assessments of its inmates for mental illness,
substance abuse, and co-occurring disorders and set them up with treatment upon release to the
community.
To ensure the buy-in of the community, NDOC assured that its selection committee, which
chooses the inmates who can participate in the program, included representatives of the Las Vegas Metro Police Department's Career Criminal and Repeat Offender Units and the District Attorney, as well as the Public Defender and service providers. They requested the participation of
Victim Advocate Groups and promised to inform them of the release plans of offenders, provide the victims with current photos, and where necessary, help them obtain Temporary Protection Orders for victims who might be endangered by their assailant's release.
Social service partners include churches, secondary and college education, a Vietnam Veteran's
organization, addictions and mental health treatment programs, housing providers, and jobfinders. A local bank presents classes in budgeting and managing a household. The local health
department designed and presents classes in birth control, communicable disease prevention,
HIV/AIDS prevention and management, nutrition, and wellness.
52
Prison Programs
Institutional programming spans at least the last six months of incarceration. The program begins with an assessment using the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSIR) that directs the
offender into programs appropriate for him or her. All offenders must complete their GED or
high school, attend cognitive restructuring class, and participate in a Victim Empathy program.
Those who need it take Anger Management and other programs designed to address barriers to
success in the community. Inmates are randomly drug-tested. Addicted offenders are put into
NDOC's southern therapeutic community program first, to receive 9 to 12 months of substance
abuse treatment before their release. “Going Home Prepared” includes a facilitated selfjournaling class called "Getting it Right," designed by The Change Companies, a national developer of correctional program materials. All inmates go through an extended life skills program called "Project Metamorphosis" to prepare them for the changes they will face outside of
prison. They all take relapse prevention and job skills. Inmates and their families may participate in family reunification counseling before the offender returns home. Family counseling in
the community can also be arranged post-release.
All program participants leave prison with a social security card and a State of Nevada identification card issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles. Male inmates between 18 and 25 are
registered for selective service so they remain eligible for federal benefits, including jobtraining programs and eventually perhaps, federal housing. Any eligible inmate is given assistance to apply for disability or other benefits or entitlements he or she may have had before
coming to prison. Inmates leave prison with referrals for medical care and community assistance, as well as employment opportunities.
With this grant, Nevada can target only 250 serious and violent offenders to participate in
“Going Home Prepared,” but NDOC is using the program to set the template for offender transitional programs throughout its 20 prisons and camps. All grant programs are now including
resources to secure identification documents for inmates. NDOC has standardized the forms
that social security and DMV require, including request forms to obtain certified copies of birth
certificates for inmates who have no other form of official ID.
To address the reentry needs of Nevada's non-violent inmate population, NDOC sought a hiatus
to prison building and recommended the development of a reentry center called "Casa Grande."
Designed as a 400-inmate campus with apartment-like housing and administrative offices, Casa
Grande will be a community-based facility in Las Vegas in which offenders will spend their last
four to six months of incarceration. They will get jobs in the community, attend school, and
enroll in treatment programs, faith-based programs,and other family services that will assist
them in becoming re-established in the community. They will work and prepare for their release during the day and return to the facility at night. Inmates will pay a portion of their wages
to NDOC for rent. The Department of Corrections will continue to be responsible for the residents' medical care and random drug testing during their stay at Casa Grande.
This facility is designed to be a one-stop shop as the parole board and the Division of Parole
and Probation will have offices in Casa Grande. Employment services agencies and educational authorities will also work out of this facility. The plan anticipates that a community provider will secure a contract to provide programming at Casa Grande through a Request for Proposals process. Dozens of faith-based organizations have already signed up to provide religious
Prison Programs
53
and spiritual services and outreach to Casa Grande residents.
Nevada's Legislature authorized funding for Casa Grande to open its doors in late 2004. With
the traditional not-in-my-backyard sentiments that surround a new social paradigm like Casa
Grande, Nevada has experienced some delay in its planning and development process, so the
project may not open now until early 2005. Nevertheless, Nevada has taken huge steps to move
from a "bars and bullets" mentality that favored the construction of expensive, hard prison beds
to one that is embracing community corrections and transitional assistance for offenders.
54
Prison Programs
Positive Links in the Circle of Life for Offenders
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D., Director
The Ohio Penal Industries (OPI), a division of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC,) has served over 2,000 offenders as a ”link” for employment.
OPI accomplishes this endeavor with a three-fold mission:
• To provide inmates in Ohio prisons with the opportunity to develop proper work skills
and acquire training, which will translate into economic self-sufficiency upon release.
• To assist in the management of Ohio’s prisons by keeping inmates occupied and supervised in meaningful work assignments while helping to defray the tax burden of their
incarceration through productive labor.
• To produce cost efficient quality products in a timely manner for the use of institutions
and agencies throughout Ohio. Most importantly, these programs serve as the foundation for successful employment for offenders upon release.
Linkage in the Circle of Life for Offenders Re-entering Society:
OPI has strengthened its efforts with ODRC’s Job Linkage team to facilitate the offenders’ success in securing employment upon release. In coordination with Job Linkage, OPI’s workers
who are eligible for release are identified, evaluated for employment readiness, and interviewed
by potential employers in the community to which they are returning. In addition, job fair teleconferences are held anywhere from 60 to 90 days prior to an offender’s release date. There has
been increased involvement by the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to allow offenders to market themselves and become notified of job openings.
Prison Programs
55
Traditionally, Ohio’s correctional industries’ programs have been involved in preparing offenders for the private sector labor force. However, as Ohio’s reentry philosophy developed and
became implemented, increasing collaboration between other offender programs is more important. OPI, along with ODRC’s vocational education programs, are preparing a more skilled labor pool, specifically in the computer technology fields.
OPI continues to seek guidance from Ohio’s labor unions to identify skills and types of certifications or licensures needed to become employable upon release. OPI and ODRC’s education
programs strive to assist offenders in obtaining appropriate certification and licensure.
OPI Best Practice Endeavors
OPI’s successful asbestos abatement program allows offenders the opportunity to secure licensure while incarcerated. In addition, OPI’s construction services program trains offenders in
areas of roofing, carpentry, masonry, asphalt, and concrete.
OPI’s successful Geographic Information Systems (GIS) program at North Central Correctional
Institution and Marion Correctional Institution have provided offenders with use of the latest
technology, thus saving Ohio’s taxpayers tens of thousands of dollars with the creation of electronic map files. OPI’s customers include the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Transportation, and several Ohio counties.
OPI recently received Prison Industry and Enhancement Certification (PIE), which will increase
the number of private partnerships throughout the United States. These partnerships will provide offenders with additional employment opportunities upon release. OPI’s already successful private partnerships allow offenders to gain valuable experience in specialty trade areas.
Private sector investment in Ohio’s correctional industries allows offenders to take advantage of
expanded resources. In addition, OPI encourages its private partners to consider employing offenders upon their release. As a win-win relationship, companies retain qualified employees
and offenders welcome the opportunity to use the skills they acquired during incarceration.
Ohio Plan as Foundation for Circle of Life
ODRC provided the framework for the success of offenders when it introduced the Ohio Plan
for Productive Offender Re-entry and Recidivism Reduction in April 2002. This comprehensive plan contains forty-four recommendations addressing the offender’s transition from admission into the correctional system to supervision in the community.
Ohio is participating in a multi-state project by the Urban Institute focusing on reentry experiences. In addition, Ohio received a $2 million, three-year grant from the U.S. Department of
Justice that will be directed toward programs for high-risk, high-needs offenders returning to
the communities surrounding Columbus, Cleveland, and Lima.
Six of the Ohio reentry plan’s recommendations are categorized as “Employment Readiness
and Discharge Planning.” Although community involvement and family support are essential
to successful reentry programs, preparing an offender for employment upon release is equally
56
Prison Programs
important. OPI’s offender employment programs mirror private sector experiences, as offenders must apply and interview for vacant positions. In turn, they are placed in jobs based upon
previous experience and work history. Offenders are responsible for maintaining a positive attendance record, producing quality products and services, and learning to work effectively with
others. In addition, offenders learn to problem solve during the course of their daily employment. Workers are compensated by an established pay scale.
Going Home to Stay
Dramatic changes are occurring in Ohio’s policies and practices in regards to preparing the offenders for the world of work once they are released from prison. In addition to the establishment of a reentry resource center at all prisons and parole offices, the ODRC is planning to implement a career exploration program at all prisons to assist offenders in making decisions regarding education, training, and employment. ODRC is also creating a new policy related to
educational, vocational, and employment follow-up of offenders upon release and revising policies related to the collection of information relating to a former offenders employment status.
Ohio’s determination to succeed in preparing offenders to become self-sufficient and positive
contributors upon their release requires efforts from countless individuals and organizations.
Through increased collaboration with community partners, law enforcement, offender families,
and offender employment training programs, the ODRC will significantly reduce the number of
offenders returning to incarceration.
Prison Programs
57
Finding A Balance: Quality, Cost Effective Treatment Programs
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary
Introduction: Identifying a Need
The inmate population under the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA
DOC) has grown nearly 290 percent over the past two decades, from 13,126 at the end of 1984
to 40,090 at the end of 2002. This growth occurred in a time of an increasingly tight state
budget in Pennsylvania. State budget shortfalls may not be quickly resolved, given prevailing
economic conditions. Statistics recently released by the FBI indicate that crime has risen by
several percentage points over the past year (NCJA, 2002.) Increases in crime generally impact
correctional systems within six months. Together these trends suggest that the demand for correctional services will continue to grow within the context of limited fiscal resources. The correctional system will not be able to “build its way” out of this problem.
Even if adequate prison capacity could be supported, an extensive body of research on corrections and criminology has concluded that incarceration and supervision alone have no measurable impact on recidivism (Andrews & Bonta, 1994.) Treatment programs that are targeted towards key criminogenic needs of offenders who are at high risk for failure have been clearly
shown to reduce recidivism rates by as much as 30 percent. Programming based upon proven
principles of effective treatment administered from the point of reception through release offers
the best hope for preparing inmates for successful reentry. In turn, effective programming will
serve to reduce recidivism rates, control prison population growth, and conserve public resources.
Based on this premise, creative solutions are needed to identify and support interventions that
Prison Programs
59
are based upon the principles of “what works” (Sherman, et. al, 1999) in order to reduce the demand for correctional services.
Approach to Analysis: Assessing Program Quality
In response to this need, the PA DOC conducted an evaluation of 25 of its standardized treatment programs as organized into five categories:
Work & Education
Citizenship
Family, Relationship & Self
Offense Related
Reentry
The methodology included an evaluation of each program against the principles of effective
correctional interventions as found in criminal justice research literature. The large-scale
evaluation also assessed the extent to which PA DOC programs as a whole, corresponded with
the standards which define effective prison-based programs.
•
•
•
•
•
The standards used to measure PA DOC program quality were guided by two primary sources.
First, the National Institute of Justice’s publication entitled, “Preventing Crime: What Works,
What Doesn’t, What’s Promising (Sherman, et. al, 1997.) The report summarized the findings
from hundreds of criminal justice program evaluations to arrive at conclusions about which
types of programs work. That report also attempted to abstract basic principles of effective program design from the models presented by the effective programs.
Our second primary source was the Correctional Program Assessment Inventory (CPAI.) The
CPAI is a process evaluation tool that was developed by a prominent group of criminologists.
The tool has been used throughout the U.S. and Canada for the past decade to prepare benchmarks for justice programs (Latessa & Holsinger, 1998.) The CPAI compares a given correctional program to standards that were developed from a review of an extensive body of evaluation studies. It lays out a template for how a good program should be structured.
Based on these two sources, the following eleven “principles of effective interventions” were
used to conduct process evaluations of each standard PA DOC program:
•
•
•
•
•
60
Targets offender‘s criminogenic deficiencies and needs - targets multiple problems
found to contribute to re-offending which are amenable to change.
Targets high-risk cases - low-risk cases demonstrate a lower probability of recidivism
even without program participation.
Conducts risk and needs assessments - utilizes validated instruments to conduct assessments of risk (likelihood of reoffending) and needs (problems contributing to deviance.)
Utilizes cognitive-behavioral approach - attempts to alter offender’s cognitions, values,
attitudes, and expectations that maintain anti-social behavior through behavior modification.
Disrupts the delinquency network - encourages offenders to place themselves in situations where prosocial activities predominate.
Prison Programs
•
•
•
•
•
•
Includes relapse prevention component - rehearses alternative prosocial responses in
increasingly difficult situations and provides booster sessions after the formal phase of
treatment.
Reinforces integrity of services - assures high levels of program integrity by monitoring
program development, organizational structure, staff selection, and training.
Integrates with community-based programs - refers offenders to proven-effective community-based programs.
Bases design and implementation on proven theoretical model – founded on a proven
psychological theory of criminal behavior (e.g., cognitive-behavioral or social learning
theories.)
Provides intensive services - occupies 40% to 70% of the offender’s time while in the
program and lasts 3 to 9 months.
Matches offender‘s personality and learning style with appropriate program settings and
therapist approaches - attempts to identify and match an offender’s “responsivity” needs
with appropriate settings and therapists.
To the extent that a program corresponds to the above standards, one can infer that it is likely to
be a successful program. Yet, this is not a perfect measure. The structure of some good programs may deviate from these models. Some programs that match these models may not in fact
be effective. This benchmarking exercise, however, provides a more feasible and economical
alternative to full-scale outcome evaluations. To sum up, the Department attempted to assess
the extent to which Pennsylvania’s programs measure up to, or diverge from, principles that
define effective prison-based programs.
Results & Response: Maintaining Strengths & Improving Weaknesses
Three of the eleven principles outlined were met by a vast majority of PA DOC programs.
More than 83% of programs target criminogenic needs, 75% disrupt the delinquency network,
and 75% reinforce therapeutic integrity. As strengths of the department’s programming, the
department plans to continue to ensure that these principles are met by all treatment interventions. As an example, the department developed a “Skills Development Plan” to strengthen the
knowledge base of treatment staff and ensure the maintenance of licenses and certifications.
In contrast to these findings, eight of the eleven principles were not met by a vast majority of
PA DOC programs. Therefore, the department has taken numerous steps – including the development of a strategic plan for treatment as well as the creation of a program assessment unit –
to incorporate these principles into its standardized programming.
The department’s strategic plan for treatment was derived from the weaknesses identified in
overall programming relative to the effectiveness principles. The first recommendation was to
match offender personality and learning style with appropriate program settings and therapist
approaches. At the time of evaluation, only 35% of PA DOC programs met the responsivity
criteria due to a “one-size-fits-all” approach common in correctional programming due to resource constraints. Therefore, the department plans to better address responsivity through the
following means:
Prison Programs
61
•
•
•
•
Convening an interdisciplinary committee to establish policy and procedure for addressing responsivity issues.
Identifying areas where the DOC has greater control over improving responsivity to
treatment (e.g., more control over matching therapists to program types than in matching
offenders to therapists) and addressing responsivity issues where it is most feasible.
Identifying special populations where responsivity needs may be of greater concern
(e.g., females, special needs, offenders to whom English is a second language.)
Reviewing how existing standardized programs could be modified for use in the specialized units (i.e., Long Term Segregation Units, Special Management Units, and Restricted Housing Units.)
The second recommendation was to integrate with community-based programs. The evaluation
determined that PA DOC programming could better integrate institutional and communitybased programs since only 35% of programs met this element of effective programming. Although many programs provide participants with geographically oriented resource lists, referrals are not regularly made to effective community-based programs. To this end, the department has outlined the following strategy to improve continuum of care:
•
•
•
•
•
Coordinate efforts with community agencies to identify statewide resources (e.g., community action agencies, universities, non-profit groups, etc.)
Develop and maintain community resource listings organized by program type.
Develop community resource agency rating system to identify which agencies are most
effective in assisting offenders.
Improve communication with the Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole to facilitate
linkages.
Establish a committee to update standardized programs so that part of each program,
where appropriate, addresses program specific ways to support system-wide reentry.
The third recommendation stemmed from the finding that only 40% of PA DOC programs met
the intensivity criteria. While program length should be driven by the specific behavioral objectives that a program targets, meeting this standard is challenging due to staffing, financial,
and time considerations. The department plans to make diligent efforts in the following areas to
improve this principle of effective programming:
•
•
•
Utilize program stacking to the greatest extent possible since a combination of programs
may serve to achieve the intensity criteria.
Develop policy and procedure for Individualized Treatment Plans (ITPs) to ensure adequate dosage across treatment plans.
Develop levels of programs. In order to take advantage of inmate assessment data, the
department plans to introduce greater variability into its programs. Ideally, two or more
levels of intensity will be available for each program type.
The fourth recommendation was developed due to the finding that less than half (44%) of PA
DOC programs include a relapse prevention component following the formal phase of treatment. The department’s strategy to ensure relapse techniques are incorporated into each standardize program includes:
62
Prison Programs
•
•
•
•
Establishing an interdisciplinary committee to ensure relapse prevention components are
incorporated in all treatment programs.
Researching existing models which have proven effective in preventing relapse.
Developing levels of programs. Variability in programming will allow for “stacking”
by building on programs and ensuring follow-up.
Developing a basic template for relapse prevention and utilize across different program
domains.
The fifth recommendation, to design and implement PA DOC programs based on proveneffective theoretical models, was made after learning that less than half (48%) of DOC programs adhere to this principle. The department’s efforts to apply sociological and psychological theories of criminal behavior to fundamental program design will include:
•
•
Establishing a committee to research and implement a plan to increase the number of
standardized treatment programs based on proven theory.
Researching how the stacking effect can be used to support this recommendation.
The sixth recommendation was derived from the finding that many PA DOC programs follow a
didactic approach to treatment, which provides little to no opportunity for practicing strategies
to encourage pro-social behavior. While a slight majority (52%) of programs appear to utilize a
cognitive behavioral approach, these strategies must become part of the department’s broader
programming standards. The following steps will be taken to incorporate cognitive-behavioral
approaches into PA DOC programs:
•
•
Identify which programs are “treatment” versus “activities” or “education.” All of the
programs categorized as “treatment” should be cognitive-behavioral programs, whereas
those not categorized as “treatment” need not be cognitive-behavioral.
Identify and articulate the reasons each activity and program are beneficial to the inmate, prison environment/culture, and/or community. The department must ensure
“activities” are of benefit.
In unison with these recommendations, the department’s strategic plan also dedicates significant attention to the importance of inmate assessment. It is evident from the evaluation results
that only a minority (33%) of PA DOC programs conduct adequate risk and need assessments.
The PA DOC has historically undertaken extensive general psychological assessments of new
inmates (e.g., MMPI, PAI.) These tools are not designed, however, to provide quantifiable
measures of inmates’ risk of reoffending or need for treatment related to key criminogenic risk
factors, such as criminal thinking, anti-social attitudes, anti-social associates, and hostility/
anger. Thus, the PA DOC has had little or no objective data on inmates’ levels of risk and need,
which is critical for individual inmate treatment plans.
There is a widely accepted consensus in the field of corrections that effective correctional treatment programs should be guided by the principles of risk, need, and responsivity (Andrews, et
al, 1990.) Offender risk, needs, and responsivity can be objectively and rigorously assessed by
corrections practitioners. Further, there are a number of good tools available for such assessPrison Programs
63
ment. Accordingly, in September 2002, the PA DOC began a pilot project to test the following
six instruments to assess inmates’ levels of risk and need:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R)
Level of Service Inventory-Revised Screening Version (LSI-R SV)
Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M)
Self-Appraisal Questionnaire (SAQ)
Hostile Interpretations Questionnaire (HIQ)
Novaco Anger Scale (NAS)
As a result of this pilot, the department selected the LSI-R, CSS-M, and HIQ and implemented
these tools department-wide for all new inmates starting in June 2003. Norms and cut-off
scores specific to the department’s inmates were developed based upon this testing. Further,
staff from the department’s diagnostic centers was trained to administer the assessments. Today, the LSI-R is conducted to assess risk and need on all new court commitments at the Department’s two diagnostic and classification centers.
Prior to the implementation of a formalized, validated assessment process, the department was
lacking information needed to inform programming decisions. This included the need to identify and target high-risk offenders. The evaluation revealed that only a minority of programs
targeted high-risk cases (44%.) In response to this need, the department developed revised procedures to determine which inmates receive which type and level of treatment. Specifically,
low risk/low need inmates receive only low intensity treatment or no treatment. Very low risk/
low need inmates will not receive any treatment other than academic and vocational programming. Low risk/high needs inmates will be programmed at the discretion of treatment staff.
Finally, specialized treatment groups are being developed for extremely high-risk inmates.
The final recommendation outlined in the department’s strategic plan specifically targeted the
need to ensure programming interventions utilized are the most cost-effective alternatives. During a period of tightened financial resources for the department, staff who are responsible for
providing treatment services need to prioritize what services will be provided at this time. Unfortunately, the most effective correctional programming is oftentimes the most expensive to
deliver (e.g., therapeutic communities). The challenge for the department is to determine what
works for which offenders under what circumstances. With this information, the department
will not waste resources on the offenders who will not benefit from intervention - or may even
be harmed by intervention (i.e., low risk offenders) - but, instead, will focus resources on those
offenders who are likely to respond best to treatment. With fiscal considerations in mind, the
Department must also ensure offenders are linked to appropriate, effective program types and
that these programs are delivered cost-efficiently.
The following actions were proposed in the strategic plan to eliminate unnecessary spending in
the department:
•
64
Eliminate or minimize the use of less effective programs. Budgetary allocations for programs which focus on secondary outcomes (e.g., becoming a better citizen, improving
prison culture/reducing idleness/institutional adjustment, overcoming denial) should be
Prison Programs
•
•
•
spent on programs designed to reduce recidivism. Otherwise, the department is diverting staff and financial resources from the most critical, valuable programs.
Maximize participation in proven-effective programs which use recidivism as a primary
outcome variable.
Conduct assessment to weed out low-risk offenders from programming to ensure resources are utilized on the highest risk populations.
Expand the use of volunteers and maximize the use of peer-assisted programs for lower
intensity groups to maximize the use of counselors for the higher-level treatment programs.
In combination with the action items suggested by the strategic plan, the department has organized a program assessment unit within its research office and an inmate assessment division
within its programming office. The program assessment unit will be dedicated to ensuring
DOC programs are delivered consistent with current research findings to encourage reliance on
cost-effective, quality programs designed to reduce recidivism. The unit will be comprised of
trained evaluators, dedicated to assessing the quality of the department’s programs against the
principles of effective intervention using the CPAI. This section will also train correctional
counselors and other treatment providers regarding “what works” in reducing recidivism, analyze results of individual program assessments, use information collected to enhance programs
(i.e., project management plans), and monitor progress toward goals.
The inmate assessment unit will be composed of experts in the areas of risk, need, responsivity,
and tools used to assess these variables. These individuals will be responsible for overseeing
the selection, validation, administration, and utilization of inmate assessment instruments (e.g.,
LSI-R, HIQ, etc.) This unit will also ensure that information collected is used to inform both
aggregate level and individual programming recommendations.
Conclusion & Considerations
The results of this department-wide program analysis have proven instructive for developing a
plan to improve individual programs, enhance the department’s standardized program offerings,
and, hopefully, initiate important cost-savings measures by improving chances for successful
inmate reentry.
It is important to note, however, that any consideration of the results or replication of the approach must take into account several methodological limitations. These limitations include,
but are not limited to:
•
Measurement tool used – is not a validated, published assessment instrument, but a tool
developed in-house informed by the NIJ report and CPAI.
•
Weighting - although certain principles may be more important to program effectiveness, the scores on each principle were not weighted for the purpose of this review.
•
Stacking effect – Effective programs build upon one another and reinforce a common
set of pro-social skills, contributing to the successful reentry of the inmate. This evalua-
Prison Programs
65
tion does not consider the important, combined effects of exposure to multiple programs.
•
Outcome(s) measured – The evaluation literature focuses on assessing a program’s effectiveness using recidivism as the outcome variable. However, evaluations such as this
which measure only program outcomes related to recidivism fail to evaluate other,
“secondary,” goals such as improving institutional adjustment, preventing child abuse,
and overcoming denial. These secondary goals are, in fact, critical as a “means” to the
socially-centered “end” of public protection. Review of the findings of this evaluation
must keep in mind that prison programs are frequently justified on the grounds that they
contribute to a wide range of goals, although this review only considered how well PA
DOC programs provide services aimed at reducing recidivism.
•
Subjective paper review – The methodology involved analysis of program manuals, curriculums, and, in some cases, program staff interviews by PA DOC research staff. This
methodology allowed for both researcher and interviewee bias. Further, as a paper review with no program delivery observation, we cannot assume that the results of this
process evaluation are truly examining how well programs are delivering services.
Although the analysis has a number of limitations, there are still many advantages to conducting
such a study:
66
•
Methodology – While the measurement instrument used is a derivation of the CPAI, the
eleven principles of effective intervention were founded in empirically derived principles.
•
Measures program quality and integrity – This review provides information regarding
quality and integrity, “How well does the program provide services?” rather than the
results of an outcome evaluation which simply determines, “Does the program work?”
•
Identifies strengths and weaknesses – Again, unlike an outcome evaluation which quantifies program impacts, this evaluation type identifies strengths and weaknesses from
which recommendations can be made and changes implemented.
•
Benchmarking – This review provides a baseline for comparison between different programs as well as for future evaluations of individual programs.
Prison Programs
Short Term Offender Program
South Carolina Department of Corrections
Jon Ozmint, Director
In South Carolina, an individual who is convicted of committing an offense against the state
and sentenced to imprisonment for more than three months is placed within the custody of the
South Carolina Department of Corrections. South Carolina is the only state corrections system
required to accept all convicted individuals with sentences of more than three months.
During the fiscal year 2002-2003, 2,941 male inmates with sentences from 3 months to 1 year
were sentenced to the Department of Corrections. In October 2004, the South Carolina Department of Corrections began the Short Term Offender Program (STOP) at Broad River Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina, to specifically address the special needs of these
inmates and to reduce costs and resources associated with these short-term offenders. This new
program targets approximately 24% of male new admissions during any given year.
The Department of Corrections greatly benefits as a result of the STOP initiative. The Department is able to reduce costs in several different ways. First, the Department houses these inmates in one high-security prison, rather than in many minimum-security prisons throughout the
state. Therefore, valuable minimum-security beds become available for well-behaved inmates
who have demonstrated that they should be allowed to advance to a less restrictive custody.
Second, these short-term offenders are required to work for either the Department of Corrections or other state agencies by performing labor-intensive tasks, such as litter-pick up, grounds
maintenance, and janitorial services. Third, educational opportunities are provided to these
short-term offenders through the Corrections Learning Network (CLN), a cost-effective satellite
distance-learning network. Volunteers and peer tutors assist in the delivery of the CLN programs.
Prison Programs
67
By focusing on reentry in the community, these short-term offenders also benefit from this innovative program. Inmates are required to work to develop their skills for reentry into the community. Educational opportunities are available to the inmates through the Corrections Learning Network. Inmates with substance abuse problems may use the services provided by Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous.
Future plans include implementing two separate tracks for the short-term offenders. The first
track expedites core services on inmates with less than three months remaining to serve on their
sentences. Inmates who have between three months and one year to serve with the Department
of Corrections will be placed on the second track to further develop the skills needed for a successful transition back into the community.
When the program is fully operational, the Department of Corrections will partner with other
agencies to provide more services. Currently, there is a partnership planned with the local
school district to offer additional educational classes. The Department has partnered with the
Vocational Rehabilitation department to provide vocational services to eligible inmates to better
prepare them for reentry into the workplace.
Since its inception in October 2003, over 670 inmates have participated in the Short Term Offender Program and received valuable transitional services. The Department of Corrections
continues to develop STOP through partnerships with other agencies, as well as faith-based
groups by providing much needed services to these short-term offenders and to prepare them
for their pending release back into the community.
68
Prison Programs
CHANGES Program
Texas Department of Criminal Justice
Gary Johnson, Executive Director
Overview
Changing Habits and Achieving New Goals to Empower Success (CHANGES) is a life skills
program that is offered by Windham Independent School District at correctional institutions of
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) for offenders prior to their release. The program is one of several reentry initiatives made available for offenders who are transitioning
from incarceration back to the community. CHANGES has been operational since 1993.
The concept of the program focuses on equipping the offender with skills that empower them to
face life’s challenges, assisting them with tools to cope with pressures in positive ways, and
teaching them to make decisions that will contribute to their future success, prior to leaving the
prison environment. Additionally, the program offers offenders strategies that will help them to
adapt positively to new and changing job markets and changing personal situations. For success in their personal lives and on the job, offenders should be able to communicate, resolve
conflict, appreciate differences, and work as team members.
Purpose
The CHANGES program focuses on the holistic development of the individual. Opportunities
are provided for offenders to develop basic life skills and social values needed for successful
reintegration into society. Practical, everyday issues are explored within the context of developing self-esteem, a positive mental attitude, accurate thinking for self-assessment and life
planning, self-discipline, appropriate interpersonal skills and values definition and clarification.
Prison Programs
69
Operations
Windham School District educational/life skills coursework is offered at 88 correctional facilities in Texas. Offenders who are within 24 months of projected release are eligible to participate in the program and are prioritized for enrollment based on projected release date. Those
within 12 months of projected release have the highest priority for enrollment in the program.
Once in the program, students are required to successfully complete the seven curriculum modules that include: Personal Development; Interpersonal Relationships; Civic and Legal Responsibilities; Victim Awareness; Health and Wellness; Career Planning and Employment and Reentry into Society. There are 49 attendant lessons associated with these modules that are covered within a 60-day time period. Teachers are encouraged to use guest speakers for each module. The program is operated with an open-entry, open-exit structure; however, due to the nature
of the materials being covered, new students are not placed into the class at the beginning of the
Victim Awareness or Reentry modules of instruction.
Windham School District staff offer the coursework through various teaching strategies; facilitation is most commonly used. Students work primarily in groups, with activities designed to
engage all learning styles and modalities. Audiovisual aids and group discussions are promoted
to allow students of diverse academic abilities to learn together in a class setting. Using a Student Progress Record (SPR), the teacher maintains a record of lessons completed by each participant. Program completion is based on one of four criteria: Consistent and active student participation; Completion of the complete 49 lessons; A minimum of 162/180 hours of attendance;
and completion of all course modules within one year from the beginning of CHANGES instruction.
The program is evaluated through the use of student surveys and program completion data.
During the 2002-2003 school year 27,343 offenders participated in the program.
70
Prison Programs
Chapter T wo
National Institute of Corrections’ Transition from
Prison to Community Initiative
In 2001 the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) launched the Transition from Prison to
Community Initiative (TPCI) by entering into a cooperative agreement with Abt Associates.
During the initiative’s development phase, NIC and Abt engaged 35 correctional experts as advisors and workgroup members to develop a vision of an “ideal” transition process to guide
states as they sought to improve policies and practices affecting offenders as they moved from
prison admission through completion of supervision in the community. In 2002 the project invited two states - Oregon and Missouri - to work with NIC and Abt to field-test the initiative.
Beginning in 2003, the project moved into an implementation phase. NIC and Abt screened
letters from the 23 states that submitted a letter of interest in response to NIC’s solicitation and
invited 8 states to submit full applications. Ultimately, NIC invited six additional states Michigan, North Dakota, Rhode Island, Indiana, New York, and Georgia - and the District of
Columbia to participate.
During project development, advisors and workgroup members made a number of important
decisions about the scope and content of the TPCI model. They decided that the primary goal
should be to protect the public from harm by persons who return to their communities after their
release from prison. States would do this by using validated risk assessment tools to identify
offenders’ criminogenic needs and then linking offenders to interventions that altered those
needs so as to increase their odds of success after release.
Advisors and workgroup members decided that the Initiative had to change the way corrections
73
did business, not just add a new program on top of business-as-usual. Thus, corrections’ mission should include preparing inmates for successful release to their communities. Effective
transition would become a mission that was co-equal to other important missions, such as operating safe, orderly, and cost-effective prisons. Indeed, advisors argued that improved transition
would help prisons to better achieve those other missions.
Advisors noted that corrections agencies would need to build their capacity and infrastructure to
support a mission of effective transition. Prisons should begin to work with inmates on transition when they enter prisons, not just when they are about to leave. Job descriptions would
need to be revised, training changed, personnel supervision adjusted, resources re-deployed, etc.
It was further decided that effective transition required true collaboration across corrections,
parole, community supervision, and human services agencies, agencies that serve common clients. High-risk inmates have multiple problems that consume disproportionate resources from
other agencies. These agencies can achieve mutual benefits from collaborating to address the
needs of common clients more effectively. Rather than competing for resources on an “I win you lose” basis, collaboration can help agencies achieve their respective missions better, thus
creating “win-win” situations.
Advisers decided that the Initiative should be built on evidence-based practices. In recent
years, researchers have worked with corrections practitioners to produce a substantial body of
knowledge about what works and what does not work. The Initiative’s model (which is described below) is organized around decision points that offenders flow through as they pass
from sentencing, to prison, to release, to discharge of sentence. Based on this body of research
findings, the Initiative prescribes reforms at each decision point. Quite literally, in order to implement the Transition from Prison to Community model, states do not have to invent new
tools; rather, they need to effectively implement tools that already exist and have been proven
to work.
The TPCI model specifies the following decision points:
• assessment and classification
• programming and behavior
• release preparation
• release decision-making
• community supervision and services
• responses to violations
• discharge from supervision
Since it would be impossible to condense the total content of the TPCI model into this brief article, only the content of a few, select decision points will be discussed.
Under the TPCI model, states would use empirically-based assessment instruments to identify
inmates’ static and dynamic risk factors when they are admitted to prison. Static factors are
those that do not change with interventions - things like the number of prior convictions, age at
first conviction, etc. Dynamic factors are ones that can be changed by an appropriate intervention - things like a substance abuse problem, lack of job skills, thinking errors, etc. Assessment
74
instruments need to be recently-validated and normed for the population of offenders to whom
they are applied. (For example, it would be inappropriate pursuant to the model to use an assessment instrument in state Y that was developed for inmates in state X, and that was last validated 20 years ago.) Finally, states should re-assess inmates periodically to measure changes in
risk levels due to interventions over time.
States would develop case plans for inmates that address these phases (inmates’ time in prison,
time on supervision after release, and time in the community following discharge of sentence).
These case plans would set forth interventions to address serious risk factors and specify when
offenders should enter each program. The case plan should also describe in general terms the
interventions and conditions that will apply through the various phases listed above. Officials
would revise case plans periodically to adjust them to reflect offenders’ past behaviors and accomplishments and to focus on upcoming elements.
The model provides similar specific directives at subsequent stages as offenders move from
prisons to release to supervision to discharge - for more details you can download the full
model by going to NIC’s website at http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017520.pdf.
When states join the TPCI initiative, NIC asks the respective Governor for a declaration of support. We expect the Governor to communicate that support clearly and effectively to the heads
of his or her key executive agencies. TPCI states create policy teams that consist of the heads
of corrections and human services agencies, and that often include a member of the Governor’s
staff. The policy teams develop a vision supporting improved transition, articulate support for
collaboration across their respective agencies to achieve that vision, and advocate and facilitate
specific changes in policies, procedures, and practices to implement that vision.
Policy teams create a steering committee, a larger group of officials and staff from collaborating
agencies, that does the hard work of [a] documenting current transition practices, [b] identifying
gaps between current practices and TPCI model expectations, (c) overseeing workgroups that
plan reforms (e.g., adopting a new risk assessment instrument, modifying information systems
to help agencies share data about offenders, etc.) to fill those gaps, and (d) monitoring progress
on implementation of reforms.
To implement effective transition reforms in the trenches, TCPI states may also establish multiagency partnerships in communities where large groups of offenders return upon release. These
local partnerships would engage local criminal justice officials, private providers, regionallybased staff of state agencies (e.g., a parole officer), citizens and neighborhood organizations,
faith-based groups, etc.
As you can see, the TPCI reform starts at the top of state governments and progressively engages many officials and staff across levels in each partnering agency and in affected communities. It is not a sport for the short-winded. However, potential benefits, including improved
public safety, enhanced employee morale, and long-term community stability, are significant.
75
Recidivism-Reducing Programs
The Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) mission is “to protect society by confining offenders in
the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane,
appropriately secure, and cost-effective, and which provide work and other self-improvement
opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.” The two distinct objectives, to confine inmates and to facilitate reentry, relate directly to public safety.
To succeed in the first part of that mission, we must always pay close attention to sound correctional basics, including effective communication and close inmate supervision. The second part
of the Bureau’s mission also requires constant, effective communication with inmates, and additionally requires emphasis on innovation, thinking out of the box, and critical self-evaluation.
Our strategies for developing inmate programs must be intended to increase the likelihood of a
successful transition to the community. To that end, the Bureau offers multi-faceted programming to help inmates develop the personal and work-related skills they will need to return to the
community as productive, law-abiding citizens. This article focuses primarily on traditional,
well-established inmate programs that have been shown to reduce recidivism and improve the
likelihood of post-release success (i.e., education, vocational training, work, and the Residential
Drug Abuse Program [RDAP].) From 1987-1997, these programs contributed to our achieving
a 10% reduction in the overall recidivism rate of released Federal inmates.
Federal prisons offer a variety of education programs for inmates to acquire literacy skills. Inmates who do not have a high school diploma or a General Educational Development (GED)
certificate must participate in the literacy program for a minimum of 240 hours or until they obtain the GED. Non-English speaking inmates are required to participate in an English as a SecTransitional Programs
77
ond Language program until they are proficient in oral and written English. Adult Basic Education courses round out the basic literacy programs offered across institutions. BOP research
substantiated the benefits of education programs: participants were 16% less likely to recidivate than non-participating counterparts.
The bureau offers vocational training programs at prisons around the country. These occupational programs both consider general labor market conditions and institution workforce needs,
and target inmate needs. BOP research has found that inmates who participated in vocational
training or apprenticeship training programs while incarcerated were significantly less likely to
recidivate than inmates who did not participate in these programs. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2003,
the Bureau provided or supported hundreds of occupational training programs, apprenticeship
programs, and advanced occupational education programs for inmates. On any given day, more
than 10,000 inmates were actively participating in occupational training/ apprenticeship programs.
Inmates receive on-the-job training through appropriately structured institutional service work
assignments (e.g., as food service workers, plumbers, and painters.) Approximately 20 percent
of sentenced, medically-able federal inmates work in Federal Prison Industries (FPI), one of the
Bureau’s most important correctional programs. Work in FPI provides inmates an opportunity
to gain marketable job skills through work in a variety of factory operations, such as metals,
furniture, electronics, textiles, and graphic arts. Research has shown that inmates who participate in the FPI program are less likely to revert to criminal behavior and are more likely to be
gainfully employed following release from prison. The Post-Release Employment Project
study compared inmates who worked in prison industries with similar inmates who did not participate in FPI. The research found that inmates who worked in FPI were significantly less
likely to recidivate than inmates who did not participate -- as much as 12 years after their release. In addition, minority groups that are at the greatest risk for recidivism benefit more from
industrial work participation and vocational training than their non-minority counterparts.
To reduce the number of inmates who return to drug abuse and criminal lifestyles following release, the Bureau designed a comprehensive substance abuse treatment strategy aimed at changing inmates' criminal and drug-using behaviors. RDAPs operate at 50 Bureau institutions to
serve the 34% of Federal inmates with such a need. Eligible inmates who participate are
housed together in a separate unit of the prison reserved for drug treatment. The residential program provides intensive treatment for a minimum of four hours daily, five days a week, with
the remainder of each day spent in education, work skills training, and other inmate programs.
Residential drug abuse programs are typically 9 months in length and provide a minimum of
500 hours of drug abuse treatment. Treatment is cognitively-based, focuses on the inmate’s behavior and criminal thinking, and targets the inmate’s drug-using behaviors. Upon completion
of RDAP, aftercare treatment services provided in general population and in community corrections centers ensure an effective transition from the institution program to the community.
The BOP, with funding assistance from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, undertook rigorous research regarding the effectiveness of RDAP. Findings supported recidivism reduction
and relapse prevention. Research confirms that inmates who completed RDAP were less likely
78
to be rearrested and less likely to use drugs, when compared to similar non-participant offenders. Data also suggests the Bureau’s RDAPs make a significant difference in the lives of inmates following their release from custody and return to the community. (For those interested
in reviewing the Bureau’s recidivism research literature, please note relevant articles may be
accessed through the Bureau’s public website at www.bop.gov.)
Given research documenting the benefit of these core programs as rehabilitative tools, the Bureau remains firmly committed to managing the ever-increasing Federal inmate population
through the judicious use of our resources in these specific program areas. Additionally, the
Bureau complements its array of traditional, core programs with a specific Release Preparation
Program, in which inmates participate as they near the end of their sentence. The program includes classes in a number of areas, including resume writing, job seeking, and job retention.
The program also includes presentations by representatives of community-based organizations
that help ex-inmates find employment and provide training opportunities after release from
prison. Many institutions hold mock job fairs to instruct inmates in appropriate job interview
techniques and to expose community recruiters to the skills available among inmates. The Bureau also places most inmates in halfway houses prior to their release from custody in order to
help them adjust to life in the community and find suitable employment. Halfway houses offer
structure and a variety of services, including counseling and assistance with job search activities, to help inmates transition successfully.
As an agency we will continue, resources permitting, to evaluate the effectiveness of other cognitive-behavioral programming options derived from the above-referenced core of traditional
programs to identify those with the potential of contributing significantly to further reducing
recidivism. After all, facilitating community reentry is one half of the Bureau’s mission.
79
Planning for Opportunities
Idaho Department of Corrections
Thomas J. Beauclair, Director
The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) has a success story to share. During one of the
most difficult fiscal situations in recent memory, the IDOC used planning efforts and a process
of regularly questioning our practices to help create millions of dollars in cost avoidance.
As a state agency we are subject to the usual pressures and contradictions. We are expected to
be efficient and yet to be responsive to the multiple perspectives and expectations of a democratic system. Too often, due to the effects of the democratic process, we have been forced to be
reactive rather than proactive in our approach. Planning for opportunities is our solution to be
more successful in this environment.
Planning for opportunities involves maintaining a proactive approach by utilizing considerable
internal planning and analysis efforts and, at the same time, positioning these planned concepts
in such a manner that they provide significant influence with the external stakeholders. The advantage of being proactive is that one can influence situations and reduce management by crisis.
Idaho was impacted by the recession that swept the nation. It coincided with a change in organizational leadership and, as a result, we found ourselves in a reactionary situation wherein we
needed to cut costs due to holdbacks and budget cuts. This was difficult and challenging and
since we were in a reactionary situation, we were forced to meet the holdbacks through the
usual methods. Some personnel positions were cut, we reduced whatever costs we could, and
barely managed to meet the holdback requirements. This was an inefficient and painful process.
81
This experience taught us to be more proactive and to use the fiscal crisis as a catalyst for
change. We chose to reframe our thinking and to view the fiscal crisis as an opportunity to look
at our operating practices and to challenge our historical way of doing things. We grasped this
opportunity and made several changes enabling us to lead the process rather than simply reacting to the situation.
Before the next round of budget cuts arrived, we began to ask why, why not, what, who, and
how. Why do we do it this way? Why not do this instead? What is our desired outcome? What
do our stakeholders want? Who are the key stakeholders and how do we work with them? How
are we going to operate and make changes that will be ahead of the curve? These questions led
to answers that let us drive the process and as a consequence, allowed us to lead with our goals
in mind.
We easily recognized that the most significant budget impact came from the incarcerated offender population. Obviously, the rate of new commitments to term (court sentencing and new
crimes committed) was mostly outside of our sphere of influence or control. The release decisions, made by the Parole Commission (a separate agency), again were mostly out of our control. As a result, our primary approaches had to deal with the length of stay for incarcerated
offenders, intervention activities in lieu of revocation of probation or parole, and preparation
efforts to enhance the chances of incarcerated offenders receiving parole.
Our initial visible success occurred at the North Idaho Correctional Institution (NICI) where the
male Retained Jurisdiction Program is operated. We were able to significantly reduce the
length of stay in this program and realize impressive cost avoidance as a result. The Retained
Jurisdiction Program functions with the courts retaining jurisdiction of the offender, while the
department operates the program, to include housing, education, programming, and treatment of
the offenders.
The typical length of stay in this program had been designated by statute as up to 180 days. In
the old paradigm the average length of stay ended up at 174 days. Only 120 days of this was
involved in the program, the rest was transport, assessment, and simply holding the offenders in
cells before or after the program took place. We asked why. We talked to judges and to staff.
The answer was the usual, “well, we have always done it this way” response.
We made changes. We worked with the courts to return these offenders back for sentencing
immediately upon completion of the program rather than simply housing them for several
weeks awaiting a hearing with the judge. This proactive approach saved several hundred thousand dollars in the first year and has continued to provide cost avoidance in every subsequent
year. A more effective program was also created as a result.
An additional program was developed in our Retained Jurisdiction program that targets substance abuse offenders (about half of this offender population.) This concentrates treatment and
programming activities up to 12 hours a day and results in an effective 90-day program. This
effort is still in the pilot program stage. Upon the completion of the 90-day institutionally based
program, offenders are placed on retained jurisdiction in the community for 30 or more days, as
if they were on intense probation supervision. Offenders are then returned to the court for a sen82
tencing decision. This provides judges with reports of the offender’s performance both in the
retained jurisdiction facility and in the community. This innovation results in a significant reduction in incarceration time. It saves the state a great deal of money, gives the offenders intense programming and treatment, and provides the judges with better decision-making information.
Another significant change in practice has resulted as an outgrowth of our efforts to change our
culture and from our planning efforts. We aggressively addressed the culture of our probation
and parole supervision employees. These officers and their supervisors received clear guidance
that our approach was to make a committed effort to help the offenders succeed under our supervision. Public safety is still our top priority, we just enhanced our emphasis on interventions,
sanctions, proactively helping offenders, and collaborating with other agencies and community
providers. For many officers with a “hook ‘em and book ‘em” mentality, this was a significant
cultural shift and cultural shifts are never easy.
This change in focus had a very significant impact on our incarcerated offender population.
Fewer offenders were violated and many more made it successfully to discharge. Not only
were we able to reduce costs, we were also able to be more effective in our efforts towards successfully reintegrating offenders into the communities. This effort too, was the result of our asking what are we doing, why are we doing it, and would it be better if we did it differently.
Offender reentry is an important area that we addressed as well. We began with a significant
effort to enhance our parole preparation efforts. In the past, many offenders reached their parole hearing unprepared and under programmed. Many of these offenders were passed over for
parole resulting in an increased length of stay. We began working much more closely with the
Parole Commission to determine what they required for parole. We also greatly increased our
communication efforts and information sharing with them. We began to develop offender case
plans that were compatible with our assessments and the Parole Commission’s desires. We
monitored these plans much more closely to insure offenders were going to be adequately prepared when they arrived at their initial parole hearing. This has been a major undertaking requiring a large planning effort and it is another example of a significant cultural change effort,
this time in our prisons. We still have a great deal to do in this area but every step has led to
improvements and savings.
The Parole Commission was also responsive to the fiscal situation and to our efforts to work
together with them to achieve positive outcomes. Our Review and Analysis Bureau, using data
and forecasting information, was able to demonstrate to the Parole Commission and other key
stakeholders the fiscal impact of their historical practices. The commission changed their practices and, as a result, reduced the length of time an offender spends incarcerated on a parole violation prior to a revocation hearing. This resulted in big savings as a portion of these offenders
were reinstated to parole much sooner than before and those offenders, who were revoked, became eligible for a subsequent parole much earlier than under the old practices.
We also were able to work with the legislature to increase transitions funds for indigent offenders (incarcerated offenders without community ties or resources to effectively support themselves on parole and/or probation and parole offenders who, due to financial concerns, may be
83
about to fail.) Our planning and research staff calculated the cost benefits of transitions funding
– every dollar spent on transitions funding results in a cost avoidance of around eight dollars.
This funding resulted in many more offenders paroling and succeeding in the community and
many less offenders occupying prison beds.
In all, these efforts reduced our budget needs by $14 million over the last year and a half. Our
total budget is about $125 million. These were proactive savings or cost avoidance and put us
in a very good light with the Governor and the legislature. We also saved the state another $3.5
million in other cost avoidance efforts of our own initiative. As a result, our external stakeholders perceive the department as being efficient and effective. The credibility of the department is at an all time high and we are being respected for our professionalism and our fiscal responsibility.
The secret for us has been information, communication, planning, and utilizing data in an ongoing effort to ask why, how, what, and what if. Our planning efforts are inclusive, involving the
entire administrative team, key employees from the field, and our external stakeholders. We
have also made “change” a cultural component wherein embracing positive change is a key
component of leadership and is expected in leadership positions.
What does the future hold for us? It may be desirable to have an agency that has all its practices figured out, an organization that operates within a static system from month to month and
year to year. Our department does not believe that operating a static system is realistic as too
many changes occur that are beyond our control. We find ourselves in a dynamic environment
actively focusing on proactive change. We continue to let our stakeholders know of our continuous commitment to find efficiency and effectiveness. However, we still focus on doing the
right things for the right reasons. We will continue to plan and ask key questions, we will continue to accomplish our mission, and we will continue to reap the benefits of being proactive.
We will also face many challenges along the way. We will monitor the environment and keep in
touch with our external stakeholders. We will help them to understand our system and the impacts of our changes. We will help frame the discussions so we can better avoid situations
where we must react after the fact. For us, planning for opportunities has been vastly superior
to the old practice of waiting to react.
84
Going Home: A Collaborative Effort to Help Serious and
Violent Offenders Safely and Successfully Reenter
Iowa Communities
Iowa Department of Corrections
Gary Maynard, Director
Project Overview
In January 2003, the State of Iowa began the implementation of the federally funded Going
Home Reentry Program entitled, “Going Home: A Collaborative Effort to Help Serious and
Violent Offenders Safely and Successfully Reenter Iowa Communities.”
A three-phase program of treatment and services has been established:
1) Incarceration Phase: Reentry Preparation Programs have been implemented at the Fort
Dodge, Newton, and Mitchellville correctional facilities. These programs are designed
to assess the offenders’ potential barriers to successful reentry and assist those individuals in developing and implementing long-term strategies to overcome the barriers.
2) Transition Phase: Transition phase services are delivered during the offender’s stay in residential and work release facilities, as part of street parole, and in conjunction with the
voluntary program participation of offenders who are discharged. Community-Based
case managers begin working with offenders during the incarceration phase by establishing a network of transitional services for each offender based on that individual’s
identified needs and connecting the offender with those services and resources immediately upon release.
3) Aftercare/Sustainability Phase: Case management, ongoing mentoring services, employTransitional Programs
85
ment-related support groups, substance abuse and mental health services, and other support services are provided for an additional 12 months.
Reentry Project Partners
Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services (DCS)
The Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services (DCS) is the lead agency for the
Reentry Program and provides implementation and management leadership. The Judicial District Department of Correctional Services provides a comprehensive continuum of community
correctional services including pre-trial services, pre-sentence investigations, probation supervision, residential correctional facilities, work release, parole, compact services, and various special programs. The Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services has committed
one adult probation officer to specialize in the supervision of the Going Home offender population.
The Iowa Code requires the Department of Corrections (DOC) to supervise and treat offenders
committed to its nine state institutions, as well as the community-based corrections programs.
The Deputy Director of Western Operations serves as the overall project director. She also cochairs the State Reentry Steering Committee. The project director and the three institutional
Reentry Preparation Programs are provided directly by the DOC.
Iowa Workforce Development (IWD)
A Workforce Investment Act One-Stop Center is located in the target community. Workforce
Investment Act services will be used by case managers to serve the employment and training
needs of clients with grant funds used to fill gaps.
Des Moines Area Community College (DMACC)
Des Moines Area Community College is the largest of the colleges in the community college
system in Iowa. DMACC has been committed to providing quality education and academic services to economically, educationally, and culturally disadvantaged Iowans for 35 years.
DMACC also provides instruction and academic assistance at non-traditional settings, including
prisons, senior centers, low-income housing projects, and neighborhood churches. One of the
six DMACC campuses, the Urban Campus, serving 3,500 annually and DMACC’s Community
and Workforce Partnerships is located in the heart of Des Moines’ Enterprise Community.
Des Moines Area Community College provides project coordination and case management.
DMACC also provides the education and assessment services. The Director of the Community
Outreach Program serves as director of the adult offender reentry program.
Criminal & Juvenile Justice Planning Agency
Local project research and evaluation is being conducted by the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning. The Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) is located
in the Iowa Department of Human Rights (DHR). CJJP provides statistical analysis, research,
planning, data coordination, and information clearinghouse functions for state justice system
agencies. For the reentry project, CJJP provides the services of a Justice System Analyst, a Sta86
tistical Research Analyst, and a staff intern.
Project Implementation
Polk County in Des Moines, Iowa was selected as the target community because the project will
have the largest impact within a geographically limited area. As the state’s largest county, Polk
accounts for a substantial percentage of admissions to state institutions and it also possesses
community-based resources to assist in the reintegration process following incarceration.
Three institutions in locations surrounding Polk County provide the institutional phase of the
program - the Fort Dodge Correctional Facility (males), the Newton Correctional Facility
(males) and the Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (females). It is estimated that approximately 183 offenders will be identified in the target institutions during each project year.
All of these individuals will participate in the incarceration phase of the Reentry Preparation
Program. The LSI-R assessment is used to identify offenders with a score of 20 and higher who
are at a serious risk of recidivism and are likely to see their risk reduced by participation in the
project. Incentives to offenders for voluntary program participation include:
1 Early release to parole supervision
2 Priority placement in required programming as identified by assessment process
3 Maximum assistance in obtaining housing
4 Maximum assistance in obtaining meaningful employment
5 Support of transition case manager and reentry worker
Phase One (Institutional Incarceration Phase)
During the incarceration phase, an Offender Reentry Plan is developed with the Reentry Case Management Team comprised of an institution counselor, a reentry case manager, and a probation/parole officer.
Each individual’s Reentry Plan includes:
A Career Component: Offenders work with employment counselors to assess interests,
aptitudes, skills, disabilities, and labor market information, and develop a career plan in a
field of interest that will result in self-sufficient employment upon release. Short-term
training, including life skills training and job retention skill development, are provided
during the Incarceration phase, and participants are connected to job placement
specialists in the reentry community who begin working with local employers to identify
post-release employment opportunities. A career advancement plan is also developed
that identifies training and advancement opportunities to enable the program participant
to progress within that career path.
A Support Service Component: Offenders are assessed for and make plans to address
problems or barriers that could impede the participant’s achievement of his career
plan, including. Specific assessment instruments address the following area:
a. Substance Abuse Issues
b. Physical and Mental Health
c. Social interactions
87
d. Housing
e. Other Identified Support Services
A Compliance Component: The plan specifies how terms of probation or parole will
be met, as well as consequences of noncompliance with the Reentry Plan. For all
offenders under supervised release, program participation is a mandatory condition
of release.
A Victim/Offender/Community Reparation Component: In order to complete a
successful transition into the community, offenders must attempt to repair the harm
suffered by the victims of their crimes. Embracing the restorative justice principle
that crimes are committed against people and communities, not just the criminal justice system, the goal is to provide opportunities for crime victims and other community members to participate directly in the rehabilitation of offenders. As part of
this process, offenders participate in Victim Empathy classes in preparation for the
Victim Offender Mediation Process (VOMP).
Reentry Preparation Program – “Keys To Success” (KEYS)
During this first phase, offenders are enrolled in the KEYS Program, which utilizes a multidisciplinary team to help offenders develop the skills necessary to successfully reenter their
communities. Through the diligent work of DMACC employees, the original eight (8) week
KEYS program has been enhanced by a Life Skills grant and expanded to twelve (12) weeks.
Since receiving this grant from the U.S. Department of Education, additional components including vocational training and computer skills have been added.
Phase Two: (Community Transition Phase)
The second phase of the project encompasses the offender’s initial reentry into the
comunity under supervision to the Fifth Judicial District Correctional Services Department as authorized by the Board of Parole. Some program participants are required to participate in a residential work release program prior to parole supervision. Upon reentry into the community, offenders report to a case manager and parole officer team, who assist them in connecting with needed mental health, substance abuse, and other support services. Case managers also assist participants in
securing employment, obtaining necessary identification cards (e.g., a drivers license), and meeting immediate needs, such as clothing, food, bedding, etc. A service provider staffing is also scheduled within a week of the release date. Postrelease housing and transportation arrangements are completed during this time
Phase Three: (Aftercare/Sustainability Phase)
The Iowa Reentry Program provides 12 months of post-release substance abuse,
mental health services, training and employment counseling, case management, and
other support services for program participants.
88
Reentry Support Work
Polk County reentry planning efforts involved offenders in the discussion of the elements necessary for successful reentry. Offenders spoke of the "culture shock" they experienced returning from prison and the importance of receiving support from someone who knew what they
were going through, usually an ex-offender who had straightened out their life and now was
working to help others. Family members of offenders stressed the need for their own support
and preparation for what to expect when their offender/ex-offender family member returned
home and how to resolve issues that inevitably arose.
Community Reentry Support Work is conceptualized as providing the initial support bridge as
the offender returns to the community and developing with the offender a personal circle of
support that sustains successful community reintegration. Examples of the tasks required to
accomplish this broad based goal of support are identified below:
1. Meet with families of reentry participants to provide support and plan for the participant’s reentry into the community
2. Arrange and facilitate reentry participant support groups to address culture shock at reentry
3. Create 24-hour set of contacts that reentry participants can use for support, as necessary
4. Participate in interdisciplinary Transition Team meetings to assist in the resolution of
barriers to reintegration with family and community, progress of goals, individualized
education/service plans and placement recommendations
5. Assist reentry participants with keeping service and referral appointments
6. Assist with identifying resources and services to address identified needs of reentry participants
7. Establish mentoring program to provide support and life skill aftercare to offenders who
are lacking a positive support network in the community
Project Results
Iowa has been selected to participate in the Serious and Violent Offender Initiative National
Evaluation. Preliminary outcomes obtained from local tracking indicate that the comprehensive
community transition services are resulting in approximately a 10 percent reduction in recidivism and return to prison with even significantly more dramatic results for the female offender
population; however, numbers served and length of follow-up are not yet sufficient to draw
solid conclusions. An astonishing success story of a 34-year-old Hispanic man who served 13
years in prison for a variety of serious and violent offenses including attempted murder, documents the value of reentry work. A “Mexican Mafia” gang member decided he wanted a future
different than his past; renounced gang involvement and sought needed assistance through the
reentry program. Since leaving prison, he has obtained viable employment as an insulation installer, enrolled in the social work program at the community college, and volunteers at a community outreach center to speak with adolescents about the dangers of gang involvement The
KEYS program opens doors to a much brighter, positive future than one might otherwise imagine.
89
The Kentucky Correctional Institution for
Woman’s Pre-Release Program
Kentucky Department of Corrections
John Rees, Commissioner
The Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women (KCIW) is Kentucky’s only state prison for
females. It was established in 1938 and has grown to an Average Daily Population (ADP) of
725 inmates. It is a multi-custody facility ranging from community and minimum custody to
life without parole and death row.
KCIW is operated on the unit management concept with each unit having program staff that
work day-to-day with the inmate population. It is a program-oriented institution, which provides multiple opportunities for basic education, technical education and college classes for its
inmate population. Five correctional industries and on-the-job training in landscape, food
preparation, and janitorial services are also available as job opportunities within the facility.
The unit staff tracks inmates who are mentally or physically unable to work and participate.
Low income and indigent inmates are given small monthly stipends to prevent them from being
truly penniless in the facility. Indigent and low-income inmates are provided with basic necessities.
During the classification process, case managers and unit managers make recommendations for
program participation by the inmates. These recommendations are repeated at subsequent classifications and the importance of the recommendations is stressed to the inmates.
Throughout the inmates incarceration, there are opportunities to participate in a wide variety of
91
programs. Some of the programs include education, religious services, living skills, pathfinders,
life without a crutch, and parenting. Counseling and mental health services include the Sex Offender Treatment Program and the six month in-house Substance Abuse Treatment Program.
Groups geared to the needs of the female inmates include Domestic Violence and Adult Survivors of Sexual Assault and Rational Emotive Therapy groups.
When an inmate is within a few months of serving out her sentence or reaching her parole eligibility date, additional programming opportunities are available. KCIW provides pre-release
programs through its program staff, which includes case managers, a living skills teacher, and
technical education center counselor.
The Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women offers a program titled, “Prison to the
Streets” or alternately, “Prison to Paycheck,” which is taught by the technical education center
counselor. It is a ten-class transition program for offenders preparing to leave prison.
The classes are approximately two hours in length, but could easily be expanded to four hour or
all day classes, if time allowed. The ten classes are: Orientation to Transition program, Readjusting to Society, Community Resources/Survival Planning on the Streets, Understanding the
Parole Board Process, Understanding the Probation and parole Officer’s Role, The Inner You,
Preparing for Success, and Employment Search (Parts I, II, and III.)
Currently the program includes probation and parole officers as speakers, as well as community
employers. It is a straightforward “tell it like it is” program.
In addition to the home and job placements, which all inmates meeting the Parole Board must
have, the “Prisons to the Streets” program assists inmates in creating a resume, establishing a
list of job skills, filling out applications, and interviewing.
The Kentucky Department of Corrections is currently accumulating data regarding the inmates
who have completed the “Prison to the Streets” program. With the current program as the pilot
program, it is anticipated that all correctional institutions in the state will adopt the “Prison to
the Stress” pre-release program.
Inmates at KCIW, who have been tracked as low-income and indigent, are aided by the institution upon release. The offender records department, property room, inmate accounts, and the
warden’s office work together to determine that inmates have adequate clothing and funds upon
release. In cases of long bus trips or home placements in halfway houses or community centers,
up to $50.00 is provided. Staff believes this prevents the inmate from a possible relapse back to
criminal behavior when she can provide for herself initially.
The recidivism rate for inmates at KCIW who were released in 1998 and followed for three
years is 29.6%. The institution is eager to track inmates who have completed the “Prison to the
Streets” program to determine what impact the program has had on recidivism since its inception in 2002.
92
Alternatives to Incarceration
Approximately half of parolees returning to prison each year, according to Justice Department
officials, have not been convicted of a new crime. Rather, they are sent back for violating the
conditions of their parole. Offenders are presented with many obstacles when they are first released. By cracking down on parolees who break the rules and who commit technical violations, probation and parole staff has helped keep prison beds full during an era of lower crime
rates.
Across the country, many probation and parole officers have seen their caseloads grow significantly over the last two decades. Today some Louisiana Probation and Parole officers oversee
up to 130 people.
Originally conceived as a one-way system of oversight and rehabilitation, parole today often
functions like a conveyor belt, delivering recently freed individuals straight back to incarceration. People are spending years cycling in and out of parole offices and prisons, seemingly unable to escape the grip of the criminal justice system. Known as “churners” in the correctional
system, a large number of parolees return to prison each year for technical violations. That is,
disobeying parole rules, drug usage, disobeying curfews, missing appointments with parole officers, hanging out with someone who has a criminal record, etc.
During 2002, more than 4,000 offenders under probation and parole supervision in Louisiana
were sent back to prison for technical violations (i.e., violations other than new felony arrests or
convictions). Following revocation, they went to prison, on average, for 18 to 22 months. Substantial savings are possible without compromising public safety if some of these violators
93
could be diverted to a short-term program (60-90 days), then return to community supervision
following satisfactory completion.
In an effort to reduce the increasing costs of incarcerated adult offenders while continuing to
provide safety for the community, the division is taking steps to develop alternatives to incarceration.
Reentry Grant
Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections was awarded the Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative (SVORI) grant in November 2002, which funds a full time reentry
program director, community resource director, job development specialists, educational facilitator, and re-entry counselor. As well as contracted housing, substance abuse/mental health services, transportation, educational software, related equipment, travel, and training.
This pilot program connects offenders with all services essential to successful re-entry. These
include literacy and educational enhancement, substance abuse treatment, dual diagnosis/mental
health treatment, parenting skills, anger management, job development, HIV testing/counseling,
sex offender treatment, counseling services, and faith-based sessions at nominal or no cost.
These services may be mandated as sanctions for minor violations and provide alternatives to
incarceration without compromising public safety. Offenders may also participate on a voluntary basis and are referred to the program at intake if appropriate.
The pilot operates in selected correctional facilities. Offenders are screened and subsequently
asked to volunteer to participate in appropriate services while in custody. Essential pre-release
activities occur prior to release such as obtaining state identification cards and housing/
transportation planning.
The program has demonstrated a significant reduction in recidivism when offenders are provided with more intensive supervision and linked to essential services through officers and reentry personnel/partners. Thirty-eight SVORI participants have been released to parole supervision since November 2002. Four have completed their period of supervision; 33 presently
participate, 1 person is not participating. The program reports 0% recidivism as none of the 38
has been convicted of new felony charges nor has any been revoked for technical violations
since release.
A control group matching offense, date released, and time under supervision indicates 17% recidivism, 3 revocations/technical, 2 revocations/new felony convictions, 1 with a felony conviction awaiting revocation, 2 detained with new pending felonies, and 1 absconder.
Preliminary projected cost savings for this reentry initiative could be substantial for Louisiana
according to these statistics given a similar reduction in recidivism. Supervision of offenders
by probation and parole is a fraction of the cost ($2.13 compared to $33.00 per day.) Additionally, the cost of arrest, prosecution, loss of taxes, and support to dependent children increases
with recidivism.
In order to realize these substantial cost savings and reduction in recidivism, additional probation and parole officers must be budgeted to provide the necessary level of intervention and
94
monitoring. Current caseloads of 130 per officer do not allow time for this larger role, which
can effectively reduce prison population, maintain public safety, and strengthen communities
where offenders will be released. Reentry personnel should also be budgeted to develop needed
employment, treatment, housing, and other essential resources.
The Spirit of Freedom Ministry’s Christian Intervention Program, sponsored by the Apostolic
Outreach Center, is also located in the New Orleans West District Office’s Resource Center.
The program offers offenders on supervision a Christian-based substance abuse counseling program. Two hundred seventeen offenders have participated in a 20-week, on-site, faith-based
program, with 46 actively enrolled. Graduation ceremonies are conducted by probation staff
where offenders are applauded for their accomplishment.
Between 40% and 50% of offenders released to Region IV lack a high school diploma or GED
equivalency. Many offenders cannot gain or maintain employment without job readiness assistance, training, education, and employment counseling, which may be provided while incarcerated if offenders are targeted. The SVORI pilot program places a major focus on the employment of program participants. Wages earned through employment support families and increase
the state’s tax revenue. As of January 1, 2004, all reentry participants were employed, which is
an important factor in reentry success.
Statistics indicate a close correlation between recidivism and employment, especially when employment is maintained for more than 30 days. Ninety-two offenders were placed in jobs. Four
hundred thirty-one offenders received on-site services such as job readiness or job counseling.
The department continues to build partnerships with the various programs within the state and
federal Departments of Labor, employers, the New Orleans Chamber of Commerce, and Tulane/Xavier National Center for Urban Communities to increase employment opportunities for
offenders. More than 65 employers are partners.
Revocation Center
One alternative underway is a residential Probation and Parole Revocation Center, implemented
at a single pilot site in Concordia Parish. The center has 200 beds available and will divert approximately 800 offenders annually by the end of its third year of operation. That number will
include 200-300 technical parole violators, with the remainder being probation violators.
The program is being developed to meet three goals: 1) create savings for the state by reducing
the cost of incarcerating technical probation and parole violators; 2) provide a safe alternative to
further incarceration for those eligible to participate in the program; and 3) address the rehabilitation needs of offenders by providing intensive substance abuse treatment, moral reconation
therapy, anger management, and other suitable programs.
The Revocation Center is being developed with a keen awareness that it would not be suitable
for all technical violators. At one end, the program must avoid “widening the net.” The center
must serve as an alternative to revocation, not an alternative to other supervisory enhancements.
On the other hand, the center would not be suitable for violators with an offender class of third
or above, sex offenders, persons sentenced for crimes of violence, persons with a history of vioTransitional Programs
95
lence, or someone with additional, unresolved felony charges.
Intervention and Sanction Grid
Introduced as another “alternative to incarceration” and the Department’s attempt to reduce the
number of technical revocations, the Intervention and Sanction Grid was developed by probation and parole staff in 2002. The grid provides intermediate sanctions for each infraction a parolee commits and addresses the parolee’s needs (e.g., substance abuse, anger management,
etc.) through the New Orleans Reentry Center. A sanctioning rationale is needed to apply to
offenders who commit technical violations, but can be safely maintained in the community with
intervention and enhanced monitoring. The grid is designed to guide probation and parole officers in selecting a response that is both consistent and appropriate depending on the seriousness
of the violation and the type of offender. It allows for graduated intervention and alternatives to
incarceration without compromising public safety. Additionally, a “seven day implementation
rule” requires officers to apply sanctions and interventions within seven days of discovery of
violations, and to increase sanctions to an appropriate level within seven days of continued violation.
Two categories divide non-violent and violent/high profile offenders, with increased penalties
for the latter group. Sanctions are ranked by severity in four levels with multiple options provided at each level. Reprimands, travel restrictions, increased drug testing, community service,
curfews, home incarceration, electronic monitoring, and increased contacts are among the available sanctions. The grid is thus flexible enough to allow for resource limitations, but includes
sanctions for typical violations as well as graduated penalties and intervention for continued
violation or aggregate violations. One veteran officer piloted this grid on all cases under his
supervision and reports it has been very effective. This is a first such effort to quantify technical violations which increases the accuracy and consistency of response. The grid has been successfully piloted in the New Orleans area and will be implemented statewide in an effort to reduce the number of technical revocations.
Louisiana’s reentry program will deliver the benefit of a holistic approach to supervision. By
placing renewed emphasis on services and accountability, we strive to reduce criminogenic factors and invite the community to join us. Offenders are held accountable to the help that has
been made available through this effort. The larger benefits of reducing revocation and better
preparation for community reintegration extends to families and neighborhoods where offenders live, prevents victimization and ultimately adds rather than detracts from the State tax basis.
It is hoped that the statistical data collected from this effort will demonstrate the cost effectiveness of our reentry initiative.
The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections is committed to the development of
partnerships with community providers who will sustain this important effort.
96
Re-thinking the Way We Do Business
Approximately 600,000 offenders are released from prisons across America every year and
many communities are uncomfortable about their return to their old neighborhoods, even
though they have served their time. An uncertainty about whether offenders have changed their
criminal thinking and behavior causes law enforcement, victims and service providers to be reluctant about reaching out a helping hand.
Corrections often work independently from communities. Rather than dialogue with community leaders and organizations to develop opportunities for those who commit crimes to reintegrate, regroup and regain a position in society, communities have preferred that corrections quietly solve offender problems themselves. The large numbers of offenders entering the correctional system has increased for so many years that the driving theme became containment and
surveillance.
For more than twenty years, Louisiana’s incarceration rate has been among the highest in the
nation. For the last three years, it has been the highest: in 1999, when the national average was
468/100,000 population, Louisiana reached 763; in 2000, the state rate rose to 793 (over the national average of 481); and figures for 2001 indicate a state rate of 795 and a national average
of 472. In January 1996, there were 25,000 state prison inmates; in January 2003, that number
was 35,600.
Based on justice system policies of the last twenty years, the returnees represent a challenging
mix: there are more violent offenders, more drug offenders, an increased number of offenders
returning after their first experience with incarceration, and more offenders returning after an
97
earlier release on the same offense. Offenders are also incarcerated for longer periods (which
loosens ties to communities and families), and fewer individuals have participated in education
and training programs. According to national statistics, up to 70% of this increasingly large
number will return to prison for committing new felonies or refusing to abide by other conditions of their probation or parole. This cycle of incarceration and returning back to the community is increasingly concentrated in a relatively small number of communities that already face
enormous social and economic disadvantages.
In response to these challenges and in support of its commitment to maximize public safety, the
Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections launched a new initiative, Corrections
Organized for Reentry (CORe) in early 2002. Under the direct leadership of a senior warden,
CORe is designed to increase the ability and willingness of offenders to live lawfully in the
community while preparing them for release from their point of entry, developing individualized and evolving reentry plans to guide their activities in prison as well as in the community,
and supporting and holding them accountable once they enter the community. CORe has been
described as being as significant to our agency as ACA accreditation.
After identifying programming gaps and developing a comprehensive plan to guide CORe’s
agency-wide implementation, CORe is now being developed for full implementation in Governor Kathleen Babineaux-Blanco’s administration. Institutional and field staff are also coordinating efforts and combining resources to help offenders develop and follow individualized accountability plans to guide their activities from early confinement through release to community
supervision. Partnerships with other agencies, groups, and individuals will be used to support
reentry activities and hold offenders accountable to their plans.
CORe will utilize existing programs, which will be enhanced so that offenders will begin preparing for release at the time they enter our state correctional system. They will be encouraged
to learn marketable skills, develop new behaviors (to include voluntary faith-based initiatives)
and address deficiencies, act responsibly and plan for a positive future. Incarcerated offenders
will receive 100+ hours of intensified preparation in the twelve to eighteen months before their
release.
In the community, offenders will be monitored by probation and parole officers and assisted by
groups and organizations that have agreed to get involved, including other state agencies, community organizations, faith-based groups, and crime victims. Creating, strengthening and educating our community partnerships will be central to CORe.
CORe will increase the number of offenders who will remain in the community lawfully, thus
resulting in reduced costs, fewer crime victims, improved public safety, and an enhanced quality of life across the state.
Corrections cannot do this alone, and communities in Louisiana can be safer if a partnership is
formed between the offenders, corrections employees and key players in the neighborhood.
To accomplish this, it is imperative that corrections encourage and include the services of citizen volunteers in the educational, social, religious, and recreational programming of inmate activities.
98
Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative:
Enhancing Individual & Community Capacity
Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional
Dr. Mary L. Livers, Deputy Secretary for Operations
The Maryland Reentry Partnership (REP) program began more than five years ago out of intense concern by state and local agencies, along with community groups, that not enough was
being done to prepare adult offenders to return home as contributing members of their communities (Taxman, 1996; 1998.) REP has developed a partnership that is based on a value system
shared by its ever-growing collaboration of agencies that offenders can be assimilated into their
communities to create better and stronger neighborhoods. While the concepts that underlie the
program are supported by evidence-based practices of effective interventions, the core of the
initiative is the alignment of the partners to a common value system focused on strengthening
the prosocial role of the offender in the community.
This initiative provided a springboard to an interagency reentry pilot program that joins together
corrections, community, law enforcement, housing organizations, and service providers in a
structured process to address the issues of offenders returning to five zip codes in Baltimore,
Maryland. The neighborhoods targeted by the REP program are plagued by a disproportionate
amount of crime and blight. These neighborhoods have been targeted by a number of government-funded initiatives to prevent crime and rebuild communities, however, neither of them has
directly addressed the returning adult offender specifically, and they have not implemented programming designed to assist offender’s development into a contributing member of the community. However, efforts are underway to develop strategies to increase coordination with these
programs to maximize human service and law enforcement resources.
99
The adult offenders participating in REP represent a substantial risk to the public upon their release, as nearly one third having been convicted of a violent assault. These individuals return to
five communities in Baltimore City. Providing these offenders with services and linkages to
increase their ability to function as a non-violent member of their community is crucial to the
safety of the public. Within this returning population, about 30% were convicted of a narcotics
offense, and have recurrent substance abuse and mental health problems. Most of these offenders being released under formal supervision are single male, African-Americans, with an average age of 27 years. Due to their criminal justice history, this high-risk population presents a
significant challenge in terms of successful reintegration.
Maryland has crafted an offender-processing model that is designed to enhance public safety by
reducing recidivism within the offender population. The primary goals of this initiative are to
reduce recidivism and release productive citizens from prisons back to their communities. In
order to accomplish this, the partners will (1) provide an integrated reentry service system to
help prepare inmates for a successful transition from prison to their communities; (2) develop
resources needed to manage efficiency program services that focus on offender needs; (3) partner with private, non-profit, and other governmental agencies to maximize the effectiveness of
key service providers; and (4) cooperatively develop a comprehensive plan that supports offenders’ postincarceration needs, including coping and decision-making skills and effective
use of a variety of state, local, and community-based social and medical services.
REP takes an aggressive, grassroots approach to making communities safer, by providing support to a faction of the community that has long been ignored, and helping them move into positive, stable lifestyles, which will enable them to provide for their families and become productive members of their communities. A number of critical milestones that benefit not just the
pilot, but all transitioning offenders have been accomplished: (1) the perception of the Department of Corrections (DOC) is beginning to change; (2) a link between the DOC and community
at large has been forged, with DOC seeking input and assistance from the service provider community; (3) a comprehensive network of service providers, both government and private, that
provide services to ex-offenders and their families has been developed and is in the process of
being formalized; and (4) the profile of the state of Maryland as a leader and an innovator has
been raised nationally.
The REP model is specifically designed to strengthen the role of the community as a means of
informal social control to address the long-term integration of the offender into the community.
A key part of our message is that the community is willing to work with the offender in such a
way to strengthen his/her individual capacity to serve the community, his/her family, and themselves. The REP program provides the offender with employment training and comprehensive
social services assessment while incarcerated and in the community. A continuum of care from
prison to the community underscores the Maryland model. By design, a comprehensive case
plan is developed in the early phases of incarceration and follows the individual back into the
community upon release. Coordinated service delivery and intensive follow-up ensure compliance with the program and reduce opportunity for destructive decision-making.
To meet these needs, REP has added case managers and advocates that are employed by community agencies to assist the offender in negotiating these issues. In addition to the individual100
ized case planning and programming from REP case managers and advocates, REP coordinates
with other local service providers to create a seamless web of services. The Maryland Reentry
Partnership has five core program areas that will be applied for the continued successful reintegration for adult offenders returning from prison (Taxman, Young, & Byrne, 2001; Simpson
& Knight, 1999; Clear, Rose, & Ryder, 2001.)
•
Targeting: Communities with high rates of returning offenders tend to be the least
equipped to integrate those offenders back into the community. REP serves five of the
most fragile communities in Baltimore.
•
Institutional Programming: Preparation for successful reintegration begins long before release. Providing institutionally based programming including education, job
readiness, and cognitive skills.
•
Transition Planning/Pre-Release: Offenders must exit facilities both with a plan for
returning home, and with the skills to make that transition successful. This includes the
development of an aftercare plan, identifying and creating linkages with services and
treatment (to be provided upon release), and clarifying offender responsibilities after
their release.
•
Post-Release: Non-correctional, community-based based case managers and advocates
assist offenders in identifying immediate needs (housing, substance abuse treatment,
employment, mental and physical heath treatment, and education) during this critical
period. Parole agents collaborate with community partners to facilitate this transition to
achieve the most successes.
•
Reintegration: Reintegration occurs over a long period. REP services will continue for
two years post-release and are designed to assist in the evolving challenges that offenders will face in the community. This process includes not only continuing to provide
linkages and services, but to help offenders begin to give back to their communities.
Since program implementation began three years ago, the REP project has achieved a number
of milestones and uncovered issues that need immediate attention such as expanding the service
network, modifying programming to meet the needs of offenders, and addressing intergenerational criminality issues. We have successfully partnered with correctional, supervision, and
service agencies to develop a system of offender processing for reentry that previously did not
exist. Focus groups by outside evaluators with offenders in the program (Taxman, 2001) have
found that the offenders felt privileged to be part of a process that was interested in offenders,
and one that was focused on the offender being a contributing member of the community.
Many of the offenders expressed a surprise that the system was working towards helping them,
instead of trying to focus on their “failures.”
REP partners have been extremely successful in developing a diverse partnership and leveraging both financial and in-kind resources to implement programming. Our vision is to strengthen
the community through a greater interaction of agencies of formal social control (e.g., police,
101
corrections, probation/parole. We look forward to this opportunity to change the field of corrections and to demonstrate a new model of community mobilization. While it is too premature to
evaluate outcomes, trends indicate that the REP pilot is meeting program goals. To date 222
adult offenders have participated in REP. The retention rate is 71 percent and of the actively
participating individuals: 64 percent are under the supervision of the Division of Parole & Probation (DPP); 53 percent live in transitional housing facilities; 100 percent have received physical exams within 72 hours of release; 62 percent have received mental health screenings; 86
percent are enrolled in a substance abuse treatment program; 56 percent are employed; 43 percent are enrolled in a job training program; 30 percent are enrolled in an educational program;
and 38 percent are engaged in other programs such as batterers’ intervention and life skills
classes. Of the 67 clients no longer participating in the REP initiative, two have returned to Division of Correction facilities for new offenses; seven have received technical violations from
DPP; eight were removed for lack of compliance; two clients were incarcerated for previous
offenses; and three clients died.
We feel very strongly about our initiative and its potential to change the field of corrections. We
would be delighted to participate in a national evaluation that would allow our judiciary, etc.)
and informal social control (e.g., family, community, etc.). The REP model provides a structured process to initiative to be highlighted as a unique way to bring informal social controls
into the reintegration process.
102
References
Clear, T., D.R. Rose & J.A. Ryder, 2001. Incarceration and the Community: The
Problem of Removing and Returning Offenders. Crime & Delinquency. 47(3).
July.
Simpson, D. D., & Knight, K., 1999. TCU Model of Treatment Process and Outcomes in
Correctional Settings. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.
Taxman, F.S., 1996. A Blueprint for Effective Offender Treatment Services: Developing a
Seamless Criminal Justice and Treatment System for Baltimore City. Report prepared
for Office of National Drug Control Policy’s , June 1996.
Taxman, F.S., 1998. Reducing Recidivism Through A Seamless System of Care: Components
of Effective Treatment, Supervision, and Transition Services in the Community,
Washington, D.C.: Office of National Drug Control Policy, Treatment and Criminal
Justice System Conference, March, 1998.
Taxman, F. S., 2001. Personal Communication on Focus Groups Findings.
Taxman, F.S., Young, D., Byrne, J., 2001. From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in
Offender Reentry. Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC.
103
The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative
Michigan Department of Corrections
Patricia L. Caruso, Director
In 2003, Michigan was awarded two Technical Assistance grants to address the issue of offenders reentering our communities after completion of their prison sentences. The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and the National Governors Association (NGA) solicited applications
from across the country and Michigan was selected by both of these national organizations.
Michigan was chosen because of a clearly articulated commitment to improve its system of
prisoner preparation, parole decision-making and parole supervision. The overall goal is to reduce Michigan’s costly recidivism rate.
Michigan spends $1.7 billion to operate the Department of Corrections (DOC.) The DOC’s
budget accounts for 8% of total state spending and about 17% of the state’s general funds. Incarceration for the state’s lowest security inmates costs $21,000 per year per inmate. Each year,
more than 10,000 inmates are released from Michigan’s 50,000 bed prison system. The majority of offenders (86% or about 9,000) are released under parole supervision; 14% (nearly 1,500)
are released after serving their maximum sentence. Of the approximately 9,000 inmates paroled, 18% (over 1,600) will have their parole revoked and be returned to prison within just 12
months of release and approximately 44% (at least 3,900 offenders) will return to prison within
two years.
The primary differences between the offenders who return and the offenders who successfully
complete their parole relate to their successful involvement in post-release services such as substance abuse treatment, physical and mental health services, job placement and vocational training, and educational programs. These post-release services are closely associated with reduced
recidivism, reduced alcohol and other drug relapse rates, and other measures of positive outTransitional Programs
105
comes. The successful reentry of Michigan’s inmates to our communities is cost-effective and
enhances public safety.
If Michigan can reduce the 44% recidivism rate for offenders, it can reduce the prison population and end the spiraling costs of the state’s prison system. The cost of 4,000 offenders returning to prison every two years is expensive: Each cycle costs $224 million per year, assuming a
two-year length of stay. Most importantly, lowering Michigan’s recidivism rate will create
safer communities for the citizens of Michigan.
The Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative began with the formation of a State Policy Team comprised of top-level policy makers from the Governor’s office and state departments who are focused on creating new collaborative approaches to respond to the numerous issues related to
successful offender transition. The Michigan Reentry State Policy Team consists of the Team
Leader from the Office of the Governor and representatives of departments that are responsible
for the services that affect offender reentry in Michigan: Public safety (Department of Corrections); health, alcohol and substance abuse services (Department of Community Health); employment, housing and adult education (Department of Labor and Economic Growth); and
housing and welfare (Family Independence Agency). Due to their high rank in the four departments, each member of the team has a direct role in the shaping of their agency’s policy that
will improve reentry services.
The State Policy Team is staff supported by the Department of Corrections and relies heavily on
the advice of DOC policy-makers as well as community leaders who are experts in the areas of
prison facilities, parole decision-making, reentry, community supervision, policy and procedure
development and data/information systems. A series of Planning and Implementation Work
Groups have been formed that deal with specific policy and/or service delivery issues. The
process was facilitated by the NIC State Coordinator for Michigan with additional technical assistance provided by the NGA. The Policy Team’s function is to provide the necessary leadership to overcome expected barriers and organizational resistance common when instituting
change.
Offenders fail in the community when their inability to secure employment, adequate housing,
and health treatment - especially mental health and substance abuse treatment - breaks whatever
bonds they may have with their family and they relapse to alcohol and drugs. The decisionmakers throughout the justice system clearly understand that the key to offender community
success is finding support and services to address the cycle of substance abuse, unemployment
and criminal activity. However, systemic reforms that provide a new framework for these services that begin in prison and continue in the community is desperately needed. Improved public safety, stronger families and more stable communities will result.
Some major barriers to successful offender reentry are in the areas of alcohol and substance
abuse, employment, education, housing, welfare and health services. Michigan will focus on
achieving improvement in these areas, and as a result, the potential for long lasting family reunification and community success will increase. In order to improve offender reentry, the first
steps rest within the Department of Corrections. The DOC must better prepare inmates for release, improve the parole process and revitalize the supervision of parolees in the community
106
upon their release around the issue of relapse prevention. The major focal points of the Department’s improved offender reentry model are based on the Transition from Prison to Community
Initiative model (TPCI Model) developed by the National Institute of Corrections and include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
The introduction of enhanced offender assessment and classification guidelines
The development of improved offender transition plans
Increased efficiencies in the use of targeted release dates
Improved case management techniques and training for field agents
Expand sanction options for field agents to address parole violation behavior
Improved discharge practices that effectively link offender with the community
The development of a voluntary, community-based aftercare support system
Policy improvements at the State level are not enough to achieve system-wide reform. Local
justice and service delivery systems must be fully incorporated into the reentry process to ensure success. In order to fully address the numerous local issues and perspectives associated
with offender reentry, the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Advisory Council was created. This
group is comprised of state and local agencies and organizations that collaborate on reentry issues based on common interests and goals. The formation of this Advisory Council, which includes representatives from professional associations, volunteer and faith-based organizations
and local treatment and rehabilitation agencies, allowed key stakeholders in the Michigan justice system to have input and participate in the planning and implementation of policies focused
on improving offender reentry.
As Michigan approaches the conclusion of its first year under the Prisoner Reentry Initiative,
some very promising signs of success are already being observed. In 2003, Michigan’s prison
population declined for the year as a whole for the first time since 1983. The 1.2% decline was
also the largest drop in a single year since 1973. Other promising 2003 corrections trends that
stem directly from the Prisoner Reentry Initiative include:
1. Controlling the intake of technical parole violators. Contributing to a prison population decline in 2003 was a 34% drop in the number of technical parole violators returned to prison,
due to the Department’s continuing efforts to utilize community-based sanctions, control
and treatment options for more of these violators.
2. Improved parole practices. Another factor contributing to the prison population decline was
a 10% increase in moves to parole, resulting from both a 2% increase in the number of parole decisions and a 3% increase in the parole approval rate.
3. Controlling admissions through the expanded use of community corrections and probation
programs. Prison intake in 2003 was down over 6% from the previous year due to continuing collaborative efforts between the Department and local justice officials to use community corrections options as much as possible. The largest decrease was among probation
violator commitments to prison.
The work of the Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative continues. The State Policy Team, the
107
Advisory Council and the nine Planning and Implementation Work Groups that were formed
continue to meet regularly and have generated hundreds of ideas on where the focus of the Initiative should be for the next several years. Michigan has experienced some early success with
its Reentry Initiative and is confident that through this never before experienced multi-agency
partnership and collaborative problem-solving effort, this trend will continue. By bringing everyone together and engaging in open and honest discussion about a common vision for an improved and fully-integrated system of offender reentry, we are certain we can accomplish our
goal of lowering Michigan’s recidivism rate and enhance public safety.
Michigan Governor Jennifer M. Granholm supports effective community-based responses to
crime and has been very specific about her determination to control prison growth by addressing prison intake and by improving the parole system. As the Governor stated in the administration’s blueprint for governing, Securing Michigan’s Future:
Despite many expensive measures to reduce crime, the crime rates in the United States still are
higher than any other industrialized country in the world. Likewise, crime rates in Michigan
continue to be at unacceptable levels. Nationally, crime is now on the rise again. Strategies to
reduce crime in the long run demand creative and multifaceted approaches, which incorporate
the best thinking of educators, social service agency directors, and community leaders. Longterm strategies to reduce and prevent crime will produce results in the short term, as well as for
years after their initial implementation making them a smart investment for the future of Michigan.
Preventing new crimes by offenders being released from prison is a challenge that must be met
by Michigan’s law enforcement community. Arrangements for post prison transition must deal
realistically with the poor coping skills that contribute to offenders’ return to prison, particularly in the area of alcohol and drug relapse. We must make certain that as our prison system
punishes, it also provides full opportunities for offender rehabilitation – particularly as they are
near their release. My Administration will work to devise strategies that will help families and
communities build support systems for those leaving prison that begin when the offender is still
in prison.
108
Born Again: Release Into Society
More and more offenders are being released from the Mississippi Department of Corrections
(MDOC) and returning to their communities without the benefit of any type of post-release
oversight. Some of these offenders are often released without the benefit of having received
any type of rehabilitative programs while incarcerated. The implications for public safety are
major factors because of the number of unfortunate collateral consequences that are likely to
include increases in child abuse, family violence, and spread of infectious diseases, homelessness, and community disorganizations.
The crime rate for violent and/or serious offenses among adolescents has been increasing over
the past few years. The reasons for this are many and varied, but include facts relating to poverty, unemployment, the decline of the family structure, and inadequate coping skills on the part
of these youth offenders. Since youthful offenders are being returned to their respective communities without the benefit of any type of sound infrastructure, the cycle of violence will likely
continue to perpetuate.
Reducing the rate of recidivism among adult and juvenile offenders, especially the violent offenders, and designing an inter-agency holistic community training model to aid the return of
ex-offenders back into society as contributing citizens are primary aims of the partnership established between the Mississippi Department of Corrections and the Department of Human
Services – Division of Youth Services (DHS – DYS.) These two groups have joined forces
with a number of “key decision-makers” who will serve in an advisory capacity.
The Mississippi Re-Entry Program (MREP) is designed to reduce the number of offenders who
109
return to incarceration after release. Rehabilitative services, employment interventions, and
other critical elements needed for success such as a transitional plan from prison to the community, safe housing, and realistic employment strategies are either absent or uncoordinated for
most released offenders. In order to effectively address the increasing rate of recidivism, these
deficiencies and the quality and quantity levels of service provided to released offenders must
be systematically addressed. A holistic approach that involves the offenders, both during and
after incarceration, must be developed. MREP will address the needs of offenders and their immediate families by providing information on adhering to correctional policies and regulations,
engaging in interactions with policy makers and parole and probation authorities, an coordinating activities provided by community mental health, faith-based organizations, and other treatment providers.
There are two groups of offenders who will participate in the program. Initial participants in
the MREP will be those offenders who meet certain criteria for eligibility, which includes:
must be eligible for release consideration within 12 months, either through parole, earned release supervision, or some other form of post release supervision; must be between 14 - 35
years of age; must be housed at the Mississippi State Penitentiary; must be convicted of a serious and/or violent offense (homicide, robbery, sexual assault, arson, assault, sex offenses, offenses involving a deadly weapon, gang affiliation, sentenced as an habitual offender, convicted
for selling of a controlled substance); must have no detainer; must have not received a serious
rule violation report within 6 months prior to requesting participation; must be returning to the
Jackson, Mississippi metro area (Hinds, Madison, Rankin and Warren counties); and must have
a minimum of one year post-release supervision. The highest concentrated numbers of releases
are made to this area and the largest numbers of support services are located in this area.
Another group of participants will be youth sentenced directly to the program from the courts
and who meet certain criteria: males between the ages of 14-17 who have committed crimes
against persons, guilty of assaults, involved in sex crimes, drive-by-shootings, sale of illegal
drugs, auto theft, repeat offenders, have had placement problems, are physically fit/able to
work, have an IQ of at least 70 and can perform at a minimum sixth grade level, or youth who
have committed serious crimes while in training school.
The goal of the MREP is to provide a structured process for successful reentry of offenders into
the community by creating a supportive infrastructure to assist the offender in navigating and
accessing a continuum of needed services. Additional goals include for the offender to: remain
arrest free, become a competent and self-sufficient member of the community, enhance public
safety, foster linkages and establish collaborative efforts among community service providers,
avoid crime, engage in pro-social community activities, meet family responsibilities, ensure
program sustainability.
In order to achieve our goals, the MREP will attempt to increase the offender’s opportunity for
success upon release from incarceration by developing an individualized reentry plan for the
offender that will guide his intervention strategies during incarceration and after release. Additionally, the program will reduce the offender’s likelihood of re-offending by addressing effective risk management and treatment programming such as housing, substance abuse, and mental
health issues. MREP will promote public safety and protect the community by providing the
110
offender with intensive supervision and highly structured and monitored activities in order to
increase the chances of positive outcomes for the offender and the community. MREP will also
assist the offender in the implementation of his reentry plan by collaborating with community
and faith-based organizations to ensure that critical support services are provided during and
after confinement. Existing community resources will be utilized in order to continue to deliver
necessary services and support for the program participants. Finally, the MREP will provide
the offender with the social and interpersonal skills necessary to maintain positive involvement
with his family, school, work, peers, and community institutions.
The Mississippi Reentry Program will consist of three functional phases which should allow
participants to achieve successful reentry. The structured three-year program will begin one
year prior to the offender’s release and extend until two years after the offender’s release. The
phases will include the following:
Phase I:
Phase II:
Phase III:
Institutional Phase – will include an orientation component, treatment
component and transition component.
Community-based transition phase
Community-based support phase
The core elements of the reentry program will involve:
•
•
•
•
•
Developing a case plan by the reentry case manager based on the risk and needs assessment
Developing an individual reentry plan for each offender prior to his release from prison
in order for him to have successful reentry into the community
Focusing on the broad scope of needs of the offender and his family as outlined in the
reentry plan
Fostering a change of the offender’s attitudes through a process of cognitive restructuring
Providing a continual support system which begins in the institution and moves into the
community, utilizing MDOC personnel, employers within the community, family members, volunteer mentors, and other human services agencies
The purpose of the institutional phase is to prepare offenders and their families for successful
reentry through the development of a reentry plan consisting of treatment planning, educational
training and counseling to support a seamless transition back into the community. The orientation component is used to identify and screen potential program participants. After the screening process, selected participants will be transferred to the Therapeutic Pre-Release Program for
enrollment. Program services during the orientation component will focus primarily on orientation, assessment and case planning. Upon completion of this component, the participants will
transfer to the treatment component.
The treatment component assigns the participants to specific program components within the
Therapeutic Pre-Release Program. Educational activities such as ABE and Pre-GED classes
and program activities such as the Alcohol and Drug Therapeutic Community Program will assist in the development of the offender’s fundamental educational and life skills development
111
and assist in attaining credentials such as a GED certificate. Program services provided will
allow offenders to function in a program environment as a first step in community reintegration.
This programming phase will focus on remediation of skills deficits in areas such as education
and components of change such as individual change (drug treatment) and relational change
(dealing with destructive relationships.)
The program participants move into the transition component by focusing on social skills development, life skills and reintegration skills training, job-readiness and employability skills training and developing a relationship with their family, mentor, and victim, if applicable. This
phase will also focus on community change (altering the cultural and structural contexts surrounding offenders which may contribute to their problems or solutions.)
The Community-based transition phase (3 months prior to release until 1 year after release) is to
establish an integrated and coordinated system of assessment, supervision, and building of support systems and resources for the offender’s community survival. In order to increase the rates
of successful completion of community supervision and reduce the number of offenders who
are rearrested and re-involved in the criminal justice system, aftercare and intensive supervision
must be provided in a Day Treatment Center (DTC.) The courses offered at the DTC include
substance abuse education and treatment, life skills training, employment preparation, anger
management, parenting skills/family orientation, cognitive restructuring, GED and ABE,
healthcare/stress management, and group and individual counseling. Transportation planning
and assistance with housing are also offered. The Day Treatment Center will serve both youth
and adult offenders in one central location (separate programming for youth and adults.) The
Mississippi Department of Corrections and the Department of Human Services—Youth Services Division will be responsible for managing the center’s day-to-day operations.
The Community-based support phase is long-term and begins with the second year after release.
This phase is to assist the ex-offenders and their families to maintain successful, self-sufficient
lives by continuing to connect offenders to community supports such as community-based and
faith-based organizations. Treatment services and mentors help them maintain acquired skills
in order to prevent relapse and assist them in their effort to conform to conditions of release after supervision ends. The activities in this phase will focus on sustainability of services identified in Phase I and implemented in Phase II such as community support and aftercare, mentoring, education, and treatment.
A transition team will ensure that participants in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Program will be provided continuity of services from institution to community. Team case management will be essential for ensuring continuity in the provision of appropriate services and
supervision, particularly as changes in the offender’s needs and behavior move him along the
continuum of services. The transition team will assist the offender in developing his reentry
plan and will continue to monitor and enforce his reentry plan until he completes the community-based long-term support phase.
The offender’s reentry plan is a collaborative product, a formal agreement based on the negotiations between, and signed by MDOC staff, DHS – DYS staff, the offender, the releasing authority, community field officers, human services providers, staff in partnering agencies, victims,
112
neighborhood, and community organizations.
The objective of the reentry plan is to increase both overall community protection by lowering
risk to persons and property and by increasing individual offender’s prospects for successful
return to and self-sufficiency in the community. The reentry plan will be based on a thorough
needs assessment that incorporates the physical as well as psychological needs of the offender.
The plan will allow the offender to set goals and define clear and quantifiable outcomes for
each offender based on their specific goals. The plan will also address critical necessities such
as housing and substance abuse services while assessing the job skills of the offender. Community based organizations and other critical links in the community will be identified in the process to work with the offender before discharge and to refer him to vital services after release.
The reentry plan will be structured around a targeted release date which will be the cornerstone
for transition planning. The target date will not be a guarantee, rather it will denote a strong
expectation that all parties will abide by the terms of the plan and that if the offender achieves
the elements described in his reentry plan and maintains good behavior while confined, he will
be released on the target date.
Presently, MREP has one major challenge which is rooted in the limitations of existing state
statutes and which surrounds the idea of alternative sentencing for the violent offender. Mississippi’s statutes provide for sentencing alternatives for low-risk, non-violent offenders but there
are not any alternative opportunities for violent or high-risk offenders. Through collaborative
efforts involving the “key decision makers” in the MREP, careful planning will address the current deficiencies and affect planned change in state policies, correctional services and intervention efforts, supervision and sanctions of offenders’ behavior, alternative forms of offenders’
reporting, family and community involvement, and accountability at all levels of project involvement. The successful implementation of MREP will hopefully reduce the rate of recidivism.
113
The Mississippi Reentry Program
The Mississippi Department of Corrections (MDOC) joined forces with the Mississippi Department of Human Services, Division of Youth Services (MDHS) and Jackson State University to
form the first partnership in Mississippi designed to reduce recidivism among juveniles and
adults referred to as the Mississippi Reentry “Going Home” Program.
An analysis of a targeted population conducted from calendar year 1995 to 2001, revealed that
violent male offenders, ranging from ages 14 to 35, returned to the prison with an increase of 37
percent over any other age group and type of offenders. Inmates released from prison are often
ill-prepared to return to the community; they do not have adequate access to resources needed
to assist in the transition. Life skills training, employment readiness, job opportunities, mental
health, health care, housing, substance abuse treatment, and mentoring are essential elements
needed for these offenders to successfully reenter society.
Mississippi’s two primary agencies, MDOC and MDHS, with the assistance of the Jackson
State University, a local urban university, applied for the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
initiative May 15, 2002. It was understood by both agencies that in order to accomplish this task
we needed to create a supportive infrastructure to assist the offenders in navigating and accessing a continuum of services.
A major obstacle in Mississippi has been the limitation of existing state statues which support
alternative sentencing for the violent and high-risk offender. Truth-in-Sentencing gave longer
sentences that impacted the population and budget significantly. More inmates has meant more
staff and, already facing a deficit in the correctional and human services agency budgets, has
115
meant that creative and less expensive methods of reducing growth needed to be developed to
combat the recidivism rate.
Memorandums of Understanding and Agreement (MOU/MOA) with key decision-makers were
developed to ensure services were provided to program participants. These MOUs and MOAs
were readily accepted and signed by agency and community heads. In this document, state and
community agencies made a commitment to exchange resources, provide staff, training, evaluate the program, assist in creating policies for the program, and continue to stay involved once
the federal funding ends. This practice has gained attention throughout the state and has proven
to be a very beneficial tool, not only for the reentry program but also to offenders not involved
in the reentry program, but who’ve received assistance through other initiatives, particularly in
the faith-based community.
The program design consists of three (3) program functional phases: Phase I is the Institutional
Phase which includes offenders that meet the age criteria of 14 to 35 years old. The corrections
agency serves adults between the ages of 20 to 35 years old, and the Division of Youth Services
serves youth 14 to 17 years old. In this phase, offenders are involved in individual case plans
that consists of problem identification, attitude change through cognitive restructuring, treatment, and continual support system that begins in the institution and moves into the community
for Phases II and III. This is accomplished by utilizing agency personnel, employers within the
community, family members, volunteer mentors, faith-based mentors and other human service
agencies. The Division of Youth Services utilizes the Amer-I-Can program for Phase I.
Phase II, the community-based phase, consists of a Day Reporting Center often referred to as
one-stop shop. In this phase, the offender’s continued educational needs are met and the offender receives counseling, substance abuse treatment, drug-testing, and family activities which
are held at the center at minimum several times a week. The family oriented activities, which
are not conducted in the regular service delivery area, serve to accomplish several objectives.
These activities are incentives for continued positive behavior and present acceptable social interaction to the offender without involving alcohol or other forms of amusement that could lead
to incarceration. Offenders report to their field officers who are located at the center. With the
array of added activities the offender views the center as less threatening than the conventional
Parole and Probation office.
In order to educate and gain acceptance within the local community, a series of meetings are
conducted quarterly. We target specific groups and give each group the opportunity to orally,
and/or in writing, provide ideas, comments, and suggestions as to what they can do and
thoughts on what we can do to enhance the program. A unique concept has been the coordination of the varied faith-based communities under one roof. Mentors for the reentry participants
are solicited from this group and are involved in all three phases of the program. The Mississippi Program’s key decision-makers are as follows:
Mississippi State Parole Board
Jackson Public School and Adult Education Program
Mississippi Workforce Authority
116
Hinds County Workforce Investment Area
Region Nine Community Mental Health Services Centers
Mississippi Department of Education
Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Mississippi State Department of Mental Health
Hinds County Sheriff Department
Jackson Police Department
Victim Advocacy
Community Faith-Based Coalition
The Division of Youth Services has selected in addition to the ones listed above as key decision-makers the following:
Youth Court Judge
Community Leaders
Training School
Job Core
Collaboration among the various agencies and community leaders has yielded phenomenal results. In the past times, the MDOC was synonymous with incarceration and little focus on rehabilitation programs. The Department of Youth Services was associated only with juvenile delinquents and training schools. The image of the agencies is greatly improving due to the reentry
effort. Public safety will remain a top priority as a selling point.
At the top of the list of needs for release offenders is the issue of housing. Most transitional
houses are faith-based centered and will allow the offender to remain there after reentry has terminated payments. The program has secured a contact for transitional housing for adult offenders with a local faith-based organization. In the latter part of phase I, prior to release, offenders
provide the address of his or her planned residence. A residence check is completed on each
participant. If the residence is not acceptable, or if the offender does not have a place to live,
reentry monies are allocated for housing for a limited time. During that period of time, both the
employment specialist and the field officer assist the offender in obtaining employment. The
specialist also conducts sessions on budget planning that encourages savings and checking accounts. There is a five-month limit for paying housing costs for those offenders in transitional
houses.
The Division of Youth Services will parole youth into the program. Those eligible to return
home will do so with follow up from case managers in the community and the day reporting
staff. Initial release into the community for the youth will be monitored electronically and by
staff. Parental involvement is mandatory and agreed upon before the candidate is selected for
the program. All phases for adult and youth reentry are designed to create a seamless transition
from one phase to the next.
Phase III will primarily involve the mentors, parents, and the offenders. Highly successful
alumni of the first successful graduation class may be selected to return to mentor, help design
services, and provide counseling for the new offenders coming into the program. This will give
117
those successful reentry participants a sense of “giving back.” Mentors are expected to continue
their involvement with the participants long after their required supervision has terminated.
A Jackson State University Criminologist has been contracted as the Principal Investigator for
the program. The model designed to provide structure and guidance to the Mississippi reentry
project is the TRACCC management model. TRACCC is an acronym for Treatment, Research,
and Result Base Accountability for Competency Based Community Corrections. This model
places strong emphasis on collaboration efforts as evidenced by its authors. The TRACCC management model will assist in the development and monitoring of a variety of assessments associated with the Mississippi reentry project.
Mississippi’s reentry program has been in operation less than year. However, some legislators
are already taking notice of this program. We will, after our three-year period, compare the recidivism rate of offenders participating in reentry versus those not involved to validate the
premise for requesting funding for continuation of this specialized program. The Mississippi
Legislature, we expect, will endorse and fund the continuation of this program if at the end for
the three (3) years we can demonstrate the program’s success in significantly reducing recidivism.
118
The Free & Clean Programs in Kansas City and St. Louis
Missouri Department of Corrections
Gary Kempker, Director
Substance abuse has proven to be a formidable challenge to the success of offenders engaged in
community supervision. The January 2004 Drug Abuse Warning Network report noted a 91%
raise in St. Louis area cocaine related emergency room visits from 1995 to 2002; twenty-five
percent of these visits were attributed to the use of crack cocaine. Nearly 70% of these cocaine
related emergency room visits also involved the use of another drug. Further exacerbating this
problem is the limited availability of treatment and long wait lists at local treatment centers.
Newly released offenders often lack employment and the financial means to pay for desperately
needed treatment. They seldom have access to private insurance that would afford them a
sorely needed chance at sobriety. These circumstances represent a break in treatment during a
tenuous time, increasing the chance of relapse and providing addiction a chance to invade the
lives of the offenders.
Recognizing the problems associated with available community-based aftercare substance
abuse treatment, the Missouri Department of Corrections contracted with the Gateway Foundation, to develop an intensive substance abuse program designed to meet the aftercare treatment
needs of male graduates from the department’s institutionally based treatment centers. These
offenders often have extensive substance abuse histories, numerous attempts at communitybased treatment prior to their admission into the institutional treatment centers, and have not
responded to previous intervention efforts. The Free and Clean program is offered at no cost to
the offender. Most importantly, the program is available immediately following release from
the institutional treatment centers, thereby reducing relapse during transition from institutional
to community- based substance abuse treatment. The doors to this innovative program opened
in May 1994.
119
Identifying the Eligible Offender
Offenders must successfully graduate from one of the department’s institutional treatment centers (ITC) or the Long Term Drug Treatment Program (LTDP) to qualify for placement into the
Free and Clean program. Only offenders who plan to reside in St. Louis City, St. Louis County
and the metro Kansas City area are eligible for this program. Eligible offenders can be on probation, parole or dual supervision wherein the offender is being supervised simultaneously per
the authority of the court on probation and the Board of Probation and Parole on parole. Sex
offenders and dangerous felons are readily accepted into the program.
To better prepare the offender for the program, members of the treatment team (the Free and
Clean Program Director, the Counseling Supervisor, one counselor or case manager, one Probation and Parole Officer, and the Probation and Parole Unit Supervisor) make quarterly presentations to the offenders in the institutional treatment program. The purpose of this presentation is
to offer the offender specific information on the aftercare treatment program they will be required to complete. The presentation also affords the offender advanced planning time as the
intensive nature of the Free and Clean Program will require the dedication of a significant number of hours per week in the initial phase of treatment.
The Two Free and Clean Program Locations
The Kansas City Free and Clean Program is located at 1734 East 63rd Street in Kansas City.
The treatment team located at this site consists of a Program Director, a Clinical Supervisor, six
Substance Abuse Counselors, a Family Therapist, and a Case Manager. The program serves an
average offender population of 170 to 190 per month. Between March 2003 and March 2004,
the Kansas City site admitted 433 offenders into the treatment program. The majority of offenders are admitted to this program from institutional treatment centers throughout the state of
Missouri.
The St. Louis Free and Clean Program is located at 1430 Olive Street in downtown St. Louis
City. The treatment team located a this site consists of a Program Director, a Clinical Supervisor, three Substance Abuse Counselors, a Family Therapist, and two Case Management Workers. The program serves a sustained offender population of approximately 200 to 250 male offenders. From March 2003 to March 2004 the St. Louis site admitted 592 offenders into the
treatment program from institutional treatment centers throughout the state.
All treatment sessions and case management services are provided on-site. Probation and Parole Officers are assigned to and housed at the treatment center to enhance a team-oriented approach in meeting the needs of this high risk and high need population. This nesting of officers
at the treatment site greatly enhances the development of effective treatment plans and facilitates the rapid transfer of information. This enables the officer and staff to immediately confront and address problem behavior and offer the offenders immediate consequences and sanctions.
120
Levels of Care
There are three phases in the Free and Clean treatment program. Prior to beginning the first
phase of the program all offenders are required to complete four days of orientation to help familiarize the offenders with the program’s treatment requirements and the purpose of the treatment components. An intake counselor will also complete a thorough assessment. Upon successful completion of orientation, the offender is assigned a counselor and begins the Intensive
Outpatient Phase (IOP) of treatment. This phase is approximately 30 to 60 days in duration.
During this phase the offender is required to attend group treatment sessions four days per week
for three hours per day. In addition, the offender is required to meet with a counselor for an individual treatment session once per week throughout this phase of treatment. A family or significant other conference is required once in this phase. The offender is introduced to self-help
groups and the concept of abstinence is communicated as an overriding goal. Treatment groups
are usually held in the morning and last three hours. Treatment schedules tailored to an offender’s work schedules are handled on a case-by-case basis. Upon satisfaction of the requirements in this phase, the offender is transitioned to the basic outpatient phase of the program.
The Basic Outpatient Phase (BOP) of treatment is approximately 90 to 120 days in duration.
The offender is required to attend two weekly group treatment sessions. Two individual treatment sessions are require every month. A family or significant other conference is required
once in this phase. Regular attendance in self-help groups by the offender is an expectation.
Abstinence is again communicated as a goal. The attendance times of treatment will depend on
the work schedule of the offender, as morning and evening treatment sessions are available in
this phase of treatment. Successful completion of this phase prompts the offender’s transition
to the final phase of the program.
The third phase of treatment is the Aftercare/Continued Care phase. This phase is approximately 60 to 90 days in duration. The offender is required to attend one weekly group treatment session during this phase. One individual counseling session and one educational treatment session are required each month. One family or significant other conference is required
during this phase and support meeting attendance remains an expectation. At this point in the
treatment program, the offender’s supervision will be transferred to a field office.
Throughout all phases of the program, the offender is encouraged to make the treatment program and his sobriety a priority by attending all meetings. They are encouraged to actively involve their family and significant others in the recovery process. The offenders are discouraged
from associating with any person with whom he used drugs in the past; thereby changing persons, places and things associated with past drug use habits. The offender is encouraged to
commit himself to a sober lifestyle and to gain legitimate employment.
Case Management and Supporting Services
Each offender is assigned a Case Management Worker during the week of orientation. The
Case Mangers are well versed in a wide range of available community services. Offenders can
receive employment referral and resume preparation services, governmental assistance information, educational and occupational training referrals, utility assistance sources, and local health
121
clinic information. An offender who is required to pay child support can even get referral assistance to a father’s support assistance organization.
A family counselor is available to meet with offenders who are experiencing relationship problems with family and other loved ones. This service is very important as many of our offenders
have abused drugs over a significant period of time and have deeply affected close relationships. A six-week aggression education class was also developed to meet the needs of offenders that feel they need assistance in anger management or have been identified as being in need
of such service by treatment or supervision staff. Treatment staff who are experienced in the
evaluation of mental health disorders are available if an offender requests these services or is
found to be in need of professional mental health counseling.
Reactions to Program Challenges and Violations
The length of each phase can be extended and is dependent on identification of treatment related issues such as the resumption of substance abuse and the failure to attend treatment sessions. The resumption of substance abuse may be met with a variety of actions. An initial response is usually the addition of Relapse Prevention Classes to the offender’s existing treatment
schedule. These classes are held twice a week over a period of six weeks and are designed to
give the offenders information specific to relapse warning signs. If the treatment team and supervising officer deem the offender’s relapse requires a stronger response, the offender may be
returned to a previous phase of treatment. The individual may even be placed in a communitybased detoxification or inpatient treatment facility if such actions are deemed necessary to assist
the offender in successfully meeting treatment goals.
Additional supervision strategies can also be utilized in tandem with the treatment program.
For example, an offender who is experiencing reporting problems may be placed on electronic
monitoring and will continue to attend treatment at the Free and Clean site. Similarly, Dismas
House (residential facility), the Day Report Program, and the St. Louis Community Release’s
Work Release Program may be utilized to assist offenders without a stable home plan or when
extensive structure is required to assist the offender in succeeding on community supervision.
Offenders referred to these programs may also continue to attend treatment at Free and Clean.
Offenders found to be in need of dual diagnosis treatment are often referred to an appropriate
program and do not generally continue to attend treatment at the Free and Clean site.
Weekly staffing sessions are conducted at all levels of treatment with the clinical supervisor, the
counselor and all supervising probation and parole officers. The staffing is designed to review
the offender’s treatment plan and to determine if adjustments are necessary given the offender’s
recent actions. The offender may even be returned to a previous treatment phase if the treatment team determines added structure is needed to assist the offender in his recovery.
Celebrations of Continued Recovery!
After completion of all three phases of the program, the treatment and supervision staff formally recognize the offenders’ hard work with a graduation ceremony. A keynote speaker ad122
dresses the offenders and encourages them to continue their pursuit of sobriety. All offenders
receive a graduation certificate and are encouraged to bring significant others to the ceremony.
Graduates are also invited to offer some advice and words of support to offenders beginning the
program.
123
Project Connect
In 2003, the Missouri Department of Corrections was awarded $1.3 million from the Office of
Justice Programs to design and implement a reentry program. The grant awarded was called the
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), commonly referred to in Missouri as
Project Connect. This grant-funded program is designed to assist offenders in the successful
reintegration back into their home communities by providing a strong support system, in addition to crucial linkages to community-based services and resources. Project Connect will serve
approximately 200 offenders per year, all of who will be returning to one of Missouri’s major
metropolitan centers. One-hundred and fifty male and female offenders who are being released
from the Northwest correctional institutions returning to select areas of Kansas City, and fifty
female offenders being released from the women’s prison in Vandalia and returning to St. Louis
City and County will participate in the program each year for the three-year term of the grant.
The program is open to male and female offenders between the ages of 17 and 35 who possess a
prior criminal history, lack vocational and educational skills, substance abuse history, and any
other liabilities that prohibit a successful transition into the community.
Project Connect is staffed by three full-time reentry specialists whose primary responsibilities
include developing individual reentry plans for each offender during their incarceration, ensuring that needed services are accessible to the offender in the community, as well as identifying
vital community resources. The reentry specialists also work closely with a team of reentry
mentors who assist in the supervision of those offenders released into the community. The reentry mentor dedicates time to each offender and their families in an effort to maintain a positive supervision period. The reentry mentor assists the offender through day-to-day crisis situations and also ensures they meet their obligations while on supervision.
125
Project Connect participants enter the first of the program’s 3 phases approximately 12 months
prior to release. Phase I takes place within the institution and consists of selecting appropriate
participants and conducting needs assessments to determine basic needs such as medical, food,
shelter, clothing and subsistence. Other needs assessed include education, employment, support, mental health, substance abuse, legal issues, as well as monitoring compliance. During
this initial phase, the offender will work with the reentry specialist and other correctional staff
such as psychologists, substance abuse specialists, medical staff, education staff, and classification staff to develop a comprehensive release/reentry plan. This plan includes all areas of identified assets and needs for the offender, and serves as an outline of agreed upon programming to
be completed by the offender, as well as expectations for the remainder of the offender’s institutional term. The offender is included and has input into the services he/she believes are
needed. In addition to specifying the various services each offender will experience within the
institution, Project Connect staff also work to ensure that appropriate linkages to community
resources and support are established, and appointments made, prior to the offender’s release
from prison.
Phase II is focused on supporting offenders during what is perhaps the most critical point in the
transition process, the time at which the offender leaves the institution and reenters the community. This phase lasts throughout the offender’s first 6-12 months on parole and includes a considerable amount of community involvement and support for the offender. During this phase,
various community stakeholders known as the Reentry Transition Team will aid the offender.
This team consists of not only DOC staff, but also representatives from the community, local
law enforcement, and members of the social services and treatment communities. Phase II includes the development of a schedule for the offender, as well as court and parole board authorization of the reentry plan with the offender, the Reentry Transition Team, and service providers. This phase also incorporates ongoing assessment of needs and subsequent review and
modification of the reentry plan as needed. Executive Reentry Boards have been formed in
each community to assist in the supervision process as well. A panel consisting of community
stakeholders is created based on identified needs of the offender. The offender, along with the
field probation and parole officer, meet with the panel once per month to discuss progress
made, as well as any barriers encountered during the supervision period. It has been noted that
the considerable amount of stakeholder involvement in Project Connect has been a critical component in the program’s success to date.
During Phase III, the sustaining phase, there is continued support from community-based organizations (including faith-based groups if requested by the offender), coupled with continued
involvement of support services addressing specific needs such as substance abuse and mental
health, among others. Phase III encourages the offender to maintain contact with their personal
social support networks and to continue to seek community support. The goal of this phase is
to assist the offender in avoiding crime, engaging in pro-social community activities, and meeting family responsibilities.
The goals and objectives considered in the initial design of Project Connect consisted of the
prevention of re-offending and revictimization, enhancement of public safety, as well as the redeployment and utilization of existing community resources. Each of the individuals and organizations involved in this project are dedicated to providing the leadership and support neces126
sary so that Project Connect offenders, and their communities as a whole, benefit from this
grant. By fostering new community linkages in addition to continuing to access currently provided services, Project Connect strives to maximize one of the most valuable resources available to its clients - the community.
The Missouri Department of Corrections is putting a strong focus on the reentry philosophy. In
addition to being awarded the grant money, Missouri was chosen as one of the first two states to
model the Transition from Prison to Community model designed by the National Institute of
Corrections and Abt. and Associates. This initiative requires the Department to initiate a philosophical change in the way business is currently being done with reentry and public safety as
a priority.
127
Nebraska’s Mentoring Program for Children
of Incarcerated Offenders
It has often been said that children of incarcerated parents serve time along with their moms or
dads and therefore suffer emotional and psychological effects as a result of this separation from
their parent(s.) This often impedes the child’s ability to grow and develop. Children of incarcerated parents often display low self-esteem, anxiety, low achievement, reduced motivation,
poor conscience development, poor social adjustment and peer relations, depression, juvenile
delinquency, aggression, drug abuse and other problems (Katz, 1998.) In addition, children of
incarcerated parents are seven times more likely to enter the criminal justice system
(Administration for Children & Families.)
Studies indicate that improving the relationship between children and their incarcerated parent
is vital to preventing the continuous cycle of criminality. Incarcerated parents are better
equipped to raise healthy and successful children in the long term if they maintain a relationship
with their children, attend parent education classes during incarceration, and receive additional
support during the re-entry and reintegration period (Covington, 1995.)
In an attempt to help the incarcerated parent reenter society and maintain a positive relationship
with their child(ren) that fosters a child who is a successful and productive citizen, the Nebraska
Department of Correctional Services has partnered with Metropolitan Community College,
United Methodist Ministries, TeamMates, and the Lincoln Community Learning Center. Each
of these entities makes a significant contribution to the support services available to Nebraska
inmates for their children while they are incarcerated and as a resource upon reintegration into
129
the community.
Preparation for a successful reentry begins by providing incarcerated parents with tools during
their incarceration. One of the tools provided through the department is parenting skills. Inmates voluntarily sign up for parenting classes that teach them positive parenting styles and
how to be a nurturing parent for their child(ren.) At the Nebraska Correctional Center for
Women, there is a full-time parenting coordinator devoted to the instruction of these classes.
Metropolitan Community College has partnered with the department to provide these classes
within the male facilities.
Less than 50% of prisoners receive visits from their children. In a number of cases, the caregiver may not allow the child to visit the incarcerated parent or the institution may be located
far away from the urban areas where most children of prisoners live. According to information
received from the Bureau of Prisons, there is evidence to suggest that incarcerated parents who
are connected to their children and families are less likely to re-offend. Therefore, day visits
with the child are another way the Department is planning to build relationships that assist with
the successful reintegration of incarcerated parents. Once the incarcerated parent has successfully completed the parenting classes, he/she will be offered the opportunity to have additional
day visits with his/her child inside the prison. These visits are monitored by institutional staff.
A program that facilitates overnight visits, day visits, and a nursery was established at the
women’s facility a number of years ago.
Building upon the long-standing success of these programs in the women’s prison, the partnerships developed with United Methodist Ministries, TeamMates, and the Lincoln Community
Learning Center will provide mentors for children (ages 4 to 15 years) of incarcerated offenders. These organizations and the Department are in the process of submitting a grant through
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families,
to provide for a mentoring program for these children. Mentoring is a successful avenue for
improving positive youth outcomes. Mentoring increases the likelihood of regular school attendance and academic achievement. It also decreases the chances of engaging in self-destructive
or violent behavior. A trusting relationship with a caring adult provides for stability and often
has a profound, life-changing effect on the child. Mentoring provides the incarcerated parent
with assurance that somebody is there to look after the best interests of their child in the school
setting (Administration for Children & Families.)
Research confirms the societal benefits of mentoring. Specifically, data indicates that mentoring programs have reduced first time drug use by almost 50% and first-time alcohol use by
33%. Also, caregiver and peer relationships are shown to improve. In addition, mentored
youth displayed greater confidence in their schoolwork and improved their academic performance (Administration for Children & Families.)
United Methodist Ministries will work directly with the incarcerated parents by informing them
of the mentor program and explaining how mentors can assist children. Parents, incarcerated
parents, caretakers, schools, courts, social service organizations, or congregations may also
identify children in need of a mentor through this program. Mentors working directly with the
incarcerated parents will address a number of issues. These will include criminal thinking and
130
maintaining personal boundaries. Transitional areas of focus will include housing, employment, and personal support systems.
TeamMates will provide volunteer community mentors for the children of incarcerated parents
who have expressed interest and have been approved by the child’s guardian. The TeamMates
Mentoring Program in Nebraska was founded by former football coach Tom Osborne and his
wife, Nancy. It seeks to match a mentor from communities one-to-one with a student whose
need(s) is identified by their school. TeamMates will provide training for mentors and oversee
mentor and child’s activities. They will also facilitate the mentor and child relationship by allowing parents and other stakeholders opportunities to provide feedback.
The Lincoln Community Learning Center works directly with children of incarcerated parents.
They are active in evaluating the progress of the child through daily contact with these children.
Throughout the process, an individual mentor will stay connected with the child, the incarcerated parent, and the child’s family. Upon the parents reentering society, wrap-around services
will be established for the mentor, the incarcerated offender, and the child’s family. These services will be focused on how the incarcerated parent is going to return to his/her household and
regain an effective parental role in the home. Under coordination and oversight provided by
TeamMates, United Methodist Ministries, and the Community Learning Center, support services will be provided during this re-integration.
Mentors are not meant to be “replacement parents.” In situations where incarcerated parents
were actively engaged in the mentoring process, through visits, phone conversations, or letters,
reunification is a natural process with realistic expectations. Mentors can help facilitate a
smooth reentry by helping parents reconnect with their child(ren) and are often invited to continue to be a supportive resource well after the incarcerated parent returns to the home
(Administration for Children & Families.)
Partnerships with community agencies are the vital component for a successful reunification
between an incarcerated parent and his/her child(ren). Without the collaborative efforts made
between the Department and these agencies, incarcerated parents would not have this opportunity available.
Partnership with the public schools and other service providers for the children of incarcerated
parents is an essential component of Nebraska’s Reentry Initiative. It’s also been said that “an
adult never stands so tall as when they stoop to help a kid.” Beyond the altruistic qualities of
this belief, Nebraska’s DOC is compelled to act in the interests of our service population’s children in order to make an investment in our future.
131
REENTRY: A Faith-Based Perspective
Background
The New Jersey Department of Corrections has embraced the role that the state's faith based
community plays in providing compassionate support to those most in need. This community
plays an important role in prisoner reentry by providing the connection to an established support system of engaged community members. Through a partnership with several faith communities across the state, the New Jersey Department of Corrections has developed a supportive
bridge from prison to the community that has assisted in the successful transition for many offenders.
The statistics—state and national—concerning reentry failure are alarming. According to the
New Jersey Reentry Roundtable, in 2002, forty percent of all admissions to New Jersey state
prisons were persons who had failed on parole. From a national perspective, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics, two thirds of all individuals released from prison are rearrested
within three years, and one half of all these arrests occur within the first six months of release
from prison.
In view of the trend of reentry failure, the New Jersey Department of Corrections is committed
to preparing offenders during incarceration for their transition from prison to society, and assisting offenders once the transitional phase is upon them. In partnership with local, state and federal agencies, and private entities in New Jersey, including, but not limited to, the State Parole
Board; Juvenile Justice Commission; New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety; New
Jersey Institute for Social Justice; social service providers; and community organizations, the
133
vision of the Department of Corrections is to “meet the challenge” of offender reentry.
Also, in collaboration with the New Jersey Department of Corrections concerning offender reentry, is the New Jersey faith-based community. As is often the case with the social concerns
of today, unfortunately, the least considered perspective in the discussion of offender reentry is
that of the religious community. However, the perspective and efforts of faith-based institutions
pertaining to reintegration are highly esteemed by the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
The faith-based community realizes that work with the offender population does not end at
prison gates, but extends beyond the walls of correctional institutions into the communities to
which incarcerated men and women are released. Specifically, the religious community understands the importance of prison ministry continuing in the form of reentry outreach—ministry
offered by faith communities and organizations to returning offenders and their families.
The purpose of reentry outreach is to assist those who have been incarcerated with the difficult
process of transition from prison to society. The transitional phase for returning offenders is
critical. So often upon release from prison former offenders find themselves ill equipped to face
the difficult challenge of reintegration into society. They find themselves at an emotional, mental, spiritual, social, and financial deficit, oftentimes without an adequate support system and
adequate resources to assist them in their transition.
Difficulty rebuilding family relationships, feelings of hopelessness, low self-esteem due to the
stigma of having been previously incarcerated, mental health issues, lack of employment, difficulty locating housing and/or homelessness, and drug and substance abuse issues are just some
of the challenges that returning offenders face upon release from prison. Unfortunately, these
challenges, along with many other existing challenges, often result in the temptation of former
offenders to engage in criminal behavior. This temptation is usually followed by a relapse into a
criminal lifestyle, which in most instances, is followed by rearrest, reconviction, and reincarceration.
Reentry outreach addresses the many challenges associated with the reintegration of offenders
into society by providing returning offenders with support to function successfully in society.
While the support of reentry outreach ministries generally varies from faith community to faith
community, and also varies depending upon the individual needs of offenders and their families, one component common to all reentry outreach ministries is spiritual mentorship. Other
components of reentry outreach are transitional housing, family development, alcohol and substance abuse support, and life-skills instruction, including parenting, employment, budgeting,
and social skills training.
Although reentry outreach ministries do vary in nature, their primary goal is to serve as facilitators of spiritual and social change in the lives of returning offenders, equipping them to function
successfully in society as productive, crime-free citizens. Overall, reentry outreach has been
quite successful in helping former offenders make a positive and fruitful transition from prison
back into society. Most reentry outreach ministries have experienced high rates of success and
low rates of recidivism with ex-offender participants.
134
Program Design
As the New Jersey Department of Corrections understands the significant role that faith communities and organizations play in the successful reintegration of former offenders into society,
it has begun a reentry outreach initiative through its Office of Chaplaincy Services, entitled the
Chaplaincy Network Program. The mission of the Chaplaincy Network Program is “to assist
offenders committed to the state correctional system transition from prison to society via a partnership between the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the religious community in the
State of New Jersey.”
The Chaplaincy Network Program is a mentoring program in which reentry offenders are mentored by faith-based communities from their respective faith traditions. Faith communities and
organizations serve as part of the offenders’ support network during the difficult process of reintegration into society. The mentoring relationship between offender and religious community
commences during a pre-release phase, which begins anywhere from six to twelve months prior
to the release of the offender from prison. Following the release of the offender from prison, a
twelve-month post-release phase of the program begins. Therefore, the mentoring relationship
in the Chaplaincy Network Program could span anywhere from eighteen to twenty-four
months.
Screening is an important component of the Chaplaincy Network Program. Both mentor and
offender participants are screened for suitability. Participating faith communities and organizations must have the endorsement of their faith leader, and offender participants must be referred
to the program by their institutional chaplain.
Training for mentor and offender participants is also a key component of the Chaplaincy Network Program. Conducted by institutional chaplains, the focus of offender preparation is transitional goal setting and mentor relationship awareness. The training requirement for faith communities and organizations involves completing a fourteen-hour mentor training course developed by the Department of Corrections. The curriculum focuses on four critical areas—
corrections, mental health, parole and mentoring—and is instructed by professionals in each
field examined in the training. Upon completion of all four components of the mentor training,
participants receive a certificate of completion signed by the Commissioner of the Department
of Corrections.
In an effort to assist offenders in the State of New Jersey to transition successfully from prison
to community, the Chaplaincy Network Program serves as a bridge between offenders who desire to embrace the supportive mechanism the faith-based community offers upon their release
from prison and religious communities who desire to extend their outreach ministry to the exoffender population.
To highlight the significance of the relationship between the returning offender and the faithbased community, the Department of Corrections conducted a Faith-Based Town Hall Meeting
in February 2003. Religious leaders of all faith traditions were invited to the Department’s administrative campus to discuss offender reentry and examine how the religious community in
the State of New Jersey could be of further assistance during the transitional process. ApproxiTransitional Programs
135
mately 200 persons were in attendance, including the New Jersey Secretary of State, and representatives from the State Parole Board, Department of Law and Public Safety and Department
of Labor. The town hall meeting provided the Department of Corrections with an opportunity to
acknowledge the commitment of New Jersey’s religious community to the offender population,
and formally express its gratitude for the boundless and fruitful efforts of the faith-based community.
Conclusion
Although the religious community in the State of New Jersey has been engaged in prison ministry for years, only recently has it participated in the offender reentry “table” to share its perspective on the reintegration of offenders. The Department of Corrections is committed to maintaining its relationship with the faith-based community, which is deeply committed to extending its
outreach to the offender population. The religious community has responded positively to the
reentry partnership that the department has proposed. With close to one hundred individuals
representing twenty-eight New Jersey religious institutions now trained for reentry outreach by
the department, the faith-based community stands ready to embrace returning offenders.
136
Probation & Parole Reentry Initiative
The New Mexico Corrections Department was awarded $2.2 million under
the federal Serious/Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) to fund a
statewide systemic response to discharge planning and transition of care to
the community upon release.
Premise:
The “moment of release” from prison, and the hours and days that follow
are pivotal to the transition back to community life.
Grant Summary:
Safe Community Reentry is designed to enable New Mexico to prepare for, supervise and support every high-risk offender released statewide on parole to his or her respective community.
The initiative requires the collaborative efforts of the following Departments: Corrections,
Health, Labor, Education, and Children Youth and Families; Safe Community Reentry requires
the creation of a Reentry Steering Committee to focus on planning, program implementation,
and long-term institutionalization of the initiative. The Reentry Steering Committee includes
representation from the partner agencies as well as representation from law enforcement, community providers, both the adult and juvenile parole boards, victim advocates, faith-based organizations, ex-offenders, and the research/data team.
The overall goal of Safe Community Reentry is to achieve a collaborative, statewide, outcomedriven initiative to increase parolees’ ability to succeed under community supervision and beTransitional Programs
137
yond and thereby enhance public safety. The State's Corrections, Labor and Health departments divide the state into regions in order to implement policy and execute direct services.
The New Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) and its partners propose to use the existing
regional structure for coordination of services for offenders releasing from incarceration.
The goal of the Department’s “Safe Community Reentry” project is to ensure effective coordination of services and supervision for inmates as they release back to the community. A system
for continuum of care and supervision to meet individual needs, affect public safety in a positive
way, and to enhance the offender’s successful reentry.
The following are key aspects of Safe Community Reentry:
• Institutional discharge planning
• Transition of discharge plans to the community for implementation
• Leveraging of existing community resources
• Collaboration with other state agencies to maximize public funds to meet offender needs
• Provision for financial assistance to meet statewide “gaps in services” and life maintenance issues, i.e. housing, bus passes, food vouchers, and Photo ID’s
• Enhancement of offender knowledge and skills to promote self-reliance in his or her
abilities to resource/manage his or her own needs in the community upon program discharge
Program FTE’s -
(8)
(4)
(1)
(1)
(1)
Adult Institutional Reentry Coordinators
Probation and Parole Regional Transition Coordinators
Statewide Treatment Coordinator (DOH)
Statewide Employment Coordinator (DOL)
Project Manager
Performance Measures:
1)
Develop an Individual Reentry Plan for every releasing parolee at a rate of 100%
2)
Increase the number of high-risk parolees receiving specialized services by at least 75%
3)
Reduce the number of technical parole violators returning to prison by at least 20%
4)
Increase the successful completion of supervision by parolees by a rate of at least 25%
5)
Reduce the unemployment rates for parolees by at least 10%
6)
Demonstrate the development of effective linkages with other state agencies
7)
Demonstrate the development of effective linkages with community-based organizations
I.
Target Population
Offenders returning from secure confinement to the community between the ages of 17 and 35
who have a minimum of six months of parole time remaining on their sentence, are serious/
violent offenders, are assessed at a risk of medium or higher to re-offend in the community and
have multiple needs which are barriers to reentry. Barriers to reentry are multi-faceted and
require the provision of an array of coordinated treatment services, diverse programming, basic
subsistence, and enhanced and/or specialized supervision. It is imperative that these offenders
have timely access to a comprehensive continuum of supervision, programs, and services.
138
II.
Institutional Discharge Planning
An Institutional Reentry Coordinator will be assigned to each of the eight (8) adult facilities to
coordinate a team effort in the development of an informed, workable individual discharge plan
for each inmate releasing to the community.
The Reentry Coordinator’s sole function will be to facilitate the development of comprehensive
discharge plans that will be shared with the assigned Probation and Parole Officer in the community and the PPD Regional Transition Coordinators so that proper advanced planning/referral
can occur to facilitate a successful reentry/transition back into the community. The Reentry Coordinator will be a probation and parole officer with a duty post assignment at the institution.
1. Institutional Process:
The PPD Risk/Assessment Instrument will be initially completed twelve months prior to
release by the Reentry Coordinator. Identification of participants one-year prior to institutional release allows time for the inmate to still participate in existing programming
offered within the institution.
The Classification Officer will prepare the Parole Plan Check-Out packet and submit the
packet to the Institutional Reentry Coordinator to be reviewed for completeness, eligibility, and suitability, and then the packet will be presented to the Institution Reentry
Committee (IRC) for staffing.
The packet will include an Individual Reentry/Discharge Plan (IRP), which includes information gathered by the Classification Officer from all disciplines involved in the inmate’s institutional life.
The Institutional Reentry Coordinator and Classification Officer will present the inmate’s case to the IRC for review and consensus on the IRP, a minimum of four months
prior to release.
Institution Reentry Committee: A committee established within each institution, which
meets to develop an individual discharge plan for each inmate prior to release to the
community on parole. Committee membership includes institutional representation
from the Education, Mental Health and Medical Bureaus, Addiction Services, Classification, Security, Security Threat Unit, the Reentry Coordinator who represents the Probation/Parole Division, and the contract monitor assigned to the privately operated facilities.
2. The Individual Reentry Plan (IRP) will address the following potential issues:
a. Treatment - substance abuse, drug testing, mental health, psychotropic medication, and
sex offender and/or victim services
139
b. Education / Job Development – education and job skills level, work experience, employment potential, other support, need for skills development and vocational training
c. Medical Needs - on-going physical conditions
d. Financial Needs - issues: housing, transportation, day care, vocational training
e. Family Reunification - or other social support systems
f. Faith-Based assistance - mentoring/support networks in the community
g. Victim notification and advocacy issues
h. Institutional program participation - institutional compliance and behavioral adjustment.
The IRP will identify needs of the inmate that must be addressed in the community upon
release to facilitate a successful reentry. The IRP will be developed in the same vein as
any clinical discharge plan with recommendations for appropriate aftercare and the
added concerns for proper supervision and life maintenance issues.
The IRP must be completed three months prior to release, so that it can be attached to
the Parole Plan Check-Out packet (PPCO) for investigation and approval by the Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) in the community.
The IRP, as attached to the PPCO, will be submitted to the N.M. Parole Board for final
approval. As a result, participation in the program and compliance with the Individual
Reentry Plan will be a mandatory condition of release.
Note: All releasing inmates will receive reentry/discharge planning. If the inmate is
discharging with no supervision to follow then, at a minimum, they will have an understanding of their needs and how they can potentially meet those needs upon release. If
the inmate is discharging with supervision to follow but they do not meet criteria of the
target population, then at a minimum, both they and their assigned PPO will have a better understanding of needs and the plan to meet those needs in the community prior to
release. Only those inmates identified in the target population shall have access to the
financial assistance to meet “gaps in service” and life maintenance issues.
3. Additional Institutional Reentry Coordinator – Job Duties
a. The Reentry Coordinator will forward a copy of the IRP to the appropriate PPD Regional Transition Coordinator.
b. The Reentry Coordinator will contact the PPO to follow-up on the IRP for concurrence
on the supervision level and to verify availability of services in the community.
c. Inmates will be encouraged to participate in Pre-Release programming which will include an introduction to community supervision expectations and requirements by the
Reentry Coordinator.
d. The Reentry Coordinator will review the finalized IRP with each inmate, (and their family, if possible), prior to release to answer any questions and/or address any remaining
issues.
e. The Reentry Coordinator will assist the offender in applying for assistance such as SSI,
Medicaid, and in securing birth certificates and social security cards while still incarcerated.
140
f. The Reentry Coordinator will contact significant family members to encourage and provide referral for their participation in family counseling offered in the community.
g. The Reentry Coordinator will enter required project information into a separate database
developed for tracking participant information.
III.
Implementation of Discharge Plan in the Community
1. Community Transition Team membership:
PPD Regional Transition Coordinators
NMDOH Treatment Coordinator
NMDOL Employment Coordinator
Project Manager
The PPD Regional Transition Coordinator will be a Probation and Parole Officer with a duty
post assignment at each PPD Region Office.
The Treatment Coordinator will be assigned to the Department of Health (DOH) and will assist
with the coordination of and access to DOH treatment providers statewide.
The Employment Coordinator will be assigned to the Department of Labor (DOL) and will assist with the coordination of and access to the DOL “One-Stop” Centers employment/training
services statewide.
The Project Manager will be a Probation and Parole Division employee, will be assigned to the
Community Corrections Administration office and will coordinate project activity, track project
participants, collect data, and submit required reports.
2. The Community Transition Team will:
a. Collaborate to resolve barriers in meeting individual discharge plans
b. Coordinate the efforts of their respective agency’s local offices to provide services as
indicated by the discharge plans and document services provided
c. Collaborate to resolve any breakdowns/coordinate efforts between local agencies and
community resources
3. The PPD Regional Transition Coordinator will:
a. Review the IRP to ensure continuity/coordination in provision of services and supervision
b. Track participants until discharged from parole supervision, or returned to incarceration
c. Have direct contact with the assigned Probation and Parole Officers in their area
d. Assist in cross-training activities, monitor/track services provided to participants, coordinate data collection efforts, prepare and submit reports as required
e. Identify community resources and share this resource information with each Institutional Reentry Coordinator and assigned PPO in their area
f. Coordinate linkages between assigned PPO and local community resources and volunTransitional Programs
141
teer organizations, i.e. Faith-Based, Secular, AA/NA, and Victim Advocacy Groups
g. Coordinate linkages between assigned PPO and other local public agencies, i.e.
NMCYFD, NM Housing Authority, NMDOH Services, and NMDOL One-Stop Centers
h. Coordinate any financial assistance available to participating offenders, i.e., housing,
clothing, food, transportation, childcare, and vocational training
i. Coordinate family involvement in treatment and family reunification efforts prior to the
offender’s release, and monitor continuance after release
j. Report difficulties/gaps in resources/services within their region to the Project Manager
k. Assist the Region Manager in monitoring the quality of community resources utilized to
meet offender needs
l. Serve as the living resource directory for their respective PPD Region
Note: The initiative requires the leveraging of all existing resources, which means that
the utilization of Corrections Department Community Corrections and Special Programs
in the community will still be accessed to the fullest. We will expand our usage of DOH
and DOL services in the community by virtue of the initiative and those community resources that cater to the offender population will be more clearly identified for referral
purposes. The emergency financial assistance fund will be utilized as a last resort.
4. Implementation of the IRP and program compliance of participating offenders will transition
to the assigned Probation and Parole Officer (PPO) in the community upon the offender’s release.
a. The PPO will review each IRP for plan implementation, availability of programming,
community resources, job opportunities and will report any difficulties in meeting an
IRP to the PPD Regional Transition Coordinator and Institutional Reentry Coordinator.
The IRP may be adjusted based on ability to supervise and availability of community
resources.
b. The plan will remain in effect for as long as the offender participates in the program.
The offender is responsible for complying with all terms of the plan.
c. Participants will be subject to internal graduated sanctions for program violations and
non-compliance with their IRP plan up to and including revocation.
142
Discharge Planning: Focusing a
Department of Correction on “Correction”
City of New York Department of Correction
Martin F. Horn, Commissioner
Introduction:
The New York City Department of Correction (DOC) operates the largest municipal jail system
in the United States. In fiscal year 2003 it admitted 109,445 individuals and had an average
daily census of 14,533. The population is extremely fluid with the length of stay for sentenced
inmates averaging 40.7 days, and the average for detained inmates at 45.5 days. More than half
of those admitted leave within seven days, and 29% are gone in three days. DOC discharges
over 80,000 inmates per year back into the neighborhoods of New York City. In addition, and
perhaps most central to this discussion, is that almost 60% of those admitted are readmitted
within three years of their discharge, some many times.
Rikers Island Employment Reentry Program:
Queensboro Plaza is a stop on several subway lines right over the 59th St. Bridge, which connects the New York City boroughs of Queens and Manhattan. Since Rikers Island, the location
of most of the Department of Correction facilities in New York City, is located in Queens, not
far from Queensboro Plaza, this has traditionally been the “dropping off’ point for those being
released from Rikers Island.
In 2003, in response to heightened interest in economic development in this community known
as Long Island City, a group of interested parties approached the Department of Correction to
143
attempt to intercede in this “dropping off” process. While the neighborhood faces many additional issues, it was agreed that the Department would collaborate in seeking ways to diminish
the number of former inmates being released at this site. What developed was a contract between a not-for-profit group known as the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) and the
NYC Economic Development Corporation, the NYC Department of Correction, the NYC Office of the Criminal Justice Coordinator, the NYC Department of Small Business Services, and
the Economic Development Corporation. This collaboration is meant to both meet the immediate objective of lowering the number of people being dropped off in Queens Plaza, and to contribute to the longer-term objective of interceding in the recycling of people between the jail
and shelter systems.
CEO is an employment program with a long history of working with clients placed on parole.
The program addresses the most fundamental employment issues facing those being released:
i.e. lack of work history, need to establish a work record, and availability of documentation to
attest to the person’s identity. The latter has become increasingly problematic for those without
documentation since the events of September 11. The funders, working with CEO and DOC,
devised a programmatic plan based on CEO’s experience, to address the immediate need at
hand and to attempt to move forward with the larger goal. The basics of CEO’s program are as
follows:
1. CEO transports inmates leaving DOC custody who sign up for the CEO program, on
their day of discharge to a CEO orientation/work site.
2. Participants receive an introduction to the program, its rules, and requirements.
3. Participants receive an identification card identifying them as an employee of CEO
4. The orientation site is located at Bronx Community College, one of the organizations with which CEO has a contract to provide maintenance and ground keeping
services. Participants are assigned to a work crew and begin immediately to participate in work provided to the College under CEO’s contract.
5. By the end of the first day, each participant has a work assignment for the following
day, has specific instructions on where and to whom to report, and, as necessary can
negotiate which shift to work and which four days of the five day work week to
work.
6. Each participant who successfully completes each day’s work is paid at the end of
the day and is able to cash his/her check using the identification provided by CEO as
the employer.
7. Participants, who successfully complete two weeks of work, are connected with job
developers and coaches, who begin the process of attempting to place the participant
in permanent employment. The participant’s work experience is evaluated and documented at the end of each day, and becomes the basis on which CEO can make recommendations to employers.
8. CEO has developed contracts with institutions throughout New York City to provide
the services which participants are hired on a daily basis to perform.
Enrollment activities began in earnest in August. Between August 2003 and April 2, 2004 a
total of 2,767 participants have applied to the program through a recruitment process in place at
the two major jails on Rikers Island housing sentenced inmates: Eric M. Taylor Center for men,
144
and the Rose M. Singer Center for women. Of the 2,767 applicants, 1,242 actually got on the
bus to work: 1,090 men and 152 women. Weekly numbers have grown rapidly as internal procedures evolved to accommodate this new priority and the opportunity became more widely
known among inmates. CEO explains the program at every program orientation in each jail,
gets a list of those interested in discussing the program further, and follows-up with an individual contact within days of the presentation. Efforts are underway in the jails to insure that those
being released in the shortest amount of time are given priority for this follow-up and that any
impediments to participation that can be are removed so that the inmate’s ability to get on the
bus is not impeded. Among those impediments recognized and being dealt with on an ongoing
basis are:
1. The lack of appropriate identification to allow CEO to employ the individual
2. Logistical problems within the jails causing prospective participants to miss the bus
3. The existence of warrants preventing the inmate’s scheduled release
4. The enrollment of the individual in another discharge planning service, i.e. drug abuse treatment
In addition to the partners to the MOU identified above, CEO and DOC are also now collaborating with the other discharge planning organizations working on Rikers Island to insure that
each effort is supportive of the others and that services are collaborative rather than competitive. The goals are to insure that:
1. ex-offenders make a successful transition from jail to the community, thereby increasing
public safety by reducing criminal recidivism
2. the hardest-to-employ populations-offenders coming out of NYC jails-are engaged and
brought into the workforce
3. the impact of the Rikers Island discharge process on the Long Island City Community is
reduced
4. the economic development of Queens Plaza, one of New York City’s highest priorities for
economic development outside of Manhattan is facilitated
By the end of the first year of the contract, June 2004, it is expected that over 2,000 participants
will have been enrolled on Rikers Island and transported to CEO’s orientation center. Beginning with the July 1, 2004 contract, year the annual target will be 5,000.
Internal Changes Within DOC In Support of Discharge Planning:
While significant interagency discussions were proceeding and CEO’s contract was in the first
stages of implementation, it became apparent that some changes could move ahead on a parallel
track with the planning, and would in fact be necessary to the successful outcome of whatever
changes were eventually put in place. It should be noted that this progress would not have been
possible without the expertise and assistance of the Vera Institute of Justice whose staff was
invaluable in moving these initiatives along. Initial progress includes:
145
Information Collection: On intake, those being admitted to the Department of Correction were
traditionally asked questions related to their criminal history and provided information necessary to determine classification and housing needs while in jail. Early in the interagency discussions it became apparent that the system would need to know more about each individual’s family situation, educational level, employment history and housing situation if it was to plan effective interventions for life after jail. An adjunct to the traditional intake form was developed.
This new information will be collected on admission and will be available to discharge planning
contractors. Information on arrests, convictions, sentences, and time served has been widely
available. The goal of this initiative is to insure that information useful to intervening in the jail/
homeless cycle is as easily available and that it can be retrieved and updated.
Personal Identification: One of the major impediments for those leaving jail and seeking employment, treatment and/or housing is the lack of appropriate identification. This became immediately apparent in the implementation of the CEO project as inmates eager to become involved
in the program faced the hurdle of trying to obtain acceptable identification documents in the
short time available during their incarceration. Several interventions have been put in place:
1. Revised Property Receipt: On intake, property is taken from inmates and each article
is recorded on a Property Receipt Form. It was clear as the struggle to help inmates
obtain appropriate identification waged on, that whatever identification the person
had with him during Intake, was being recorded on the Property Receipt Form as
“papers” or in some other non- specific term. The form has been revised to list various most likely forms of identification (social security card, drivers/non-drivers license, passport, etc.) and to require that other items of identification be individually
listed. Training on the use of the new form has been completed for all staff in the
new admission areas.
2. Family Involvement: In some cases when inmates do not have identification on their
person, it is available elsewhere. In order to encourage family members and other
visitors to look for and provide items of identification, a video has been produced
and will be shown in all visit houses. The video, produced by CEO is titled: Why
ID? Fax numbers have also been provided which allow items to be faxed directly to
the discharge planning areas in the jails.
3. Birth Certificate Verification: Through arrangements made with the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, a process has been instituted through which
that agency provides verification of an inmate’s date and place of birth and will issue a copy of the actual birth certificate upon the inmate’s release. The verification
can be used in the interim as one proof of identification
4. Social Security Verification: An MOU being finalized with the Regional Office of
the Social Security Administration in New York City allows verification of the social security number of inmates who are registered with SSA. Applications for social
security numbers can also be made, although cards will not be distributed until inmates are released.
146
Adjustment of Performance-Based Contracts: The Department was in contract with several
community- based service providers to provide program services to inmates while incarcerated.
The work of these contractors was thinly spread among the entire jail population and focused on
process objectives, i.e. numbers served, groups run, etc. As discharge planning discussions, in
which all of these providers participated, got underway in June, 2003, it became clear that these
limited resources needed to be focused on a targeted sub-set of the population, and that the effectiveness of the outcomes should be evaluated based on what happens outside of jail. Therefore, effective with the contracts beginning October 1, 2003, the focus of these services was
shifted to sentenced inmates with a date certain for discharge.
The newly negotiated contracts include the following deliverables:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Number of clients recruited while in jail
Number of Memoranda of Agreement to participate in the service signed
Number of clients transported off Rikers Island after discharge
Number of confirmed arrivals at a service program
Number of clients retained in programs for 30 days after discharge
These start-up contracts projected numbers in each category and are constructed so that increasing dollar amounts are paid for each increasingly difficult milestone to be achieved. The amount
paid for 90-day retention far exceeds the less difficult task of getting an inmate to agree to participate while in jail.
While the contracts are in the first year of implementation and DOC and the providers are still
adapting to this new way of doing business, some lessons have already been learned and are
helping the system to move toward better outcomes. DOC has accepted responsibility for its
part in achieving the deliverables by making sure that providers have reasonable access to inmates. This has been accomplished through the inclusion of high ranking Chiefs in the Commissioners’ interagency planning sessions, by the involvement of the Chief of the Department
in the promotion and resolution of “system change” activities, and by the Commissioner’s personal communication with top level uniformed and civilian staff in joint sessions arranged to
insure that everyone understood the importance of the outcome and their role in making it work.
Efforts were also made to prevent long-standing practices from unintentionally interfering with
the desired outcome. One example is the practice of paying inmates a small stipend for work.
This can be an effective way to motivate participation, can promote the development of useful
work habits and job skills as well as promote responsibility. Engagement in addiction treatment
groups, individual counseling, job readiness programs and skills training however often competed with stipends provided for work. Two solutions were implemented: participation in treatment and job readiness programs were also made eligible for stipends, and efforts were made to
coordinate work assignments and skills training with the CEO program and other after-jail work
programs so that the learning and skills acquired can be put to practical use after jail.
147
Where To From Here?
Continuity of Benefits: Ways need to be found to insure that Medicaid, housing assistance and
other benefits to which individuals and families are entitled are immediately restored when they
are released.
Focus on Heavy Users of the DOC and DHS Systems: More is being learned about the people who are constantly recycling through the systems and the issues bringing them back. A pilot
project to explore more productive, less expensive interventions will be explored.
Prevention: In addition to addressing the crime/situation that brings people into the systems, a
greater understanding of the real consequences of entering the system is becoming increasingly
clear. Ways to prevent the loss of housing, break-up of families, loss of employment, and child
custody issues by what is sometimes unnecessary, unproductive confinement is on the agenda.
Barriers to Housing: Work with housing authorities to explore waivers from rules which bar
access to certain housing opportunities for particular groups of inmates trying to reenter society
are under consideration.
Re-Connecting to Neighborhoods: Family and community supports are important elements in
breaking the jail/shelter cycle. Efforts will be made to find ways to provide supports in communities in New York City from which large percentages of people come into jail to help families
and neighborhoods assist in the reentry process.
Family Reunification: Visit houses, family days, and children’s visits, additional informational
videos and other mechanisms will all be reengineered to avoid further family disintegration and
support family reunification.
148
Transitional Services Program - A Seamless Transition
from Prison to the Community
Transitional Services: Standards and Standardization
The issues surrounding prisoner reentry to the community are not new. The New York State
Department of Correctional Services (NYSDOCS) has been no exception. NYSDOCS is the
nation’s fourth largest state prison system, and the roots for developing reentry strategies run
deep into its history. More than three decades ago a prerelease program was started at the
Green Haven Correctional Facility, one of the oldest reentry programs in the nation. One of the
aspects of this program that made it unique was that the inmates themselves were involved in its
conception and presentation to other inmates under staff guidance. The program proved to be
so successful that it was eventually adopted by the Department and was soon being conducted
in a number of state correctional facilities.
In the late 1980s the prerelease program was expanded to almost every prison in the system.
However, it needed uniformity and standardization. While some facilities offered a very comprehensive program, others were not of the same quality. In 2000 the program was revitalized
when the curriculum was revised and standardized throughout the state. The name was changed
from prerelease to “Transitional Services” and a staff person was designated to coordinate the
program. When individuals are prepared for the challenges facing them upon release and provided a support network of community agencies, they experience a smoother reentry and are
less likely to recidivate.
149
Doing More with Less?
Over the past several years the State of New York experienced a decrease in its prison population. In spite of downsizing and budget cuts, NYSDOCS not only met these challenges, but also
added a system-wide “Transitional Services Program” initiative to prepare inmates for successful reintegration into their community. In January 2000, DOCS established a centralized
“Transitional Services Program Unit” responsible for coordination of an intensive and mandatory, multi-phased, cognitive, skill-based training program for inmates. Transitional Services
Coordinators, at 53 of the 70 correctional facilities, were assigned and are responsible for the
day-to-day delivery of program services.
Not a “Quick-fix” Program!
Today, many prison-to-community reentry efforts offer only a quick-fix program, usually starting six months to a year prior to an inmate’s release date. However, the Transitional Services
Program begins the first day an inmate is incarcerated and continues to the day of his or her release. The program’s uniqueness is evident in a number of ways. For example, program participation is not optional. Each inmate is mandated to participate prior to release. An inmate is
assessed with regard to reentry needs at his or her first general confinement facility. Each phase
is designed to assist them in acquiring basic skills for obtaining meaningful employment, developing strategies for successful family and community reintegration, and facilitating a seamless
correction-to-community continuation of substance abuse treatment, locating affordable housing, and/or accessing mental and physical health-care services upon reentry.
Partnerships that Work!
The NYSDOCS reached out to a number of local and state governmental agencies, and faithbased organizations, to partner with its reentry initiatives. For example, New York City’s Human Resources Administration, currently verifies and processes Medicaid Applications for inmates, with less then five weeks before release, from the Queensboro Correctional Facility in
New York City. This partnership with HRA allows inmates to immediately access treatment,
health-care, and other public benefit programs upon their release, rather than waiting the 45-day
statutory period for determining eligibility. The New York State Department of Motor Vehicles
also partners with DOCS and issues a “non-driver’s identification card,” based on a DOCS issued inmate ID card. Another partner is the New York State Office of Vital Records which
processes applications for official birth certificates, with more than 16,000 applications processed annually. The NYS Department of Labor has agreed to train and certify a cadre of DOCS
personnel as “career development facilitators.” In addition, DOL will make available, and keep
up-to-date, a computerized data bank of current job listings.
A Holistic Approach: Bring Theory and Practice Together!
The Transitional Services training approach to reentry is “nontraditional” as well as “holistic”
in terms of classroom instruction. It draws from “state-of-the-art” adult learning theories and
practices that are learner-centered, and it requires that participants take responsibility for their
own learning. The curriculum addresses six categories of cognitive and social skill development
150
needs for an inmate’s successful reentry. Facilitation is a teaching method that enables the inmate to participate in the learning experience. This is not an easy concept to grasp, much less
employ. Facility coordinators and inmate peer counselors are given formalized training on how
to facilitate the program. Instead of lecturing, the facilitator eschews the notion that he or she is
an expert and conducts the class on the idea that everyone in the room has knowledge about any
particular topic and if encouraged to do so, will contribute to the learning process.
The curriculum also uses a group modality to deliver and process the materials. There are
twenty-one (21) topics addressed in the curriculum, including such skill areas as--decisionmaking, communication, conflict management, and problem-solving skills. There are also interactive modules designed to assist inmates in such areas as document retrieval (e.g., applying
for birth certificates and social security cards), resume and portfolio development, job preparation and readiness, job search techniques and interviewing skills, and family reintegration and
relationship issues.
Queensboro & Sing Sing Correctional Facilities –
A “Snap Shot” of Two Very Special NYC Reentry Initiatives!
Queensboro C.F. - Unique Inmates with Unique Needs
Queensboro’s inmates have already appeared before parole boards at upstate facilities and have
been designated as open-date cases. That means they’ve been approved for parole back into the
community as of a certain date. However, Queensboro’s inmates can still be detained beyond
their open date if they don’t have an acceptable post-release supervision program.
For Queensboro’s inmates turnover is quite high because their open dates are generally scheduled for within 30-60 days of their reception at the facility. That means staff has to hustle to
help inmates complete suitable post-release supervision plans so inmates can go home when
their open date arrives.
Queensboro’s program curriculum is tightly scheduled, fast-paced, and intensive. It covers a
wide range of community integration issues. There are two unique transitional services reentry
programs at Queensboro. One of the reentry programs is targeted at inmates with stays of five
weeks or less. Inmates develop specific action plans and networking strategies in a variety of
areas including--self-development, employment and career assistance, and basic survival tools
(e.g., accessing local transportation, food pantries, and used clothing centers, etc.). It also focuses on improving and/or reestablishing family ties and relationships.
The other program, “Cognitive and Social Interaction Skills for Reentry: A Program for Offenders Approaching Release,” is designed for inmates with five or more weeks before their
release date. It was derived from an ambitious pilot project initiated in the spring of 2002 as a
joint effort of the Department, the Division of Parole, and the VERA Institute of Justice. Inmates are enrolled in an 18-session program of class instruction under the direction of an assigned counselor. The curriculum focuses on basic life skills and critical reentry issues. Inmates are challenged to develop methods of proper resolution of these issues, and proven techniques for successful reintegration are presented and comprehensively reviewed.
151
An integral part of the programming at Queensboro is the on-site, comprehensive participation
of local community agencies that specialize in providing assorted transitional services. Of particular note is NYS Department of Labor’s career planning and job search programming to assist inmates in creating an effective resume, locating potential employers, setting up interviews,
etc. prior to being release.
Sing Sing C.F. - The Going Home Project
The NYSDOCS “Going Home Program” is a three phased program intended to create a seamless system of supervision and social service delivery to serious and violent offenders who are
being paroled to northern and central Manhattan. This effort requires the collaborative efforts
of various state agencies, including NYSDOCS, NYS Division of Parole, and NYS Department
of Labor, as well as local treatment providers, community agencies, and faith-based organizations. A NYSDOCS staff person is designated project coordinator and responsible for developing and coordinating interagency, community and faith-based services, and collaboration.
Phase I is an institutional based program operating out of Sing Sing Correctional Facility
wherein the targeted inmates are transferred at approximately 90 days to conditional release or
their maximum expiration date. These inmates receive a range of transitional services currently
available to the inmates in Sing Sing’s Conditional Release program. Additionally, Phase I inmates receive intensive risk and needs assessment, employment services, assistance and initiation of the entitlement process for Medicaid, and facilitation of linkage with community and
faith based organizations. The designated Corrections Counselor and Facility Parole Officer
jointly implement this Phase. Detail reentry plans are developed in Phase I.
Phase II is the community based transition coordinated by the project coordinator, Neighborhood Coordinating Council, and the area Parole Office. The purpose of this phase is too help
the ex-offender maintain his reentry plan. The New York State Division of Parole’s assigned
staff person coordinates employment assistance services and activities.
Phase III provides long term, after custody, community-based support that continues to provide
a wide range of services and referrals. This phase will continue to operate out of the Harlem
State Office Building in New York City.
From the first day, an inmate begins his or her transitional program and continues developing it
to the last day of incarceration. “One-shot” deals or “quick-fixes” are unacceptable at the NYSDOCS. Its mission is to assure that every inmate under its custody develops confidence and receives the skills needed to successfully reenter society.
152
Reentry in Ohio: A Systems Approach to Offender Planning
Reentry Nationally
There is a growing national movement in corrections embracing offender reentry. This movement reflects a significant redirection targeting how offenders are prepared to return to the community following a period of imprisonment. Since the late 1990s, the Urban Institute has hosted
a series of “Reentry Roundtables” to assess the state of knowledge and to issue specialized reports for policymakers, lawmakers, corrections professionals, and others with an interest in this
topic. In 2001, the U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with a broad consortium of federal agencies, provided $100M in grant funding to states to address reentry planning and programming for serious, violent, felony offenders. Ohio received one of these grants.
In 2002, directors of state departments of corrections met at the Annual Congress of the American Correctional Association to discuss their respective states’ strategies for retooling their systems of reentry. Attendees included directors/commissioners from nearly every state. In addition, the Reentry Policy Council of the Council of State Governments is preparing a major report that will be distributed nationwide summarizing what is known about effective policies,
planning strategies, and best practices relative to reentry in the institutions and in the community.
President Bush in his 2004 State of the Union address urged Congress to allocate $300M over
four years to support the reentry transition of offenders. His reentry initiative calls for support
for job training and placement services, transitional housing, and community and faith-based
services, especially in mentoring such offenders as they return home.
153
Reentry Within Ohio’s DRC
In July 2002, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) published a comprehensive report called The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction (the Ohio Plan.) The Ohio Plan views reentry as a philosophy, not a program. The plan
calls for a broad systems approach to managing offenders returning to the community following
a period of incarceration. The Ohio Plan highlights the strategies and changes that are necessary
to achieve the safe return of offenders from prison to communities across the state. These
strategies and the redirection in practice they entail have direct applicability to the successful
transition of offenders from local community-based facilities, jails, and halfway houses. Reentry represents an important state-wide criminal justice initiative given the sheer volume of offenders moving in and out of correctional systems at the state, county, and local levels.
The Ohio Plan contains 44 recommendations centering on six major areas of importance: reentry planning, programming, family involvement, employment and discharge readiness, offender
supervision, and community partnerships. Reentry Implementation Teams have been working
on adopting these recommendations across the institutional sites and parole regions resulting in
new policies and changing practices in many areas of operation. ODRC’s commitment to reentry and the Ohio Plan is long-term. It speaks to a redirection that views reentry holistically, that
is, as a philosophy governing changes in practice that impact each and every phase of the entire
correctional process. The foundation that supports the department’s systems approach to reentry begins with planning at reception for an offender’s return home, but is of necessity sustained
through the term of confinement and any period of community supervision that may follow.
Planning for Reentry: The Key to Success
The notion of preparing offenders for community reentry is certainly not a new concept in the
field of corrections. However, under the Ohio Plan, the process of planning for reentry begins
immediately through assessment and classification at one of three reception centers, not a few
weeks, or even a few months, before release from incarceration. This effort represents an ambitious and holistic endeavor to create a seamless transition from prison to the community. Reentry planning has now become an essential component that begins during the initial reception
assessment process. It is conducted in an administrative manner equivalent to the classification
process, medical, educational and mental health screening, and the issuance of clothing and personal hygiene items.
A new case-planning tool known as the Reentry Accountability Plan (RAP) is developed either
at reception or at the parent institution based on the offender’s risk level and length of sentence
remaining to be served. The RAP provides the core document guiding reentry planning and
programming for offenders as they transition from reception to their parent institution to release
either at the end of their stated term (or expiration of their definite sentence), or upon their release and eventual termination from parole or post-release control.
Risk Assessment
Upon admission to the reception center, a static risk assessment is conducted to determine the
154
offender’s likelihood of reoffending upon release. The risk assessment is entered into an automated database called the “Reentry Planning System.” Those offenders whose scores indicate a
higher risk of reoffending are classified as reentry intensive cases. Those with a lower risk of
reoffending are considered reentry basic. Reentry intensive cases within 36 months of release
are given priority for institutional programming, subject to statutory and other requirements.
Needs Assessment
This commitment to planning at the start begins with the question, “What is needed to prepare
this offender for successful reentry?” The development of a comprehensive reentry plan requires that a number of factors be considered to assist inmates with meeting their rehabilitative
needs and court mandated requirements. A new and essential component of this process involves the assessment of seven domains or areas of need that offenders may present, including
employment/education, marital/family, associates/social interaction, substance abuse, community functioning, personal/emotional orientation, and attitudes. These domains – borrowed
from the Correctional Service of Canada – address criminogenic needs. Criminogenic needs are
dynamic risk factors that can be changed through carefully considered correctional programming. Offenders who are assessed with moderate to high needs in one or more of these domains
are targeted for programmatic intervention – both during confinement and while under supervision in the community.
Reentry Management Teams
Institutional Reentry Management Teams are responsible for monitoring the offender’s progress
towards achieving the programming established in the RAP. Community Reentry Management
Teams have been established across the parole regions to ensure continuity in reentry planning
and follow through upon release. These teams are formed in the institutions and parole regions
to address those offenders who are classified as reentry intensive. They are inter-disciplinary
teams consisting of individuals who, by the nature of their roles, have ongoing and direct contact with an offender, as well as those who have intermittent contact, but have some capacity to
influence an offender’s progress on the RAP.
Offender Programming: Targeting Appropriate Needs
The process of offender programming is not and should not be a whimsical notion. Not withstanding budget and staffing considerations, it is critical that offenders occupy their time with
meaningful activities and in programming that addresses their criminogenic needs. The “what
works” literature in corrections provides overwhelming support for the notion that properly designed rehabilitative programming targeting the criminogenic needs of high-risk offenders can
significantly reduce recidivism. This research also suggests that programming for offenders can
and must be carefully designed, and properly implemented through staff that are trained and
committed to its success.
New Program Policy Adopted
The department has adopted a new program policy that guides the development and approval of
155
new and existing programs. A protocol and standardized assessment tool have been created to
ensure that programs designated for reentry purposes meet certain criteria of acceptability and
are “approved” by a Central Office Reentry Program Oversight Committee. Beginning July 1,
2004, only those programs that have been reviewed and approved under this protocol may be
included in an offender’s RAP. With some limited exceptions, compliance with the following
principles ensures that a program will be reentry approved. The program:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Addresses one of the 7 dynamic needs domains
Includes at least 2 elements of community justice
Is based on theory or research or is documented in a professional publication
Staff facilitating the program have the appropriate credentials and or training
Has a lesson plan
Has clear admission, exclusion, and discharge criteria
Maintains participant rules and expectations
Contains an evaluation plan
The policy also provides for an annual assessment of programs to ensure that the institutions
and the Adult Parole Authority (APA) are meeting offender needs. In order to facilitate the annual assessment of reentry programs, each institution and APA region is expected to develop
and maintain in individual Reentry Program Index and Reentry Program Manual.
In order to ensure that the department can honor its commitment to offer relevant, reentryfocused programs to all offenders who need them, planning is now underway to create two key
levels of programming: core reentry programs, and elective reentry programs. The former will
be mandatory, reentry-specific programs that, to the greatest extent possible, represent “Best
Practices” in correctional programming. There will be at least one core reentry program designated for each reentry domain. Each institution and APA region must offer at least one of the
core reentry programs in each domain. Elective reentry programs are reentry-specific programs
that can be offered, in addition to the core programs, at a given site to meet the criminogenic
needs identified in an offender’s RAP.
Looking Ahead
The Ohio Plan on Reentry represents a philosophy governing changes in practice that impact on
each and every phase of the correctional system. It is also a strategic plan and a dynamic document. It calls for a new way of thinking about reentry involving a broad systems approach to
managing offenders returning to the community. Its many programmatic and policy innovations reflect an overriding commitment ensuring that “Reentry Means Going Home to Stay.”
156
Victims of Domestic Violence and
Batterer’s Intervention for Incarcerated Offenders
As a correctional system dedicated to both rehabilitating offenders and supporting victims of
crime, Ohio took the unique approach of prioritizing domestic violence as one of the issues targeted under their reentry initiative. We asked ourselves, “Given the typical short sentences imposed on domestic violence offenders in Ohio and given the small amount of quality time to
work with a batterer, how could we increase safety for the victims and help improve an offender’s likelihood to successfully reintegrate into society when released from prison?” In our
opinion, the success of a batterer’s reentry could best be proven by keeping victims safe.
Addressing Domestic Violence Inside and Out
Through the endorsement of the Ohio Council on Victims’ Justice and Director Wilkinson, four
years ago, the Office of Victim Services within the Department of Rehabilitation and Correction established an advisory group to discuss how to best work with domestic violence cases.
Numerous community partners representing domestic violence shelters and batterer’s intervention specialists from across the state, as well as department staff developed a policy and a standardized prison-based program for batterer’s intervention that is currently being implemented.
One that would specifically address the fact that offenders convicted of domestic violence are
typically incarcerated just a few short months, historically making it nearly impossible for them
to participate in any type of programming directly related to their crimes.
Part of the advisory group’s activities included looking at all existing programming for batterers
157
being offered in Ohio prisons. They discovered very few programs even available. Those that
were, were not consistent and did not meet the state standards for batterer’s intervention programs recognized by the Ohio Domestic Violence Network. In fact, some of the information
taught in a few programs at that time possibly increased the danger for victims rather than helping. The need for a standardized approach for batterers was very clear. Inmates convicted of
domestic violence are at a higher risk of re-offending than most inmates, putting the victims of
their crimes in potentially volatile situations upon their release. To not have quality programming available to address their needs was unacceptable.
In addition, the advisory group shared concern about changes in Ohio law over the past several
years resulting in more and more domestic violence offenders being released from prison without community supervision, leaving victims potentially more vulnerable. Knowing that offenders were basically being convicted of domestic violence, being sent to a correctional agency,
and NOT provided any programming to deal with their needs only to be released back into
communities sometimes even more dangerous than before was a real concern. The importance
of an offender being able to receive programming while incarcerated, and be released with supervision that would encourage them to participate in community-based batterer’s intervention
programs cannot be underestimated. Upon release, an offender will start to practice the behaviors they learned in batterer’s intervention groups and need validation that they are acting appropriately. While the reentry process for any offender certainly starts at the moment of incarceration, it also continues long after their release back into the community. For batterers this is
critical.
Given all these complex challenges, the advisory group tried to benchmark with other states to
identify existing best practices. Unfortunately, they were unable to identify a prison-based batterer’s intervention program within any other correctional system nationally. So, they decided
to create their own. The Ohio program is based on the Emerge Model out of Cambridge, Massachusetts. The curriculum provides flexibility, as well as the foundation needed to adapt to the
correctional environment.
There are two phases in the Emerge Model. The first eight weeks are dedicated to breaking
down barriers to programming and identifying abusive behavior. Weeks nine through forty focus on analyzing past relationships in more depth as well as peer and facilitator group intervention to modify abusive behaviors. Since the Emerge Model operates specifically in a community environment, rather than inside an institution, some obvious modifications were necessary.
Ohio will eventually have two different types of programs. One shorter, and similar in focus to
the first eight weeks of the Emerge Model that attempts to identify abusive behaviors and one
longer, more able to effectively impact an offender’s future behavior. Depending on the length
of time an offender will be in the system, they could participate in either program. The Ohio
program is being established with mandatory facilitator training as well as supervision through
the Office of Victim Services. Any department employee interested in being a facilitator will
be interviewed, trained, and mentored into this role. In addition to one-on-one supervision, facilitators will have periodic meetings together to share ideas and experiences statewide. While
labor intensive, this approach is intended to insure the quality, consistency and effectiveness of
the program.
158
Only through the support of numerous community agencies in partnership with the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction will this program be successful. The program has
been developed to deliberately mirror the same standards that community-based batterer’s intervention programs have to insure consistency and a seamless support system for these offenders.
Offenders who participate in programming while incarcerated can easily join community programs upon release with the same philosophical foundation as the prison-based programs. This
model is truly dedicated to the successful reentry of the batterer, starting while they are incarcerated and carrying out to community programs upon their release.
Formation of Victim Safety Planning Circles
Hand-in-hand with the development of a standardized program for batterer’s intervention within
institutions, the Office of Victim Services is currently piloting formalized victim safety planning circles. Similar in structure to citizen circles for offenders, this pilot focuses on the needs
of victims utilizing community and system partners working together as inmates reenter the
community on a case-by-case basis. Victims of domestic violence, and other high-risk offenders, are able to work with community teams to address their needs and obtain information about
the offender in their case. The Office of Victim Services identifies cases through reentry assessments that are conducted by institution staff. For those inmates considered high-risk for
reoffending, a victim advocate will outreach to any victim registered for notification. The advocate will assess safety needs, if any, identified by the victim. If necessary, the Office of Victim Services will schedule a meeting with all individuals or agencies that can best address the
safety needs for the victim.
Key partnerships have been developed to insure open communication between all appropriate
community agencies. These include, but are not limited to, victim assistance programs, prosecutor’s offices, law enforcement, rape crisis programs, domestic violence shelters, Job & Family Services, counseling centers, and the Social Security Administration. During the meeting, a
safety plan is created and the parole officer incorporates the plan into the offender’s release plan
and conditions of parole. The objective of the safety planning is to have a plan of action established that may be utilized, if necessary, with all appropriate individuals or agencies already
aware of the case. This will allow for a much more coordinated and effective response in any
crisis situation, and make the victim feel more supported throughout the offender’s reentry
process.
By providing effective programming for offenders while they are incarcerated that can be continued in the community upon release, and addressing the needs of victims of domestic violence, it is our hope that batterers will be less likely to harm their partner and successfully reenter society, violence free.
159
Partnership for the Reintegration of Offenders Through
Education and Community Treatment
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Ron J. Ward, Director
Overview
The philosophy of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections’ (ODOC) reentry process is that
reentry begins with entry. For ODOC, reentry is not a program, but a process. The reentry
process provides the basis for the Partnership in the Reintegration of Offenders Through Education and Community Treatment (PROTECT) funded through the Going Home: Serious and
Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI.) The process begins at the Assessment and Reception Center (A and R) with the assessment of criminogenic needs (needs that influence antisocial behavior.)
An individualized case plan is developed for each offender based upon these needs, with a timeline for participation in recommended programs. The plan remains the driving force throughout
an offender’s incarceration and into the community after release. The offender’s compliance
with the plan is reviewed every 120 days. Compliance includes participating in the recommended programs and securing the necessary identification needed for reentry. During the final
180 days prior to discharge, the transition process begins.
To implement a smooth transition to the community, a pre-release plan is developed by the facility case manager and the offender. The plan identifies the needs to be addressed and the contacts and resources in the area where the offender will reside upon release. The plan will be forwarded to probation and parole officers for offenders released under community supervision.
161
It is within this framework that Oklahoma has implemented PROTECT. While the reentry
framework is in place for all offenders who release in counties throughout the state, PROTECT
has been implemented only in Oklahoma County as a prototype for replication when federal
funds are no longer available. The PROTECT project allows for paid transition workers to assist the case managers in implementing the pre-release plan. It is a voluntary project for the offenders and does not require that they be released to community supervision in order to participate. The purpose of the SVORI is to use existing community resources while utilizing federal
funding to fill gaps in service to releasing offenders.
Assessment
The purpose of the A and R assessments is to screen and triage the incoming inmates in order to
classify and place them according to need and security consideration. Offenders pass through A
and R very quickly. This is why it is critical at point of entry to have the most thorough screening functions operating in tandem. All offenders (except those sentenced to Life without Parole
or Death) are administered the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and the Adult Substance Use Survey (ASUS) as well as education, medical, dental and mental health screening.
The LSI-R measures dynamic criminogenic risk and need factors. Ten sub-groups are screened
by the LSI-R. These sub-groups are criminal history, education and employment, financial,
family/marital, accommodation, leisure/recreation, companions, alcohol/drug problem, emotional/personal, and attitudes orientation. Based on the LSI-R scores additional assessments by
other validated instruments are completed (substance abuse evaluations, educational evaluations, sex offender assessments, etc.).
LSI-R scores are used to determine the level of risk for re-offending. For the purposes of PROTECT, offenders with high-risk LSI-R scores (29 and above) are determined to be serious offenders. Some of these high-risk offenders are violent, while some are not but all are high risk
for re-offending.
The Case Plan
The case plan consists of a record of the services to be provided based upon the levels of need
indicated by the initial assessments. The plan commences at A and R, and identifies the itinerary of treatment, placement and progression through the system to release.
Case managers at receiving facilities follow the case plan to place inmates in the identified programs. Classification has oversight regarding any changes in the treatment plans. Input as to
completion of programs, updates in assessment scores, transfers to other facilities etc. may be
entered by case managers at facilities.
The case plan timeline takes into account the custody level, sentence length, sentence restrictions, projected release date, court orders, overrides, and non-associations. Offenders with
lengthy sentences who have been assessed as needing programs designed to be completed just
prior to release will complete programs with lower priorities first. While participation in the pri162
ority program is postponed, the program still remains a priority ensuring that program slots are
available for offenders with shorter sentences at the time that will make the most impact on an
offender. Offenders not eligible for transfer or those who enter the system without sufficient
time to complete programs while incarcerated are recommended to participate in programs in
the community.
PROTECT and Community Partnerships
PROTECT provides reentry services through state and local agencies for eligible offenders releasing to Oklahoma County. In addition to the Department of Corrections, the represented
state agencies are Department of Human Services, Department of Mental Health and Substance
Abuse Services, Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitative Services, Housing, and Department of
Education. Local agencies include the Oklahoma City Weed and Seed, two Workforce Oklahoma sites and involvement with the Interfaith Council.
SVORI funds are expended to fill gaps in services, overcome barriers that inhibit successful offender transition, and maximize efforts to ensure sustainability of the project after federal funding ends. PROTECT is designed to address these gaps by providing opportunities for State and
local agencies to share information through dialogue, technology and transfer of records.
On-going communication and support among the participating agency staff assists in maintaining a high level of interest among all grant partners. A PROTECT Steering Committee, made
up of administrative representatives from the state agencies, faith-based groups and Oklahoma
City, and Oklahoma County community agencies meet monthly. It is divided into six subcommittees (community resources, employment, community support, community safety, operations
and institutions) that deal with on-going project issues. The Steering Committee was instrumental in the implementation of the project by developing procedures and training modules for the
transition workers.
It is the responsibility of the steering committee members to ensure that memorandums of understanding and inter-local agreements are developed to detail the contributions of their
agency’s existing services and identify gaps in services that can be filled with grant funds. The
committee members must inform the agency directors of the project’s progress and concerns in
order that the participating directors understand and act on existing barriers that may impede the
progress of the project. In this way the agency directors who make up the PROTECT Executive
Committee are kept informed.
Transition
The partners identified a method for matching the needs of releasing offenders to the services
available in their communities. This need has been addressed in Oklahoma County, by using
grant funds to create and fill four community transition worker positions, to assist with bridging
offenders from custody to release. Two Workforce Oklahoma One-Stops and the Oklahoma
City Weed and Seed office each received positions. A position was also placed with the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services. For years, a vocational placement counselor from CareerTech has been stationed at the Downtown Workforce Oklahoma One-Stop to
serve ex-offenders who have completed vocational training while incarcerated. This position is
163
utilized for the same purposes as a transition worker for clients who meet the PROTECT criteria.
Although services vary among the transition sites, each site has full transition responsibility for
each assigned offender. Workforce Oklahoma One-Stops and the Office of Weed and Seed each
offer full service operations. The transition worker at the Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse Services provides linkage with community mental health and substance abuse
services, for releasing offenders who are identified as requiring these services.
The transition workers received an initial 40 hours of training before beginning work. Ongoing training takes place at the weekly meetings, and at the various sites where the transition
workers are employed. Visits to correctional facilities throughout the state provide additional
training for transition workers as well as for facility staff.
Transition begins while the offender is still in prison, with approximately six months until release. Facility case managers identify eligible offenders and determine whether or not an offender chooses to volunteer for the project. A packet consisting of pertinent information about
the offender, a signed volunteer form with conditions of agreement and a release of information
form signed by the offender is forwarded to a reentry coordinator at the Department of Corrections.
The reentry coordinator receives the packets and determines if the offender will be accepted in
the project. The case is assigned to one of the transition workers at the weekly meeting according to areas of expertise or services of the agency. The transition worker is responsible for contacting the facility case manager to schedule a meeting with the offender. During the six
months prior to release, the transition worker works toward securing housing, employment,
treatment, and education classes as needed, as well as helping with family issues and needs. The
transition worker assists the offender with any issues that may impede a smooth transition.
Because the participants are high-need, high-risk offenders the initial phase of reentry is especially important and difficult. Needs that are at first perceived by the transition worker sometimes lead to further problems. For example, even though an offender has a home offer to begin
with, sometimes that ends abruptly; even though an offender has use of a car, the car breaks
down; even though an offender is trained in a skill, he has no tools. The grant funding goes toward solving these relatively small problems in order that the larger ones can be solved. Each
offender is different as each has individual needs. The expectation of the transition phase is to
identify how to put the offender in touch with services so that he/she can help him/herself.
Conclusion
PROTECT has time to grow. New partnerships continue to form and gaps are filled as the partners detect them. Representatives of other state agencies have attended Steering Committee
meetings recently with questions of how their agencies could become involved with the project.
In addition, an ex-offender has been included in the weekly transition meetings to present another needed perspective.
164
Working closely with state and local agencies has increased an understanding for all involved
of the intricacies of each agency. The policies are at times overwhelming and difficult for offenders to maneuver through to receive services to which they are eligible. Policies are beginning to change. For example, the Department of Corrections is working with Department of Human Services Child Support Enforcement Division to share information. Early detection of offenders owing back child support will allow for minimized payments upon release. Policy
changes have also made it possible for transition workers to fill out Public Housing applications
for PROTECT participants, lessening the waiting time to secure housing thereby enabling appropriate housing at the time of release.
While PROTECT continues to move forward, the reentry model throughout the state continues
to develop, as well. State and community agency representatives in the Oklahoma County area
involved with PROTECT are realizing the benefit of working together, and finding that they
often share the same clients. It is unlikely that the benefits of PROTECT will end with Oklahoma County, but, with enhanced awareness, partnerships will spread throughout the state.
165
Risk Management and Offender Reentry
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections has a collective population of 55,657 offenders. The
division of Community Corrections is responsible for the management of approximately 40,000
of this group, which is 70% of the state’s offender population. Community Corrections in Oklahoma recognized that these 40,000 offenders assigned to community corrections centers, halfway houses, work centers, and the state’s seventy-seven county probation and parole units, will
eventually return to communities throughout the state. Preparing offenders for successful transition from prison to the community is of major concern to the agency. Oklahoma, like many
states is faced with the challenges associated with the steady increase in the number of offenders being incarcerated and increases in sentence length. This problem is further complicated by
a decline in state budget appropriations for corrections, which limits funding for prison expansion and offender programs. Funding for these areas has not kept pace with the growth in the
offender population. Community Corrections experiences an average reception increase of 1000
offenders annually.
Recognizing the existence of the growing social phenomenon that some communities are accepting incarceration as a normal life experience, community corrections has developed reentry and transitioning programs to combat and deter this growing trend. As an agency and
particularly as a division, corrections staff are on the front lines relative to offender reentry and
transition services. Successful offender reintegration is based on customized prevention strategies that adequately address behavioral, situation, and environmental risk factors, as they occur
throughout the supervision and transition process. The primary concern relative to the management of this offender population is the implementation and practice of critical and effective
management which ensures public safety by providing appropriate services that address ofTransitional Programs
167
fender criminogenic need factors associated with re-offending.
Reentry Programs
U.S. Office of Justice Programs – Serious, Violent Offender Initiative - SVORI
Project PROTECT – Partnership for the Reintegration of Offenders through Employment and
Community Treatment
Community corrections employs various programs to address offender needs in the area of reentry. One of the most noteworthy programs is in conjunction with the U.S. Office of Justice
Programs – Serious, Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. Federal funding has been awarded to
a department of corrections sponsored coalition of partners working together to assist targeted
high risk offenders with the process of transitioning back into the community after a least a period of incarceration equal to or greater than one year. This coalition of partners came together
in 2000 after assessing the needs of offenders returning to the Oklahoma County area. Oklahoma County was selected as the target geographic location for this project in that this county
has the state’s highest index crime rate (77.81 index crimes per 1,000 in population per 2000,
Uniform Crime Report) and has the second highest incarceration rate in the state (300 per
1000,000, 1999).
The target population for this project includes young offenders between the ages of 18 and 35
assessed as high-risk offenders via the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R), which is
the predominate assessment instrument used for determining level of risk for re-offending, program screening, and case/treatment planning. Data indicates that of the offenders released from
the Oklahoma Department of Corrections during the period from 1995 to 1999, sixty-five percent (65%) were within this age group. The recidivism rate, based on the return of prison releases to prison within three years for this age group was 24.3% compared to 19.9% for those
over the age of 35. A reentry program has been designed to assist this high-risk offender population, which pose the greatest risk of re-offending. The transition process begins while the offender is incarcerated and continues throughout the offenders’ progression from prison and
eventual return to the community. Transition staff work with offenders and their families, connecting them with health-care, housing, family, transportation, counseling, employment, faithbased groups, mental health, substance abuse services, or other service needs. Through aggressive individually-based comprehensive plans, transition teams assist offenders in becoming stabilized within the community. There is a high correlation between the reduction of offender
need factors and the reduction in the behaviors associated with re-offending. Effective offender
risk management decreases the rate of recidivism.
Community Correction Center Programs for Women Offenders
Particular attention is being devoted toward the increasingly high rate of incarcerating women
in Oklahoma. Oklahoma incarcerates 130 women per 100,000 women in the state, which is
more than twice the national average. The national average in this regard is 58 women incarcerated per 100,000 women. As a result of this trend, gender specific programs have been created to address the particular needs of women, assisting them with the adjustment process for
their return to the community. Women in community corrections facilities have access to pro168
grams specializing in marital and relationship issues, domestic violence counseling, HIV peer
counseling and education, parenting, life skills, small business planning and development, family services, substance abuse treatment, culinary arts, and education. Women are encouraged to
participate in work release programs as they move toward the end of their sentence. Most female offenders are able to maintain employment upon release, and accumulate savings to assist
with establishing housing in the community.
Doctorial Fellows Program
Community corrections centers utilize doctorial fellows from local universities to develop programs that assist offenders in the community on work release, with substance abuse issues in
the workplace and relapse prevention. These programs utilize intermediate sanctions, treatment,
and incentives, in lieu of traditional punitive measures (that increase the likelihood of further
incarceration) which allow offenders to maintain employment and improve job retention.
Offender Fatherhood Initiative
As community corrections continues to move forward with programs specifically designed to
assist offenders in successfully transitioning back into our communities, the agency is in the
initial stage of a fatherhood initiative program. A program designed to assist male offenders in
reconnecting with their children, and families on the outside. This fatherhood initiative project
will train staff and offenders, to administer a character-based education and support program to
assist incarcerated men in developing skills needed to become more involved, responsible, and
supportive fathers.
Community based corrections in Oklahoma utilizes effective management of offenders practices in the interest of community safety. These critical best practice methods include providing
appropriate services that address offender criminogenic need factors associated with reoffending.
169
Successful Community Reentry: A Reason to be Optimistic
Minnesota Department of Corrections
Joan Fabian, Commissioner
“I left one prison to come home to another.” So said Elaine Bartlett in her new book Life on
the Outside: The Prison Odyssey of Elaine Bartlett. Bartlett spent 16 years in a New York
prison for the sale of cocaine. According to Bartlett, it was her first and only sale. One would
think that freedom from prison would be a joyous time, a time when dreams and goals are rejuvenated. However, she describes a different kind of emotion, one of struggle and frustration.
Her four-child family was troubled. She had no money, no job, and no home. Instead of joy,
her release triggered angst and desperation. Her story can be repeated at least 635,000 times,
the number of times an offender was released from prison in 2001 across the United States according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
At a conference in Chatanooga, Tennessee, an ex-offender who spent seven years in prison for a
robbery described being released from prison after a lengthy stay like being a goldfish that lived
in a small, glass aquarium and then suddenly being dumped into the ocean. It is an intimidating
and overwhelming event, which may explain why so many offenders go back to what is comfortable; the same neighborhoods, relationships, and lifestyles, where social ills fester and antisocial attitudes abound.
These testimonies help explain why, in a study conducted by Martin E. P. Seligman, Ph.D, offenders released from incarceration experience significantly greater levels of depression than
when they entered prison. While not all are willing to admit it, most offenders intuitively understand that they will experience obstacles and challenges upon reentry. In addition, the prison
environment itself can encourage the development of coping skills that work against the offender upon his/her release. “Survival skills” such as fronting, manipulation, aggressiveness,
171
deception, and emotional dependence when used in free society only increase the social, emotional, and spiritual distance between the offender and pro-social communities. So, what is the
answer?
With the assistance of a federal, multi-department collaborative administered through the U.S.
Department of Justice, Minnesota has established a pilot program entitled Project SOAR
(Safety, Offender Accountability, Restoration) designed to provide intensive and comprehensive services to increase the likelihood of successful community reintegration. An anticipated
225 project participants over the course of three years make up the population to receive services. These 225 make up the highest-risk releasees (i.e., at the greatest risk of re-offending)
between the ages of 16 and 34 who reside in Hennepin County (Minneapolis). Emphasis is
placed on seamless and comprehensive treatment, intensive case management, and the full involvement of local communities. The program involves three phases: institutional (assessment,
prioritized treatment, job preparation, and life skills training); reentry preparation (strengthbased case planning and restorative community circles); and community-based services
(intensive housing assistance, community resource development, and service coordination).
After a number of discussions with the initial national pilot sites and a literature search, the following program characteristics were put in place:
Treatment priority: Individuals placed in the project are designated in the beginning of their incarceration and flagged for treatment. Given that Project SOAR participants are deemed to be
the highest risk to reoffend, they are given priority for the limited treatment slots available.
Treatment includes chemical and mental health. All individuals are also given a mandatory
transition class to prepare them for release.
Intense case management: Coordinating and overseeing the completion of a case plan are critical to project success. Numerous barriers to services are expected, and the case manager must
navigate through a myriad of rules and eligibility criteria to ensure that the offender receives
needed community services. In addition, coordination with law enforcement, probation/parole
staff, and other criminal justice personnel requires constant communication and advocacy.
Partnership with law enforcement: Since these releasees are the highest-risk individuals leaving
prison, and because they are reentering high-risk families and communities, contact with law
enforcement is inevitable. It is anticipated that safety- related circumstances may require a joint
visit by the case manager and law enforcement. Intense surveillance for the most recalcitrant
individuals is the norm. For those who are amenable, it is hoped that law enforcement officers
could provide a kind of informal mentoring role. The ultimate goal is to develop opportunities
for the offenders and their families to come into more frequent, positive contact with law enforcement of a supportive nature, so legal authority is viewed as a resource instead of a liability.
Neighborhood support: Since it is the goal to extinguish formal means of offender control and
reinforce informal and internal control, linkages with the community are at the core of the project’s success. SOAR has strengthened community linkages and ties to the offenders through
activities such as providing circles of support, admission interviews in the institution, use of
mentors, community assistance with release plans, and connecting with faith communities. Re172
search on effective interventions continually points out the importance of relationships. Social
learning theory suggests that role modeling, positive reinforcement, and caring relationships,
are major pathways to helping offenders make commitments to adopting a legal lifestyle. As
justice professionals leave the offenders’ lives, it is critical that community members be active
and engaged in an ongoing and supportive manner.
Stabilization through a flex fund: Traditional and governmental funded services are not always
available to the prison releasee due to any of a number of reasons, such as rigid eligibility criteria, too many referrals for slots available, funding source restrictions, concern over public
safety, etc. SOAR recognizes this dilemma and is using some of the pilot resources to establish
a flex fund. This fund can be accessed by the case manager to get the offender services that
will help stabilize him/her within their community. Primary areas where flex funds are used are
in housing, mental health services, medication, employment services, and treatment. The offender is expected to exhaust existing funding sources before accessing the flex fund. SOAR
has established a preferred provider service network which contains service agencies that are
familiar with the challenges in working with prison releasees.
Paying attention to domestic abuse: A significant percent of prison releasees are perpetrators of
domestic abuse. Even if they are not rearrested for domestic abuse, revocations might occur.
Certainly, an obligation to prevent victimization regardless of rearrest or revocation is enough
reason to intervene. As a result, Project SOAR has partnered with the Institute on Domestic
Violence in the African American Community, VERA Institute of Justice, Metropolitan State
University - Community Violence Prevention Institute, Domestic Abuse Project, Tubman Family Alliance, Minnesota Coalition For Battered Women, Casa de Esperanza, and many other
community-based service providers. The goal of the partnership is to provide a seamless, sustainable community developed and implemented response to domestic violence to provide
short- term and indepth services to inmates returning to the community from correctional placement.
Communication, communication, communication: Numerous individuals are potentially involved with a given offender in project SOAR. It is conceivable, that an offender with multiple
problem areas might have a probation/parole officer, a SOAR case manager, a job placement
counselor, a housing advocate, a restorative community group, a minister, a mentor, a chemical
health counselor, a mental health worker, and a child protection worker. In previously administered focus groups and surveys, service recipients have complained about the difficulty in navigating through all of the players, rules, and individual work styles. Applications are often duplicative and expectations contradictory. Furthermore, service providers and caseworkers have
complained of service recipients taking advantage of a fragmented system and playing one
worker off another. In a nutshell, the right hand does not always know what the left hand is doing. As a result, one of the SOAR case manager’s duties is to promote integration and communication among the service providers and coordinate an overall case plan. An electronic alert
network has been established so all of the players involved in a single case can keep each other
informed of what occurred in a previous encounter with the offender.
Finally, SOAR is compelled to understand what is working and what is not when it comes to
reentry interventions. If reentry services are to be expanded beyond the pilot time frame and
173
beyond one county in Minnesota, outcomes must be measured. To accomplish this a comparison group is being formed. Every offender who agrees to be a part of Project SOAR is put into
a pool. Since the number of slots allowed is limited to 225 over three years, participants are
randomly selected. Those not selected then become the comparison group. Data on both
groups is being collected throughout the project to determine the impact SOAR has on various
outcomes.
It is too early to know what the results of Project SOAR will be. However, one thing is certain;
something has to be done. Given the amount of learning acquired in recent years on effective
intervention and the level of enthusiasm and participation by the community, there is reason to
be optimistic that the elevated levels of recidivism even for the highest risk individuals leaving
prison can be reduced.
174
Reentry Initiative
Utah Department of Corrections
Mike Chabries, Executive Director
Utah’s reentry initiative is a three-phased approach to providing offenders the tools to assist in
their successful transition to community living. The Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC)
is committed to developing and applying resources that provide opportunities for offenders, at
each stage of supervision, to adjust their behavior for success.
All offenders under supervision of the department are exposed to some form of the “Reentry”
effort. Those on probation, in prison, or on parole are given opportunities to participate in activities that are designed to prepare them for transition to the community or their next phase of
supervision. While the Utah Department of Corrections does not control who is released from
prison or terminated from parole, we attempt to provide the applicable training, resources, sanctions, and therapies that are available to assist in successful transition.
Phase 1 – Protect and Prepare
Institution-based programs
These programs are designed to prepare offenders to reenter society. Services provided in this
phase will include education, mental health, substance abuse treatment, job training, mentoring,
and full diagnostic and risk assessment. Each offender is assessed during the first few weeks of
incarceration and an Offender Management Plan is developed and documented into the computer tracking system. This plan is updated and adapted to the needs of the offender throughout
his incarceration. Upon release, parole agents have access to the plan in order to continue with
the plan throughout parole.
175
The following are components in developing the Offender Management Plan:
Assessment
• ASI, LSI, TABE, GATB
• Mental Health, Substance Abuse, SOT
• Medical Classification
• Gang affiliation
• Develop Offender Management Plan to include core curriculum
Core Curriculum
• Education
Literacy/ESL
Special Education
GED
High School Diploma
College (optional)
•
•
Employment
Job Readiness
Career Exploration
Vocational Training
Cognitive Skills
Coping Skills
Parole Planning
Cognitive Thinking
•
Prescriptive (Individually assessed needs)
Anger Management
Stress Management
7 Habits/Victim Impact
Parenting/Domestic Violence
Goal Setting/Values Clarification
Relapse Prevention
Interpersonal Skills/Communication
•
Crime Specific Priorities
Substance Abuse Treatment
Education (able to read lessons
Pre-Treatment
Group/Individual Therapy
Residential
Sex Offender Treatment
Education (able to complete lessons)
Group/Individual Therapy
176
Family Orientations are held monthly to inform families regarding institutional rules and processes. Attendance has been high and the feedback has been positive. Families are encouraged
to play an active role during the incarceration of their loved one.
Phase 2 – Control and Restore
Institutional-Transition Programs
The Offender Support Bureau provides services to offenders prior to and immediately following
their release from correctional institutions and jails. When an offender is 5 months short to parole, an Institutional Parole officer becomes a partner with the offender’s management team at
the housing unit where he is assigned. The offender’s parole plan is fine-tuned. Information is
share with the assigned Transition agent in the community in order to make the transition from
institutional life to community as seamless as possible.
Components and services provided during Phase 2 include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Parole and Employment preparation classes
State ID process
Fieldwork with parole agents
Employment resume and referrals for workforce services
Faith-based referrals to connect with community support services and mentors
Interstate compact processing
Family orientation workshop
Sex offender registration
Fine-tuning parole plan
Verifying appropriate housing
Treatment referrals and placements
Phase 3 – Sustain and Support
Community-Based Support Programs
The Reentry Initiative at the Utah Department of Corrections (UDOC) has improved the supervision and success of offenders across the state. Through the use of alternative sanctions, increased case management, and specialized programs, Utah has experienced a direct result on
public safety and the successful mandate of helping offenders become law-abiding citizens.
These programs will connect individuals who have left the supervision of the institution with a
network of social service agencies and community-based organizations to provide ongoing services and mentoring relationships.
Components of Phase 3 include the following:
Salt Lake Transitional Housing Center
This facility is located in the heart of downtown Salt Lake City. In October 2002, due to shrinking operational funds, the Salvation Army was forced to close their substance abuse treatment
177
program. The UDOC immediately negotiated to form partnership with the Salvation Army to
convert their facility into a 50-bed Transitional Housing Center that would be used for offenders in need of affordable housing and support (e.g., counseling job placement, and daily meals)
for the offenders. The UDOC will provide staffing for 24-hour supervision, free substance
abuse treatment, life-skills programming, cognitive restructuring, and case management.
Primary candidates for placement include offenders with minimal arrest or drug use histories.
Before the Salt Lake Transitional Housing Center opened, there was no facility designed solely
for offender transition placement. In the past, offenders were placed at one of four halfway
houses or the Lone Peak Correctional Facility. Placement was allowed only if a bed was available for the offender.
Community Review Board
The Community Review Board (CRB) is an advisory board of citizens that, in conjunction with
professional probation and parole staff, helps supervise offenders. Board members are appointed to serve by the CRB coordinator; the board consists of up to eight members. The primary purpose of a CRB is to review non-criminal violations of supervision conditions and recommend appropriate actions for violators. Community Board members are provided with an
opportunity to confront offenders about their behavior and create community-driven consequences for violations of probation/parole. Community review boards are being held throughout the state.
Police Review Board
The Police Review Board (PRB) tries to increase an offender’s accountability to Adult Probation & Parole (AP&P), the community, and local law enforcement agencies by adopting a proactive approach for reviewing the reintegration of serious offenders being paroled. The offender has the option of allowing AP&P to assist with support services. Offenders selected for
support services include those who were recently paroled and whose crimes involved violence,
weapons offenses, gang affiliations, sexual predation, or the production of methamphetamines.
In addition, local law enforcement can request that a parolee be allowed to participate. Offenders are required to appear before PRB in person. Before PRB, no board existed to address serious offenders being released back into the community. Past experience has shown that with
little available support, many of these offenders eventually returned to criminal activity.
Offender/Family Orientation
Offender orientation was developed to increase offender awareness of the expectations of
AP&P and both the standard and special conditions of the probation or parole. Offenders are
instructed by their agent to attend and are strongly encouraged to bring family members, a support system, and/or significant others. Orientation attendance typically includes 40-50 offenders, in addition to their family members and/or support system. During orientation, the following areas are addressed: standard and special conditions of probation/parole, office reporting,
field visits to the residence, and employment. A question-and-answer period is offered at the
end.
178
Transition Agents
On release from prison, offenders are immediately assigned to transitional agents, depending on
the location of offenders’ primary residence. Transition supervision averages 45-60 days and
consists of three phases:
•
•
•
Phase One: The offenders attends orientation class, is referred to Day Reporting Center
(DRC), and is assigned classes on a parole date or a referral is made to an outside treatment
provider based on an order of the Board of Pardons. The offender is required to report to
AP&P offices one or two times per week, and one field visit per week is conducted at the
offender’s residence.
Phase Two: In order to advance to Phase Two, offenders need to be employed (verification
required), be involved in treatment/programming, and be in compliance with office reporting and field visit guidelines. In this phase, office reporting is reduced to once per week and
in some cases once every 2 weeks.
Phase Three: In order to be transferred from the transition caseload to regular supervision,
offenders need to have verifiable employment, regularly attend treatment sessions, report to
AP&P offices, and have successful field visits to their residence with no violations.
Before the development of the Transition Caseload, offenders typically did not have any contact
with their assigned parole agent for 30-45 days after the initial day of reporting. Office and
field visits only occurred once a month, and violations were not dealt with in a timely manner.
Day Reporting Centers
During the first critical few months of supervision, DRC staff assists offenders by referring
them to appropriate resources and tracking their attendance and progress in classes. The following steps are taken by DRC staff to guide offenders:
•
Each DRC staff member is assigned to a transition agent, and both serve in dual serve in
dual supervision roles (one is the supervising agent and the other is assigned to track programming Progress.)
•
The offender is referred and enrolled in DRC psycho-educational classes on his or her parole date.
•
DRC staff randomly administers urinalysis test to all offenders with a drug abuse history.
•
All DRC staff is trained to teach the National Institute of Corrections’ Life Skills course.
This is an integrated, cognitive behavior change program that is implemented three nights a
week at DRC.
•
A mandatory supervision review is conducted with offenders and DRC staff members after
three absences.
179
•
DRC staff input F-Track entries to update the transition agent on an offender’s performance,
absences, and areas of concern.
While still in the implementation stage, this initiative has stabilized prison growth, improved
the success rate of the paroles by 10%, and saved the taxpayers millions of dollars. We are
pleased to note that during the two years that this philosophy has been in place, there has been
no increase in the rate of paroles committing crimes.
Public safety remains our first priority and we will not hesitate to recommend that a parolee
who commits crimes or is a serious threat to the community return to prison. We are, however,
very encouraged by the efforts of our staff, community leaders, and the Board of Pardons and
Parole in bringing about this significant improvement in offender management in the State of
Utah.
180
Community Reentry and Female Offenders
Wisconsin Department of Corrections
Matthew Frank, Secretary
A major challenge faced by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections (WIDOC) in the past
decade has been the increase in the number of women incarcerated in the state prison system.
The number of women incarcerated has doubled since 1990. The majority of these women are
incarcerated for non-violent offenses, and many are parents of dependent children under the age
of eighteen.
Parental incarceration has been shown to have a profoundly negative effect on children. Children of incarcerated parents are five times more likely to be incarcerated themselves as adults.
Incarcerated women face numerous treatment needs that include, substance abuse, mental
health issues, trauma issues related to past physical and sexual abuse, parenting deficits, and
educational/vocational deficits. The women often are involved with multiple agencies to meet
their individual and family needs upon their return to the community.
Governor Jim Doyle has made “Strong Families” a priority for the State of Wisconsin and
wants every child to live in a safe, secure, and stable home environment. State agencies have
been issued a challenge to address the needs of the families they serve. The WIDOC recognizes
the unique needs of women in the correctional system, and their families and is joining with the
Governor and other public and private agencies to address the needs of incarcerated women and
their children.
In an effort to provide more effective programming to meet those needs, reduce recidivism and
promote stronger families, the WIDOC is committed to two new initiatives, the Female Reentry
181
Pilot and the Female Alternative to Prison Program (FAPP.) These programs represent a major
change in service delivery and increased collaboration between systems, in particular the Department of Corrections, the Department of Health and Family Services, and the Department of
Workforce Development.
The Female Reentry Pilot and the Female Alternative to Prison Program are new approaches to
prison diversion and parolee reentry that address the unique treatment needs of female offenders
and their families. The programs utilize interagency collaboration, to stress the importance of
strong, safe families, while continuing to address community safety, and successful family reintegration.
Both of these initiatives utilize the “Wraparound Approach” to treatment intervention, which
focuses on collaboration between systems and natural supports to meet the needs of the offenders and their children. The Wraparound Approach identifies offender strengths in developing a
plan of care to meet their identified needs. The formal and informal support systems form a
team, which is coordinated by a case manager to assist the offender in meeting her needs. Team
members include both formal supports, such as the offender’s parole agent, institution social
worker, mental health and substance abuse providers, and W-2 agency staff; along with informal supports, which may include family members, members of the faith community, friends or
others as designated by the offender. The team meets and develops a plan of care based on offender strengths and needs. This approach avoids duplication of services, promotes sharing of
resources, and improves communication between team members while ensuring safety of the
children and the community.
Both initiatives involve collaboration between state agencies and local service providers, who
are working together to meet the needs of the offenders, support safe family reintegration, and
enhance community safety.
Female Re-entry Pilot
This initiative is the result of collaboration between the Wisconsin Department of Corrections,
Department of Health and Family Services, and Department of Workforce Development. The
target population is women incarcerated in the state prison system for non-assaultive offenses,
who will be released to Milwaukee County, have dependent children under the age of eighteen,
and can be safely reunited with their children. No legal barriers preventing family reunification
can exist. Each family will undergo a safety assessment to assure a safe environment for the
children upon reunification.
Program Description
During the last 90 days of the participants’ incarceration, a screening and assessment of her
needs will be completed by the wraparound caseworker with input from the offender, her parole
agent, institution social worker, and other significant members of the team. Areas to be assessed include substance abuse treatment needs, educational, vocational, and employment
needs, and mental health needs.
182
A safety assessment will be completed for the children to assess risk factors and determine necessary interventions to promote safe family reunification. A visitation program to ensure ongoing contact between the parent and child, and to provide support during the transition period is
also implemented at this time.
The case manager assembles a team that will utilize the wraparound approach to address reentry
planning to ensure needs are met, and to gain access to services that are available to meet identified needs, in order to maximize successful reintegration and family reunification.
The team continues to work with the family after the mother is released from the institution to
ensure continuation of services, mentoring, and monitoring of case progress. Ongoing support
services will be provided to each family following release to support successful family reunification, to promote family and community safety, and successful community reintegration.
Felony Alternative to Prison Program
The purpose of the FAPP program is to provide a sentencing alternative to the Milwaukee
County judiciary for prison bound female offenders, with particular focus on women with children. The targeted population is non-assaultive substance abusers. Using a holistic, wraparound philosophy and model, FAPP will provide individualized, gender specific treatment to
females whose criminal behavior is related to the possession, delivery, use of alcohol, or illegal
drugs. WIDOC and the Department of Health and Family Services are developing the program
in partnership with community treatment and service providers with histories of working effectively with women and their families.
Program Description
Pre-sentence writers will determine eligibility for the program and make a recommendation to
the court after carefully reviewing the woman’s criminal history and treatment needs. If the
judge deems the program is appropriate as an alternative to prison, the woman will placed at the
Milwaukee Women’s Community Correctional Center, a minimum-security correctional institution for the first phase of the program. A team of staff including the agent of record, social
worker, treatment specialist, care coordinator, and the offender will complete a comprehensive
assessment. Much of the individualized programming will occur in the institution, by local service providers with a successful history of servicing female offenders. The FAPP program depends on the involvement of the community for mentors, a sanctioning review board, and input
into discharge and reentry planning. The sentencing judge continues to be involved with the
case and will approve the transition from prison to community-based supervision caseloads.
The team will continue following the woman’s release to enhance successful community reintegration and ensure safe family reunification.
Conclusion
It is anticipated that these programs will provide more effective treatment to female offenders to
help reduce recidivism, control prison population, and provide safer, more secure and stable
family environments for the children of the participants. Throughout the development of the
183
programs, emphasis on providing programming that is gender specific and addresses the needs
of the family as a whole are stressed. Collaboration between state and private agencies, as well
as closer collaboration between institution and field staff of the department of corrections are
keys to successful implementation. Providing a safe, secure family environment for the children
is a major goal of each initiative.
184
Juvenile Corrections – Going Home Project
There is growing consensus that successful juvenile offender reentry involves a philosophical
shift in thinking on the part of correctional staff that aftercare is no longer an afterthought. Reintegration planning should be viewed as a process that begins at reception, when a juvenile enters an institution and continues into the community once the offender is released.
Case Management System
Key to fundamental change in reentry strategies of state juvenile correctional organizations is
building a continuous case management system that integrates both institutional and community
services and supervision. Effective elements of good case management systems provide the
following components:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Assessing risk and needs
Preparing individualized case plan, which addresses both juvenile and family goals
Identifying services and supervision required
Evaluating progress in treatment
Transition planning
Building community partnerships
One innovative approach designed to bridge the gap between institution and field staff is the
Intensive Aftercare Program (IAP) developed by Altschuler and Armstrong. A number of
states, including Wisconsin, as part of the federally funded Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (Going Home Initiative) have elected to implement this model as one strategy to
185
improve reintegration. The IAP model offers states a correctional continuum consisting of
three distinct phases: 1) Institution Preparation Phase, 2) Structured Transition Phase that spans
both institution and community, and 3) Community Long Term Reintegration and Stabilization.
To accomplish this the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Division of Juvenile Corrections
(DJC) received a Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) grant of two million
dollars from the U.S. Department of Justice in partnership with the U.S. Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Labor, and Health and Human Services. The grant period began
July 1, 2002 and extends through December 2005.
The Going Home Project will target a total of 90 delinquent youth (male and female) committed
to a secured juvenile correctional facility returning to Milwaukee County (Milwaukee area) or
Brown County (Green Bay area). Youth selected for the project have been adjudicated delinquent for serious and violent offenses such as sexual assault, battery, and armed robbery. In
Milwaukee County, DJC supervises all youth leaving juvenile correctional facility with time
remaining on their correctional orders. In Brown County, DJC or the Department of Human
Services supervises youth depending on the youth’s legal supervision status.
Wisconsin has hired five “reentry case manager” positions. In addition to collaborating with
the institution staff, the “reentry case manager” works in partnership with a juvenile parole
agent. The reentry case manager is responsible for providing reentry services for the juvenile
and their family in all three phases of the program, during the institution preparation phase,
overseeing the 90 to 180 day transition phase which spans both institution and community,
through long term reintegration and stabilization. The reentry case manager's job duties can
include: assessing institution treatment and behavioral progress, assessing and recommending
youth readiness for transition planning, family preparation for reintegration, developing reentry
plans, implementing and monitoring reentry plans, linking youth and their families to community resources, and continuing to assess transition and modify services based on need.
Community Partnerships
Central to the effective reentry of the juvenile to the community is the building of partnerships
and reshaping the mission of community resources to support long-term success. Coalition
building between government agencies, nonprofit agencies, faith-based entities, local service
providers with families, neighborhood centers and Boys and Girls Clubs, can help support juvenile reentry. Juvenile reentry case managers serve as the vehicle to connect these community
partners to the institution during the preparation and transition phases. The reentry case managers convene and lead a transition team for each juvenile, at the beginning of the transition
phase, which typically occurs 90 days before release and also just prior to release. Transition
teams also convene 30, 60, and 90 days, after return to the community depending on the needs
of the youth and family. Transition team membership may include: the institution social worker,
community supervision agent, family member, community service provider, mentor or faithbased person, teacher, workforce development professional, employer, law enforcement official, and any other individual or group committed to sustaining the juvenile in the community.
The goal of bringing community resources to the transition meetings is to build a relationship
with the juvenile and family prior to release in hopes that the early connections will promote a
186
smoother transition. In addition to building relationships prior to release, continuity of service
delivery is established.
In Wisconsin, the State Division of Juvenile Corrections is collaborating with the Boys and
Girls Clubs in several ways. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee is providing the
“Passport to Manhood” curriculum for young offenders committed to Ethan Allan School for
Boys, one of Wisconsin’s three secure juvenile correctional institutions located 30 minutes from
Milwaukee County. The program consists of eight group sessions covering specific aspects of
the personal journey to manhood. The program is open to any juvenile in the institution and is
twofold. The program is operating at the institution, but the facilitators also screen youth for
eligibility in a gang prevention and intervention program offered at one of the cities in the community. This Boys and Girls Club program rewards youth returning to the Milwaukee community with the following services: club membership, anger management groups, mentoring, tutoring, employment readiness as well as other services of the club. The Boys and Girls Club staff
also link youth returning to communities throughout Wisconsin to the club nearest to the community in which they are returning. Secondly, this program offers participating juveniles the
opportunity to experience an increased responsibility “off grounds” while participating in 4 sessions of Passport to Manhood at a Boys and Girls Club Camp, minutes from the Juvenile Correctional Facility. During these four sessions the juveniles participating have the opportunity to
engage in environmental education, culinary, adventure base, community service, and family
programming. This collaborative relationship is an excellent example of new partnerships that
have been developed to support Wisconsin’s juvenile reentry initiative. Here the Boys and
Girls Club of Milwaukee is reshaping its mission to encompass supporting juvenile offender
transition and long-term stabilization in the Milwaukee community.
The partnership with the Boys and Girls Clubs has recently expanded beyond the Going Home
Project. In January 2004, the Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee was awarded a
$250,000 grant from Department of Justice – Office of Justice Programs to pilot the Targeted
Reentry Program. This funding is to be used for initial start up costs of placing a Boys and
Girls Club extension site on the grounds of the Juvenile Correctional Institution (Ethan Allen
Boys School). This program will serve 45 youth each year for two years followed by one year
of programming post-release. The Boys and Girls Clubs of Greater Milwaukee has made a
three year financial commitment to ensure that the program remains operational through the duration of the three year program. This program, based upon the Intensive Aftercare Program
(IAP), was designed and evaluated by Drs. David Altschuler and Troy Armstrong.
Local Advisory Committee
In Wisconsin, we held a series of community briefings on the Going Home Project with local
community leaders in order to educate them about the model and how collaboratively they
could assist in the implementation and success of offender’s returning to their community. We
also established a Milwaukee Local Advisory Committee of community experts who are knowledgeable about juvenile offender reentry and willing to help. Our committee meets quarterly
with agendas covering such topics as: updating the status of juveniles returned to the community, identifying gaps in resources needed by juveniles and their families, and identifying problems and brainstorming solutions to issues encountered by families, communities, and victims.
187
The advisory committee is also an effective strategy to build partnerships that will promote long
term sustainability of offenders in the community by coordinating and sharing resources, both
paid and volunteer, that will support delinquent youth and their families long after youth are off
supervision. Members of the local advisory committee include: The Department of Corrections, Juvenile Corrections Institution and Field Representatives, the Judiciary, District Attorney’s Office, Victim Services Office, State Public Defender, Public Schools, Technical College,
Police Department, Urban League, Local Workforce Development agencies, Housing Authority, County Child Welfare/Human Service Department, local substance abuse and mental health
agencies, representatives of the faith-based community, the Boys and Girls Clubs, and other
community-based organization.
Family Involvement
Building new partnerships between state juvenile correctional agencies and community-based
organizations whose mission it is to work with families has been a tremendous focus in Wisconsin. One example is the coalition between the State Division of Juvenile Corrections, the Parenting Network (Milwaukee), Social Development Commission, Running Rebels Neighborhood Center, and Midtown Neighborhood Association. These agencies have agreed to share
resources and partner in the training and delivery of a science–based, research proven curriculum called “Creating Lasting Family Connections” (CLFC.) CLFC, one of the OJJDP model
programs to strengthen families, has demonstrated that youth and families in high-risk environments can be assisted to become strong, healthy and supportive people. Having CommunityBased Organizations (CBO) deliver the CLFC youth module to juveniles while they are in the
institution, begins the connection back to the community. Simultaneously, parents will be able
to receive parent training in the community with other families not necessarily involved in the
justice system before their youth has been released. The curriculum also offers an integrated
module for both youth and parents together upon return to the community. This partnership
between the Parenting Network, Social Development Commission, Running Rebels Neighborhood Center, and Midtown Neighborhood Association with youth and their families will allow
them to access other services that these organizations offer and will continue to offer long after
the youth is off supervision.
188
Chapter Three
Mental
Health/Substance Abuse
Programs
Transition from Incarceration Dependency to Community
Self-sufficiency begins upon Admission
The concept of preparing the addicted offender for reentry is not a new concept in the field of
corrections. Historically, the correctional substance abuse treatment provider has used “best
practices” or “what works” as the divining rod in their selection of the program models used to
prepare the offender for re-integration. Prompted by the increasing rate and cost of recidivism,
including re-arrest, re-conviction and re-incarceration, an array of social, economic, and political forces obligate the correctional treatment provider to continuously evaluate the efficacy of
their past and present practices.
Over the past decade the Connecticut Department of Correction - Addiction Services Unit
(CDOC–ASU) has taken part in three separate outcome measure studies designed to evaluate
the effectiveness of the multi-leveled or tiered approach used to prepare the addicted offender
for re-entry. The services provided by the CDOC-ASU range from a six-session basic substance abuse education program (Tier 1), targeted to the pre-sentenced population at the directadmission facilities, to a 10-week intensive out-patient (Tier 2), 16-week daycare (Tier 3), and
six month residential treatment program (Tier 4), for the long term, sentenced population.
The research, conducted by Department of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven; The Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Central Connecticut State University; The Center for Alcohol and Addiction Studies, Brown University and The Schneider Institute for Health
Policy, Heller School, Brandeis University, respectively, have produced the following conclusions:
191
Offenders who attended (multi-leveled) Tier programming were less likely to recidivate during
the evaluation period (6-36 months) (Pease, S., et. al., 2001 and Love, C., and Shepard, D., et.
al., 2002)
•
There was a near linear relationship between the tier level and intensity of programming and
the rate of recidivism (Love, C., and Shepard, D., et. al., 2002)
•
A greater number of offenders must be seen at the onset of their incarceration and motivated
towards more intensive tiers of programming (Norton, W., et. al., 1997 and Love, C., and
Shepard, D., et. al., 2002)
•
The severity of the crimes committed by Tier program attendees, within the first year after
release, was significantly reduced (Love, C., and Shepard, D., et. al., 2002)
The CDOC-ASU should strengthen the in-prison aftercare programs for offenders who will
continue to serve the remainder of their sentence after completing programs (Pease, S., et.
al., 2001)
•
•
To meet the continuing needs of offenders who have successfully completed in-prison programs, the CDOC-ASU should incorporate community-based aftercare with Transitional
Supervision (TS) (Pease, S., et. al., 2001)
The major findings of these studies illustrate the effectiveness in-prison programming has in
changing substance abuse related criminal behavior. These conclusions also infer that programming toward the transition of the addicted offender, from alcohol or other drug (AOD) abuse
and incarceration dependency, to recovery and community self-sufficiency, must begin upon
their admission into the correctional system and continue into the community. It can also be
summarized that the degree of progress made toward a successful re-integration rests upon the
intensity and continuity of the opportunities offered. With regard to cost-effectiveness, the continuity of the offenders’ treatment experiences appears to have the greatest impact.
Prompted and supported by the conclusions made available in the cited research and through its
own internal audits, the CDOC-ASU identified two gaps in the continuity of care being offered
to the offenders it treats. The first gap takes place at the onset of the offenders’ incarceration.
The magnitude of the population entering the direct admission facilities has changed dramatically. Today, the direct admission facilities admit 39,000 offenders annually. Based on data
complied by the CDOC Objective Classification System, 88% of those offenders have a need
for more intense levels of substance abuse treatment. Internal and external review also indicated that a majority of the CDOC-ASU treatment staff and resources were typically concentrated at long-term (sentenced) facilities, which focused on the delivery of intensive outpatient
and residential substance abuse treatment. The concentration of resources to those facilities left
the direct admission facilities, whose primary focus is basic substance abuse education and motivational programming, with limited resources. Evidence which clearly defined a need for the
CDOC-ASU to augment the services offered to the offender upon admission.
The second gap in service was the transition to the community supervision phase of the offender’s incarceration. In addition to the incarcerated population of 18,000, the CDOC is also
192
responsible for the supervision of approximately 1,800 offenders in the community. This includes 1,069 on Transitional Supervision (TS) and 764 in halfway houses. CDOC Objective
Classification statistics show that 90% of the TS population is in need of substance abuse treatment. Since approximately 27% of the 18,000 sentenced offenders receive treatment while incarcerated, it is likely that a small percentage of TS offenders received substance abuse treatment while incarcerated.
To close the identified gaps in services at the direct admission facilities and in the Community
Supervision Units, the CDOC-ASU developed the “Addiction Services Continuity of Care”
project. The project was written and submitted to the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truthin-Sentencing Incentive (VOI/TIS) Program for consideration and funding. The goal of the project with regard to the identified breaks in service was to: (1) Increase the amount of treatment
opportunities available to the addicted offender at the direct admission facilities; (2) Re-format
the Tier One basic substance abuse education program; and (3) Develop, staff and implement a
community based Addiction Services Unit. Upon receiving the requested VOI/TIS Grant funding the CDOC-ASU implemented its plan of action to fill the identified gaps in treatment.
To augment the services offered at the direct admission facilities the CDOC increased the number of staff at three urban facilities by four positions. The Tier One program was re-framed into
a standardized, compressed format. This format would allow the offender to complete the program in its entirety prior to release to the community or a sentenced facility. As the average
stay at a direct admission facility is 29 to 36 days, completion of a substance abuse educational
program is a major accomplishment.
Prior to the implementation of this plan it could be expected that approximately 34% of the offenders at direct admissions facilities would be prepared for more intensive treatment through
Tier One. In the fiscal years directly after the implementation of this plan the completion rate
for Tier 1 increased to 50% and 57%, respectively. As of the first quarter of fiscal year
2003/2004 Tier 1 programs are realizing a completion rate of 64%. As 52% of all direct admission offenders are transferred to sentenced facilities, it is clear that a larger percentage will be
prepared for more intensive substance abuse treatment.
Initially the Community Service Unit was designed to operate on a regional model and provide
case management and substance abuse treatment services to offenders in a transitional release
status. This structure was eliminated due to a restructuring of community supervision services
and the subsequent changes in staff roles and responsibilities. In 1999, the CDOC-ASU
amended the gap in services by using VOI/TIS grant funds to place four ASU counselors in the
major urban community enforcement offices. The implementation of a motivational approach
to engaging the offender and a treatment curriculum that focuses on basic substance abuse education, relapse prevention, and individualized community connection strategies have been effective. To date the Community Addiction Service Units place 78% of all referrals into a treatment process.
Despite the positive, evidence-based, pro-active measures CDOC-ASU has implemented at the
onset and transition phases of incarceration, substance abuse and resultant social disorganization remains a significant factor in the rate of recidivism. This is especially true for offenders in
193
transitional supervision status. Understandably, it is a significant challenge for an offender to
integrate with a positive support network, maintain sobriety, steady employment, social, familial and financial responsibilities following years behind bars.
To address these public and individual needs the CDOC-ASU presented to the Byrne Grant Advisory Council a plan to research, develop, and implement four Transitional Counselor(s) positions into the major urban Community Addiction Services Units. The “Transition Counselor”
would provide two functions in the reentry process. First, the counselor would meet with offenders at designated pre-release facilities to provide education about obtainable community
resources, re-integration issues, and skills. During this engagement phase, a discharge assessment is completed and based upon the identified needs, the counselor and the offender develop
a reentry and referral plan.
The counselor’s second function would be to follow-up with the offender in the community,
and in a supervisory advocate/broker role, assure that the connections to community resources
are made.
The methods taken by Connecticut Department of Correction and the Addiction Services Unit
to enhance the continuity of substance abuse treatment offered at the direct admission facilities
and in its community based services have gone beyond “best practices.” Using an integrated
model of graduated levels of programming with direct connections to community supports, the
CDOC-ASU has constructively employed the use of evidence-based practices and improved the
effectiveness of its treatment services.
The goal of increased public safety was specifically addressed by increasing the availability of
substance abuse treatment, increasing treatment readiness programs at admission, and by establishing a continuity of care for the transition to community supervision. The results of the actions taken by CDOC-ASU to obtain the desired outcome are measurable according to the Connecticut Department of Correction’s practical reality and mission. As research indicates, there
is a positive, near linear relationship between a decrease in the rate of recidivism and an increase in the treatment opportunities offered to the addicted offender throughout the course of
incarceration.
In an effort to demonstrate that such a relationship exists and to engage in pro-active, evidence
based practices, the Connecticut Department of Correction defined its practical reality: To protect the public, protect staff, and provide safe, secure and humane supervision of offenders with
opportunities that support successful community reintegration.
194
References
Love, C.T., Shepard, D.S., Daley, M., White, K. & Petersen, C.B. (2002). The cost effective
ness of substance abuse treatment in Connecticut prisons. (pp. 4-5). Center for Alcohol
and Addiction Studies, Brown University; Schneider Institute for Health, Heller School,
Brandeis University; State of Connecticut, Department of Correction – Addiction
Services Unit.
Norton, W.N., Wexler, H.K., Hall, F. & White, K. (1997). Connecticut Department of Correc
tion intensive substance abuse treatment program: Three-year follow-up evaluation. (pp.
1-7). Department of Criminal Justice, New Haven University; State of Connecticut,
Department of Correction – Addiction Services Unit.
Pease, S., Tafrate, R.C., Cox, S. & White, K. (2001). Process evaluation of Tier 4, Connecticut
Department of Correction Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Programs . (pp. 7579). Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Central Connecticut State
University; Connecticut Department of Correction – Addiction Services Unit.
195
A Continuum of Care for Inmates with Psychiatric Disabilities
The Connecticut Department of Correction (CDOC), like many other DOCs throughout the
country has been dealing with issues of overcrowding and budget reductions. As one of only
six states to include the jails under its DOC umbrella, Connecticut deals with over 30,000 discharges per year. The task of planning and preparing such a volume of inmates for a discharge
that will result in a successful community reintegration is formidable. One of the factors complicating the discharge planning process is the number of inmates requiring mental health services to remain in the community following prison.
According to classification data, 2,800 (14%) of the total jail/prison population of 18,200 are
active mental health cases. Of these, close to 1,400 (7% of the population) are receiving psychotropic medication. Of the 2,800 inmates receiving mental health services, 2,400 are housed
in general population and are able to utilize programming available to other inmates. Typically,
prior to release these inmates go through the standard facility discharge planning process, are
scheduled an appointment at a mental health center in their community, and are supplied with
two weeks of medication if necessary. Specialized housing and programming is required for
approximately 400 inmates (2% of the total inmate population) due to their psychiatric disabilities. These are the individuals who typically would have been committed to mental institutions
in the past. Roughly 100 (25%) are unsentenced. At any given time 20-25 of these unsentenced inmates will be held on low bonds (less than $5,000) for nonviolent offenses directly
attributed to medication noncompliance and/or substance use. They are most often released
within 60 to 90 days. Sentenced inmates with serious mental illnesses are offered parole, or
given transitional supervision, at a lesser rate than nondisabled inmates thereby requiring extended intervention by the correctional mental health system.
197
The CDOC has contracted with the University of Connecticut Correctional Managed Health
Care to provide medical and mental health services for inmates. Together an internal mental
health system has been created to effectively meet clinical and security needs. This provides a
foundation for the development of new reentry initiatives. In addition to establishing policies
and procedures consistent with standards and a constitutional level of care, there has been a
movement from simply managing inmates with psychiatric disabilities toward treating that
population in preparation for reentry. As a result, there has been a change in focus moving
away from creating a better inmate (akin to mental hospitals creating better patients who were
ill equipped to survive outside the institution), and toward enhancing skills that translate into
independent living (the original intent of de-institutionalization).
The CDOC has already taken measures toward limiting the impact of institutional life on the
future quality of life of inmates with psychiatric disabilities. Specifically, these include changes
in clinical practice and more clinically appropriate and cost effective use of psychotropic medications. Some examples include:
1. Creation of sleep hygiene protocols - Most inmates entering our system have substance
abuse problems and often have difficulty sleeping upon admission. Eliminating automatic
psychiatric referral and requiring a strict regimen for use of medications that typically are
“sleepers” reduces malingering of symptoms and enhances proper diagnosis.
2. Curtailing use of psychostimulant and benzodiazipine medications - These are potentially
abusable substances with a “street” value in the institution. By eliminating or decreasing
their presence on the medication formulary there is greater discretion in, and monitoring of,
their usage
3. Reducing use of antipsychotic medications that are highly sedating - Many chronically mentally ill individuals isolate themselves and prefer sedation in order to avoid programming or
to minimize interaction.
4. Establishing treatment plans that integrate medication with program involvement - The goal
is to enhance skills rather than produce a quiet inmate.
5. Using evidenced based clinical practice - Psychiatric disabilities are being addressed in
terms of clusters of behaviors. Group treatments that focus on skill development and reinforcement of adaptive (non-institution) behavior using a cognitive behavioral model are being established.
6. Training of custody staff to address disruptive behavior that is a product of a psychiatric
problem - A treatment team that includes custody staff whose observations are incorporated
as clinical data is invaluable. Training also increases officers’ repertoire of intervention
skills.
The CDOC is now in the process of consolidating mental health resources and specialized housing within the system to further enhance treatment and reentry initiatives.
In an effort to establish successful reentry strategies for this population, several factors must be
addressed. A continuum of care is being established with the CDOC as the functional component of an overall treatment system. Developing initiatives that avoid duplicating past problems
of de-institutionalization requires not only an understanding of the population of inmates with
psychiatric disabilities in the facilities but also an understanding of the police, judicial, parole/
198
probation, and community mental health systems. The resources necessary to accomplish the
task must be allocated and sustained.
Individuals with psychiatric disabilities have a variety of behaviors that bring them to the attention of the criminal justice community. Often times this behavior is secondary to mental illness
and can be managed through community services. However, mental illness does not preclude
an individual from being antisocial and appropriate for correctional intervention. Individuals
with assaultive and predatory behaviors who also require mental health intervention can be unmanageable in community settings and sometimes are threats to public safety. This makes incarceration a legitimate treatment choice in the continuum of care. Paradoxically, by becoming
more adept at managing and treating inmates with psychiatric disabilities there is a danger that
correctional systems could even be viewed by judges as a preferred alternative to other community based systems. Therefore, the CDOC has cultivated a relationship with the state Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS) and has created reentry initiatives
that include and are supported by that agency. In a continuum of care system the CDOC in effect provides subsidized housing and wraparound services for individuals who may be the most
difficult to treat in a community setting.
The continuum of care involves the entire range of criminal justice responses, ranging from alternatives to incarceration, pre-arrest, and reentry to the community. Options need to be available throughout the continuum that appropriately reduce “bed days” within corrections.
Though reentry has been associated with the transfer of services from DOC to the community it
can alternately be viewed as non-entry to the correctional system from the community. Reentry
initiatives below incorporate this overall view.
Presently inmates with psychiatric disabilities who are primarily served in specialized housing
are formally referred to DMHAS three to six months prior to their release. Discharge planning
includes DMHAS staff interviewing inmates within the facility and engaging them in a community service plan. Some of these inmates require extensive services and are difficult to place in
the community. Monthly DOC/DMHAS meetings which include representatives from Parole,
Probation, and community providers have been used to facilitate transition of these inmates. To
enhance the existing transition system DMHAS and DOC are collaborating through a memorandum of understanding to provide transitional/treatment services to mentally ill inmates one
year prior to release. Through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Grant, DMHAS staff
in the facilities will coordinate skill-based treatment with community system involvement. Resources in the areas of employment, housing, faith-based organizations, and entitlements will be
recruited to support this endeavor. Through this grant, inmates will be followed in the community for up to one year by case managers who will ensure adherence to the plan and connection
to the necessary services.
Individuals with serious psychiatric disabilities often become non-compliant with psychotropic
medications and/or abuse substances. This results in more symptomatic behavior that brings
them to the attention of authorities. Interventions, therefore, need to be in place to anticipate
such occurrences and address behavior prior to it involving the criminal justice system. The
CDOC has proposed a pre-arrest initiative that would support urban police departments’ creation of Crisis Intervention Teams (CIT). CIT’s include officers that would be trained to interMental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
199
vene with mentally ill individuals. In consultation with designated DMHAS staff, officers
could access alternatives to arrest for non-violent offenses related to psychiatric disability. Diverting arrest reduces court involvement and helps maintain community service connections.
The next step in a comprehensive treatment continuum is diversion from jail upon arrest. Jail
Diversion Program staff already in existence in the court system are employed to interview individuals with psychiatric disabilities who are accused of non-violent offenses. When there is a
clear service plan and a commitment to comply with treatment, the judge has the option to divert the individual to community services rather than jail. For those who do not have a clear
service plan or refuse to comply with the court, jail becomes necessary. However, mental
health services within the correctional system are often successful in stabilizing these individuals in a short period of time. Particularly when inmates with psychiatric disabilities resume
compliance with a medication regimen they are more amenable to service plans previously presented to them. The Jail Reinterview Initiative gives these inmates a second chance. Inmates
can be “re-interviewed” by court support staff who can reschedule court dates so that bond can
be reduced and inmates can be released to the community for continued care and support rather
than be maintained in the correctional system.
As mentioned above, the abuse of substances or noncompliance with medication or a treatment
program can result in an exacerbation of symptoms and behavior that is disruptive to the community. Having specialized alternative sites within the community where the psychiatrically
disabled can be placed when violations of parole or probation stipulations have occurred or are
imminent is important. Proposed initiatives include Community Justice Centers that can provide respite and brief intervention to stabilize behavior and reconnect the individual to the community rather than reincarcerate and create a further disruption in community services. It
should be expected that individuals with chronic psychiatric disabilities might require multiple
interventions in order to eventually succeed within the community. Multiple incarcerations for
minor violations (even if brief) are often disruptive to ongoing treatment.
Chronic mental illness by definition implies predictability. Indeed the CDOC has seen many
inmates with psychiatric disabilities who continue in a predictable unbroken cycle to be institutionalized in our facilities. Their disruptiveness in the community cannot continue to be interpreted as solely criminal. The Department of Correction continues to develop its position in
collaboration with other partners within the continuum of care for the mentally ill in an effort to
enhance and develop necessary resources.
200
THE SHERIDAN PROGRAM:
A National Model in Clinical Reentry
Illinois Department of Corrections
Roger Walker, Director
The Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) has worked to develop a seamless service delivery system for inmates at the Sheridan Correctional Center. The Sheridan Project, a new initiative sponsored by Governor Blagojevich, addresses public safety concerns and recidivism in
Illinois. A national model, Sheridan is a totally dedicated substance abuse treatment facility for
1,300 adult male offenders who have been screened and assessed as chemically dependent or
have a severe substance abuse problem. Inmates are identified directly from Reception and
Classification Units by trained professional substance abuse assessors from TASC (Treatment
Alternatives to Safer Communities) and transferred to Sheridan where they begin their treatment.
Received at Sheridan, inmates go through an extensive assessment process that examines not
only their drug treatment needs, but also their vocational, educational, medical, mental health,
familial, spiritual, and post-release needs. Based upon this assessment, extensive programming
from a variety of community-based providers begins.
Gateway Foundation is the Division of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse (DASA) licensed substance abuse treatment provider on site. Utilizing a modified therapeutic community (TC) modality, Gateway employs a number of professional staff who themselves are in recovery or are
ex-felons. Gateway also provides extensive in-service training for all Sheridan staff focusing
on the importance of drug treatment for criminal justice offenders, the use of the TC model of
treatment, and team collaboration. Specialized programming based upon inmates’ individual
201
needs is provided and to this end, Gateway has hired recreational therapists, substance abuse
technicians, and other specialized staff to address the needs of this population.
Safer Foundation provides job preparedness programming both inside the institution and in the
local community upon release. Job training and placement services are a vital component of the
Sheridan model, providing vocational placements that will allow parolees to become successful,
tax paying citizens in their home communities. Safer has done extensive research into the vocational placement needs of the Chicagoland area and the employment strategy reflects this by
targeting current job market openings. Partnerships have been developed with local community
businesses and trade associations to place Sheridan parolees in jobs for which they have been
specifically trained and matched while at the Sheridan facility. Job coaching, job shadowing,
and development of useable employment skills are just several of the elements Safer brings to
the program. For the first time in the history of IDOC, both an in-house and a communitybased employment program are utilized to provide a continuum of care from institution to community.
Treatment Alternatives to Safer Communities (TASC), another community-based partnership,
provides services both at the front-end - identifying inmates needing to come to Sheridan - as
well as the back-end, providing clinical reentry management services out in the community. In
addition, TASC is an on-site presence at Sheridan providing pre-release clinical reentry management services, facilitating Inner Circle Support Groups, and ongoing staff training. Research shows that clinical reentry management is a vital part of an inmate’s success in community reintegration. Toward this end, Sheridan has dedicated a significant amount of money,
staff, and program development to providing the bridge of services between institution and
community. In addition, TASC is responsible for clinical case management of parolees once
they return to their communities, monitoring their continuing program needs, brokering identified services, and providing training, education, and other support services. Sheridan parolees
in the Chicagoland area (approximately 66% of the population) are expected to participate in
the Winners Circle support groups. TASC serves as the primary advocate and contact point for
all community-based programs, Sheridan staff, parole agents, and research evaluators.
Once in the community, Sheridan parolees are managed through intensive case management
services provided by specially-trained parole agents who have participated in immersion training focusing on management strategies for the drug-involved offender. Immersion training
identifies the unique difficulties that drug-involved offenders face when returning to their home
communities. In Illinois, drug-related offenses account for approximately 42 percent of the current prison population. Governor Blajegovich proposes to address this public safety problem by
providing intensive programming and follow-up services beginning within the institution and
following the offender back into their home community. Offenders are also held accountable
for their actions and, in turn, are rewarded for their successes. Complementing the Sheridan
model is the Governor’s new parole initiative; “Operation Spotlight” which provides increased
resources to help offenders succeed, as well as graduated sanctions for those who do not.
Operation Spotlight provides an innovative and intensified reentry management system that
combines graduated sanctions with alternatives to re-incarceration. Individualized case management plans begin with a risk assessment based on institutional adjustment factors (successful
program completion, quality of programmatic successes, etc.) and dynamic social factors
202
(stability of placement, employment, and previous arrest record.) This assessment is used to
determine an individualized level of supervision, contact standards, and case management plan.
Parolees with troubling institutional adjustments, unstable housing placements, and difficult
employment potential will be supervised closely and provided with intensive case management
services. Those with stable institutional adjustment and housing placement, as well as successful employment endeavors are scrutinized at a lower level of supervision, while still being provided with full support services (including group therapy referrals and follow-up standards.)
Community partnerships are utilized to enhance the relationship between the IDOC and the providers through the Placement Resource Unit (PRU.) The PRU works closely with parole to link
offenders leaving the facility with appropriate housing placement, substance abuse treatment,
job placement, and continuing services. PRU coordinates case management services with
TASC and other community-based providers, as well as provides training for groups offering
direct services to this population. Records and documentation between Sheridan parolees and
parole agents are coordinated with the PRU and maintained through an interactive web-based
service. PRU staff, caseworkers, and parole agents participate in clinical staffings as well as
contribute to comprehensive case management strategies designed to incorporate all aspects of
the reentry process.
A final part of Governor Blagojevich’s ongoing efforts to reform Illinois’ parole system includes creating a new “Halfway-back” program that will be used as a graduated or intermediate
sanction for parolees that commit non-criminal violations of their parole board orders. This
new sanction will serve several purposes simultaneously. First of all, the Halfway-back program will equip parole agents with an additional enforcement tool that can be used as a serious
consequence for parolee misconduct—this sanction will be developed alongside several additional levels of graduated sanctions, which will provide parole agents with more flexibility to
manage parolees and steer them towards productive citizenship. This approach will have the
added benefit of providing a more efficient and effective intervention for parolees having difficulty adjusting to the terms of their supervised release from prison. Rather than automatically
revoking a former offender’s parole status and re-incarcerating a faltering parolee, the Halfwayback program will provide a specialized program to address substance abuse, disciplinary, or
other misconduct issues that will focus on addressing individual needs and barriers to community reentry. Through in-depth assessments, concentrated programming, and linkages to community support services, the Halfway Back Program will be better equipped to address parolees’ reentry needs than the correctional centers that they might otherwise be sent to. Finally,
the Halfway Back Program will serve as a carefully coordinated diversion program that will
place would-be parole violators with less serious, non-criminal violations into shorter-term, financially efficient, secure facilities instead of back into the more costly Illinois prisons, which
were designed to serve inmates with longer prison terms.
203
Sisters Together Achieving Recovery
Sisters Together Achieving Recovery (STAR) began with a group of staff attending National
Institute of Corrections (NIC) training in Portland, Oregon and subsequently reviewing the
KEY – Crest program in Delaware. Fundamental training on developing a Therapeutic Community (TC) was also provided to the institution through NIC funding.
The STAR Therapeutic Community Substance Abuse program began in the fall of 2000 at the
Iowa Correctional Institution for Women (ICIW), Mitchellville, Iowa. It is a 46-bed treatment
unit where women stay a minimum of 9 months. Another 46-bed unit was added in August
2001 where women who have completed treatment reside to continue the work they have done
and to begin focusing on transitional issues in preparation for release.
The main components of the program are:
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Confidentiality
Right Living (establish pro-social norms)
Accountability/Responsibility
Peers as Role Models (Peers help each other by helping themselves)
Pro-social Living
The STAR unit has a hierarchical chain of communication. Therapeutic Community tools used
to aid offenders in accomplishing the goals of right living include: Push up (verbal or written),
Pull up (verbal or written), Staff Awareness, Peer Awareness, Community Awareness, and
Therapeutic Peer Reprimand (TPR). The Substance Abuse Therapeutic Community model is
205
based on a four-phase system. The first phase is an orientation phase, which is approximately
30 days in length and is focused on the female offender’s denial, resistance, and noncompliance. During this phase the offender will learn the basic TC model. Phase two of the
program is approximately six months in length, offering offenders core substance abuse classes
and cognitive groups. Phase three is designed to address relapse prevention, family relationships, and peer support groups. Phase four, the transitional component of the program, is targeted to offer offenders a place to reside upon commencement from the TC. This phase is also
to help offenders continue practicing the tools for recovery and “right living.”
Winners Circles are being formed by ex-offenders who wish to continue to support the TC
model while on supervision. These groups re-create some of the atmosphere and structure as
well as providing strong social and emotional support and accountability. Additionally, Winners
Circles count as an aftercare session for parole conditions.
Excerpt from a Woman who attends Winners Circle:
For me, the Winner’s Circle is and always has been my biggest means of support. First and
foremost, the group holds me accountable for all my actions. Attending the group on a biweekly basis as well as participating as a sincere and fully active member brings us all very
close. So close that we are able to tell just by someone’s facial expressions, body language,
tone of voice, or by their contributions to the group how the reentry process as well as recovery
is going for each of us. I personally rely on the feedback given to me by my sisters and brothers
for many hurdles I encounter every day, both in regards to recovery as well as my job, relationships, my children, my family, and everything else life throws at me. We all keep each other in
check in regards to our thinking as well as our behaviors. Since relapse begins with our thinking, our hope is to be able to provide strong peer support in order to provide healthy alternative ways to deal with issues. There is almost always someone present in the group who has already gone through something and can offer suggestions as to what works and what doesn’t.
Our groups are proof of the Therapeutic Community concept that it is better to recover as a
group than to try going it alone.
Another important aspect of the Winner’s Circle is the networking that goes on during our
groups. There is very valuable information to be shared by everyone present in regards to job
availability, housing, transportation, and in general how to utilize and locate all the resources
necessary and vital to each and every one of us upon reentry back into society. Just knowing
that I am not alone and that there are people who know what I am going through or what I am
feeling is a relief in itself. I cannot imagine what it would be like if I could not have contact
with my peers. For that, I am grateful.
The unique aspect that ICIW’s STAR program offers is giving the offenders the therapeutic
community model to live by and at the same time offering gender specific programs which relate to substance abuse, criminal conduct, victim impact, family and parenting, female empowerment, and trauma and abuse issues. We have blended the two models and currently are gathering data to help support the endeavor. Currently, the return rate for STAR offenders completing the program and releasing to the community is 5.4% in contrast to a 22.4% return rate for
general population offenders. Additionally, offenders who do not successfully complete STAR
return to incarceration at a reduced rate of 13%.
206
Iowa’s Mental Health Reentry Programs
In July 1999, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that more than 250,000 jail and
prison inmates – 16% of the incarcerated population – currently had or were known to have had
a major mental illness. While that trend continues in most jurisdictions, the implications are
substantial. Jails and prisons have seemingly become replacements for public mental hospitals.
The response in Iowa to this growing population has not been unlike that of many jurisdictions.
A 200 bed Clinical Care Unit has been added to the Iowa State Penitentiary in Fort Madison.
Another 170 beds are under construction at the Iowa Medical and Classification Center at Oakdale. A full complement of psychiatrists, psychologists, and other treatment staff serve this
population.
But that is only the start. Virtually all offenders (96%) return to the community and that includes those who are mentally troubled. Those with mental illness pose particularly difficult
challenges when transitioning from prison to the community. Not only is there the stigma of a
felony conviction, but also there are needs related to the mental illness. Among those are prescriptions for and supplies of psychotropic medications, treatment appointments at mental
health clinics and substance abuse treatment centers, financial support to fill entitlement gaps,
and structured time activities. Then there are the usual issues of housing, transportation and
work.
For the mentally ill offender being paroled, a prearranged parole plan is required along with
adequate housing, a supply of medication, and finances. Those going to work release must be
able to work, but are typically ineligible for benefits. These transition issues prompted two of
207
Iowa’s community based corrections programs to apply for a Community Mental Health Block
Grant through the Iowa Department of Human Services to develop Mental Health Reentry Programs. The First Judicial District in Waterloo and the Sixth Judicial District in Cedar Rapids
are now in the third year of the grant for each of these promising programs. The first year of
grant funding was $80,000/program, which was decreased in year three with the expectation
that other funding will be established to continue the programs. Currently grant funding is approximately $50,000/year. The funding supports one parole officer in each district.
Under the project, the parole officer works with the institutional counselor to identify appropriate referrals and to develop release plans while the offender is still incarcerated. Approval for
the plan is then obtained from the Parole Board and release dates are coordinated. Once the offender arrives in the community, the project provides “wrap around services” and links the offender to needed services and agencies.
The Mental Health Reentry Program provides a high level of service, intensive supervision, and
support for offenders who have been diagnosed with chronic mental illness. This program is
designed to have the maximum impact on recidivism of clients with co-occurring disorders
(usually Axis I and substance abuse) by providing a higher level of service, support, and supervision than has previously been available. Axis I clinical disorder refers to a category of psychiatric disturbances that include schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders, mood disorders
(depression, anxiety, panic), and bipolar disorder. Axis I diagnoses exclude mental retardation
and personality disorders.
This population tends to have higher needs because of their diagnoses. Their involvement with
the criminal justice system is often a product of their mental health needs not being met. Often
they are simply unable to access available community resources without support. The Mental
Health Reentry Program assists in making the connection to those services. It is designed to be
sensitive and responsive to the offender’s needs during the crucial time of transition from institutional supervision to supported living in the community.
Those with co-occurring disorders in the criminal justice system have some of the highest recidivism rates. Without extra services and support, these offenders fall through the cracks of
social service agencies, human service providers, and the Department of Corrections. They are
not only caught in the cycle of recidivism, but also present a potential threat to public safety.
Selection criteria for admission into the program aims to differentiate between mentally ill people who end up in the criminal justice system because of inaccessibility or a breakdown in community support systems versus criminals who also happen to be mentally ill. This program is
for people who have been diagnosed as having a chronic mental illness. To be accepted, the
offender must have an Axis I diagnosis from a doctor. Applicants must be leaving one of
Iowa’s correctional institutions and reentering their community under supervision for at least
six months. They must agree to the intensive supervision that is essential to the program. Further, they must agree to start and maintain their mental health and substance abuse treatment
programs, maintain compliance by taking the medications prescribed by their doctor while in
the institution and while in the program, and attend meetings with the Community Accountability Board about every six weeks.
208
Admission into the program requires that applicants are carefully screened in the areas of risk,
need, and responsivity. Those who are primarily violent, basically criminogenic, or sex offenders are generally excluded from participation. Finally, there is an expectation that the client
present an attitude of desiring real change in lifestyle.
The Community Accountability Board of the Mental Health Reentry Program is a model of
community collaboration that works with these mentally ill clients. It is the cornerstone of the
program. Under the guidance and direction of the respective Judicial District Department of
Correctional Services, the Community Accountability Board functions in partnership with community based corrections to assist clients in successfully completing their supervision and reintegration into the community. The Board is made up of professional and community volunteers
from the following areas:
Mental health treatment
Education
Substance abuse treatment
Mental health advocacy
Housing services
Medical services
Employment and vocational services
Community service
Law enforcement
Family/individual therapy
Neighborhood support
Board members make their experience, expertise and support available to clients. Board members come together to meet and support clients and provide access to the resources clients need
in order to live successfully in their communities.
The Board’s purposes are to:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide information about services and resources available in the community
Assist in overcoming barriers to the resources and services clients are entitled to receive
Recommend plans of action
Support and mentor clients in achieving their goals
Hold clients accountable for maintaining progress toward goals
Help clients successfully complete their supervision with the Department of Corrections
Restore and repair the harm clients have caused individuals and the community as victims
Complete payment of restitution and fines to individuals and the community as victims
At the beginning of each Board meeting with a client, a board member will read the following
introductory statement and mission to the client: “The Community Accountability Board is
made up of people from our community who represent mental health treatment and advocacy,
substance abuse treatment, housing, employment, community service, family therapy, education
and law enforcement. Our mission is to support your return to our community as a productive
209
citizen. We do this by letting you know the services, resources and entitlements you qualify for
as a member of our community. Then we will support you in overcoming barriers you may encounter in getting these entitlements. We help you form a plan of action to succeed and support
you in achieving your goals.”
Results thus far are promising. In the First Judicial District, 46 clients have been referred since
October 1, 2001. The average age is 37. The gender makeup includes 26 males and 20 females. The racial mix is 18 African-American, 26 Caucasian, and 2 Hispanic. All but two have
a history of substance abuse. The Axis I diagnoses include depression (24), bipolar (9), schizoaffective disorder (7), schizophrenia (3) depression and borderline personality disorder (1), dementia (1), and anxiety disorder (3). The average score on the LSI-R (Level of Services Inventory-Revised) is 31. The average time spent in the program is 6 to 8 months. Of the 46 served,
11 have successfully discharged their parole. Only two have been revoked. Ten have been rearrested: (3 had discharged parole) – including 3 felonies, 2 aggravated misdemeanors, 4 serious misdemeanors and 2 simple misdemeanors. Dennis DeBerg, the program’s initial manager,
reported to the Iowa Board of Corrections in March 2003 on the progress of the program. Mr.
DeBerg states, “Before becoming involved with this program, I was unaware of the unique
challenges this population faces upon their release from the institution. Often they are overwhelmed in coming from a highly structured environment (prison) to having to secure living
arrangements, appointments, and locating transportation to make these appointments. By having
appointments made with mental health, substance abuse, vocational rehabilitation, etc. scheduled prior to leaving the prison setting, they have the feeling that there is a safety net of services
and assistance in the community already in place. The first couple months are critical due to the
fact that offenders have the tendency to easily give up and return to the security of the prison
setting. Once they see the support in the community, they are more encouraged to try to “make
it” and are more likely to have a successful transition back into the community.”
In the Sixth Judicial District, there have been 50 clients served since July 1, 2001. Twenty are
male and thirty are female. There have been 6 African-Americans, 43 Caucasians, and 1 Hispanic. The average age is 32.5. The average time in the program is 12 to 14 months. The average LSI-R score is 34.6. Forty-eight have a history of substance abuse. The Axis I diagnoses
include depression (22), schizophrenia (6), anxiety disorder (3), depression with other disorders
(10), panic disorder (1), panic disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (1), bipolar (4), bipolar and anxiety (2), and PTSD and dissociative disorder (1). Of the 50 referrals, 12 have successfully discharged their parole. Six have been revoked. Ten have been rearrested, of those,
four were revoked due to the new offense. Barbara Claire and Bob Anderson are the two program staff attached to the project. In her remarks to the Iowa Board of Corrections in March
2003, Ms. Claire reported that clients tend to form a connection with the Community Accountability Board and rarely miss scheduled meetings with the Board. She added that some clients
have asked to continue contacts with the Board after their discharge.
Lila Starr, the grant monitor from the Department of Human Services, has been impressed with
the results to date and extended grant funding beyond the original scheduled conclusion.
Program staff believes these clients require intensive supervision, support, and resources.
When they receive these services, they have an opportunity to break the cycle of recidivism and
210
be reintegrated with their families, friends and communities. These beliefs serve as the basis
for this approach to programming for this unique population. Minimizing the victimization of
the mentally ill in the criminal justice system will allow for development of a holistic approach
to manageable reintegration in our community and enhance community safety.
211
Kansas COR-Pathways Program:
Transitional Planning for Offenders with Mental Illness
Kansas Department of Corrections
Roger Werholtz, Secretary
In 2002 the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) partnered with the Kansas Department
of Social and Rehabilitation Services (SRS) to mutually fund a pilot position at the state’s special management facility to address self-sufficiency and transitional planning for offenders with
mental illness. State general fund dollars are used to match federal block grant funds which pay
for half of the position, since the work targets the disabled.
The KDOC currently houses more than 9,200 inmates, and supervises more than 4,300 offenders on parole. Of these offenders, at least 10% are severely and persistently mentally ill, 16%
require medication for mental health reasons, and 20% require mental health care of some kind.
About 6,000 offenders are released to supervision in the communities of Kansas each year.
Over 70% of released offenders go to the four largest counties (Sedgwick [Wichita], Shawnee
[Topeka], Wyandotte [Kansas City], and Johnson [Olathe/Overland Park]). Of these released
offenders, 20% require mental health care when they return to the community. At least 10% are
severely and persistently mentally ill and at least 5% have special housing needs due to their
mental illness. The mental health system is not well versed in corrections issues, nor are corrections case managers familiar with the mental health system. Often local community mental
health centers are reluctant to serve offenders because of the stigma associated with felony convictions and the fear of harm to the vulnerable population of mentally ill they already serve.
Additionally, community mental health centers have a fear of the liability if a mentally ill offender under their care harms someone, along with the concern that the centers and their services are already overburdened. The inability of discharge planners to arrange for post-release
213
services prior to release heightens the inability of offenders with mental illness to stabilize once
they return to the community.
The Community Offender Reintegration Pathways (COR-Pathways) program works with unit
team counselors at El Dorado Correctional Facility (EDCF) to identify offenders who are disabled, primarily those with severe and persistent mental illness, and begins work with these offenders one year prior to release. The program, which consists of one staff person, works with
the offenders to identify particular needs for reintegration related to the offender’s disability. A
tailored transition plan is developed, addressing housing, employment or disability benefits,
medication management, family issues, and the overall support system of the offender.
At the same time, the COR-Pathways program has worked with providers in the larger communities to establish protocols for information-sharing, referrals, and access of services. After obtaining a comprehensive release from the offender, the program specialist makes contact with
community mental health centers, housing providers, family members, and other contacts in the
community to establish access to services. COR-Pathways also assists the offender in completing applications for medical and financial assistance in appropriate cases. This effort is supported by partnerships established between COR-Pathways and the SRS area offices responsible for processing benefit applications. Also, because the department of SRS is a partner in this
effort, this has helped COR-Pathways learn the rules and protocols regarding benefit applications and has facilitated a good working relationships between the agencies.
The COR-Pathways program makes contact with parole staff assigned to supervise offenders
who participated in the program to ensure the transitional plan is implemented as part of supervision. This effort has been enhanced by establishing a specialized parole officer position in
Wichita, the largest urban area in the state. El Dorado Correctional Facility is located about 20
miles from Wichita, allowing the parole officer to come to the facility and meet with the offenders who will return to that area prior to their release. This interface between COR-Pathways,
the offender, and the parole officer has proven particularly effective in helping establish a comprehensive transitional plan, and ensuring it is implemented after release.
Like other corrections agencies around the country, Kansas has a significant number of offenders return to prison within the first year after release for violation of conditions of supervision.
A review of the data regarding revocations in Kansas indicates that offenders with mental illness, particularly the severely and persistently mentally ill, return at higher rates, upwards of
75%. The lack of solid transitional planning and specialization among case managers is a particular barrier for this population. Data collected concerning the return rates of the offenders
participating in the COR-Pathways program indicates that the proportion of mentally ill offenders returning to prison within the first year has been reduced to less than 50%.
As the program continues to be developed, the program specialist is reviewing additional components that may improve outcomes. This would include bringing vocational rehabilitation assessors into the facility to evaluate appropriate offenders; establishing classroom work regarding job preparedness for offenders who are able to function (perhaps with some support) in employment; and establishing further formal relationships in the larger communities for protocols
to access services. In addition, the program hopes to establish pre-release mental health and
214
substance abuse assessments for offenders with co-occurring disorders. Finally, as part of this
pilot, the social services and benefits providers are reviewing state and local rules and practices
regarding the processing of benefit applications and access to benefits, to see if some existing
barriers can be removed. This includes a review of the prohibition under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) laws for offenders with drug convictions and possibly suspending (rather than completely canceling) benefits during prison time (at least for shorter sentences.)
The KDOC is also reviewing the possibility of establishing additional positions if matching
state funds can be accessed. Also under review is the possibility of establishing specialized
caseloads in the larger parole offices similar to the position in Wichita to work with the offenders with mental illness. This would enable further interface between facility transitional specialists and parole officers who will supervise the offenders after release. The review of these
strategies is occurring in the context of a technical assistance grant through the Council of State
Governments and National Institute of Corrections in which Kansas is participating.
215
A Pre-release and Transitional Services Program for Inmates with
Serious and Pervasive Mental Illness
Kentucky Department of Corrections
John Rees, Commissioner
The past decade has witnessed an eight-fold increase in the number of inmates entering the correctional system who are diagnosed with some form of serous mental illness. This alarming
increase has resulted in large measure from the deinstitutionalization movement of the mid-80s.
Lamentable, because the honest efforts of advocacy groups for the mentally ill were not able to
rally the necessary resources for community based support services, many of these mentally ill
individuals quickly decompensated, became homeless, and entered the criminal justice system.
In fact, rather than de-institutionalize, many were ironically trans-institutionalized, that is they
were effectively moved from the state mental hospital system to the criminal justice system.
Ultimately, most came to reside in state correctional facilities. Because of the stigma and misinformation associated with mental illness and the genuine increase in risk if the SMI is untreated, paroling authorities are most reluctant to return these individuals to our communities.
Consequently, most mentally ill individuals are directed to serve their maximum sentence. This
has been the case in the Commonwealth of Kentucky.
Common sense, as well as research, dictates that returning an inmate to the community without
any pre-release planning is a recipe for failure. Inmates as a group often rank in the lower quartiles in the areas of vocational skills, academic achievement, job procurement skills, and mental
and physical wellness. Subjecting these at-risk inmates to a sudden return to the community
without proper planning only serves to increase their risk of failure and recidivism. When serious mental illness is a part of the picture, the chances of failure increase exponentially. Unidentified and untreated mentally ill inmates are seven times more likely to engage in acts of vioMental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
217
lence against staff and other inmates compared to their non-mentally ill counterparts. Identification and treatment significantly reduces this likelihood.
Four years ago, the Kentucky Department of Corrections (KDOC) embarked on a program to
address these issues and trends. What follows is a brief overview of the process of program development as well as the partners in this venture.
Program Development
Stakeholders
The first step was to identify the stakeholders who were currently affected by the problem as
well as to identify those who had something to contribute to the solution and who might be impacted by a new approach. For Kentucky the following stakeholders were identified: parole
board, probation and parole, correctional psychiatric treatment unit (the department’s treatment
unit for SMI inmates), institutional parole officer (charged with developing and monitoring the
parole plan approval process), network of community mental health centers, and an interested
not-for-profit halfway house vendor with demonstrated experience working with this population.
Funding
The issue of funding for non-traditional programs in corrections is a perennial challenge. The
challenges arise from 1) the absence of a dedicated fund stream 2) a relatively small number of
inmates who will ultimately be eligible, 3) the cost associated with psychiatric care and psychotropic medications, and 4) the cost associated with an intensive case management protocol.
These challenges were overcome in Kentucky by a creative blending of resources and existing
programs. The DOC provided the funding stream to pay for eight halfway house beds. Because this was a relatively small number there was an immediate concern about the economy of
scale implications on recruiting a vendor. The KDOC solved this problem by turning to an existing vendor who also had a shelter house for men with serious mental illness.
The vendor also had an established relationship with the local community mental health center
(CMHC) to provide psychiatric care and medication. The CMHC had an existing funding
stream from Federal block grant dollars to treat indigent individuals with serious mental illness
(SMI). Finally, these block grant dollars were also available to provide the intensive case management services necessary for these clients.
Eligibility Criteria
The eligibility criteria arose spontaneously as a result of the restrictions and concerns voiced by
the stakeholders. The criteria along with their “sponsor” are listed below.
Criteria
No sex offenders
No history of escape/absconding
No history of serious violence
Meets Federal SMI definition
No serious medical problems
218
Sponsor
Parole Board
Parole Board
Parole Board
CMHC
Halfway House Vendor
The KDOC has a strong sex offender notification and registration law, which prohibited the
placement of sex offenders in this facility due to its proximity to a children’s shelter. The parole board had been explicit about its reluctance to allow sex offenders with SMI to participate.
Identification and Preparation of Potential Participant
The KDOC provides a .5 FTE masters level psychologist to identify potential participants six
months prior to their parole hearing, to complete a thorough case review, and to coordinate with
the vendor’s staff acceptability of the potential client. This culminates in a detailed psychological/pre-release report which is sent to the board for consideration prior to the parole hearing. It
includes recommendations about medication compliance, active participation in the vendor’s
programming activities, etc., all of which are adopted by the board as conditions for parole.
In the period between initial identification and the parole hearing, the KDOC’s psychologist
and the vendor’s staff are actively preparing the individual for his potential release. He is given
an overview of the halfway house, its rule book, and is oriented to the activities and psychiatric
appointments he will be expected to keep. During this six-month period the staff from the halfway house visit him several times and actively pursue the establishment of a therapeutic relationship with the inmate. If the inmate has receptive family members they are included in this
process. Sadly, most of the inmates in this program no longer have any contact or support from
their biological family. As the parole hearing approaches, the psychologist and vendor staff
prepares the inmate for his interview so that he can demonstrate his awareness of the program
and expectations.
Program Activation
This phase begins when the parole board awards the inmate his parole with conditions that require full participation in the halfway house program, medication compliance, etc. The KDOC
psychologist is an active member of the halfway house treatment team and is on site when the
inmate arrives. This continuity of care has proven to be a critical component of success. The
KDOC psychologist, in addition to attending Monday morning treatment team meetings, spends
approximately six hours during the week monitoring the inmate and assisting in his transition to
his new environment. During his six-month placement at the halfway house the inmate will be
involved in active programming fifteen hours each day. Upon arrival, the inmate and treatment
team begin the process of planning for his full release into the community. The CMHC provides case management and works to identify programs and funds for which the inmate may be
eligible including the facilitation of vocational evaluation. This usually results in the initiation
of the social security disability application process.
Another key player, the parole officer, supervises the case. The local probation and parole district ensures that there is one identified dedicated officer to work with this program (in addition
to his regular case load) which requires some degree of specialized training and skill acquisition
relative to this population. This officer is also an integral member of the treatment team and
ultimately will be the sole remaining member who has contact with the inmate once he leaves
the halfway house placement.
219
Summary
The key to managing the reentry of inmates with serious mental illness is proper pre-release
planning and post-release placement and services. The two most crucial elements to the management of serious mental illness is medication compliance with appropriate psychiatric medications and the minimization of environmental stressors. The latter can be achieved by blending staff from the institution with the staff from the halfway house. Funding concerns can be
addressed by creatively co-mingling funding streams and accessing federal block grant dollars
for the indigent SMI population. Finally, the process of identifying key stakeholders, having
their concerns shape the ultimate program in a meaningful manner, and the presence of a point
person to insure timely and relevant communication between the systems are elements critical
to success. Because many of the stakeholders will ultimately have to deal with this special and
demanding population, the rewards for partnership become self-reinforcing and insure the continuance of the program.
Program Statistics
These data span the program’s inception in 2000 until the present.
81 total admissions
60.4% completion rate
32.6% failure rate (absconding or administrative discharge)
Kentucky’s current parole failure rate for all inmates is about 33%. A similar or slightly
smaller rate for inmates with serious mental illness is significant. While Kentucky does not
currently have failure rate data for SMI inmates who serve out their sentence and do not have
access to this program, probation and parole officers and the DOC Intake Center staff suggest
that it is significantly higher as does data from some national sources.
220
RESTART: A New Direction in Corrections Philosophy
Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services
Division of Correction presently has approximately 24,000 inmates of which more than 15,000
were released back into the community in 2003. The few services provided to offenders during
incarceration are supported by grants and special funds that are extremely fragile. Most of the
individuals released return to Maryland communities with myriad issues, including drug or alcohol addiction. Under the leadership of Governor Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr., Maryland is taking
corrections in a new direction for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services
(DPSCS.)
Reentry Enforcement Services Targeting Addictions Rehabilitation and Treatment (RESTART)
was designed to broaden rehabilitative efforts in state correctional facilities, and essentially
change Maryland’s corrections philosophy from the ground up. With a recidivism rate of more
than 51 percent, offenders were habitually returned to their communities without skills or treatment options. We have sought out innovative approaches to rehabilitation. RESTART focuses
on treatment, rehabilitation, control and custody to meet both the public safety and crime prevention needs of the community.
The Department has a responsibility to do more than simply warehouse offenders. The Department realized that a new system that included a new way of thinking and a better way of managing inmates and correctional facilities was required. This bold new system is known as Project RESTART – Reentry, Enforcement and Services Targeting Addiction, Rehabilitation and
Treatment. Project RESTART reflects the new mission of the Department to create a corrections system that includes rehabilitation and treatment services in addition to custody and control. This philosophical shift aligns with the national trend towards best practices that develop
221
ex-offenders who re-enter the community and become productive members of society.
Program Components
Research has shown that treatment and best practices do work in reducing recidivism
(Lawrence et al. 2002.) Recent research has also found that the following types of interventions
effectively reduce recidivism including (1) cognitive restructuring programs; (2) academic
training, including adult basic education and general equivalency diplomas; (3) vocational skills
training that provide both occupational skills training and employment readiness; and (4) substance abuse treatment (Petersilia 2003.)
Project RESTART added new programming slots to the toolbox of treatment and education services provided by DPSCS to fight recidivism. These slots are for programs such as: academic
training, including cognitive restructuring, anger management, adult basic education and general equivalency diplomas, vocational skills training that provide both occupational skills training and employment readiness, and substance abuse treatment. These slots will also help maintain a safe environment within the correctional facilities as a result of decreased inmate idleness.
Under Project RESTART there are five major program components – Front end Assessment,
Correctional Education, Substance Abuse Treatment, and Re-entry.
•
RESTART will provide a mechanism to conduct a front-end assessment on all inmates entering Maryland’s correctional facilities. This assessment will focus on substance abuse,
personality/criminal proclivity and mental health issues. Case management staff, whose
role and number will expand to better monitor and evaluate inmate progress during incarceration, will use this assessment.
•
In the past decade Maryland’s inmate population has grown by almost 25% while the level
of educational staffing has remained relatively stagnant. The Department will increase educational and vocational programming by opening night schools, expanding prison-to-work
training, developing short-term occupational skills training programs and providing career
centers in all facilities.
•
Currently our Department only offers four treatment programs providing 800 treatment
slots. Under Project RESTART, Addictions treatment will be expanded and will take a 5
Fold Approach:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
222
Screening and Assessment to screen for substance abuse addiction at intake and, further
assessed based upon their individual need
Basic Treatment “outpatient” style of treatment in the form of weekly group therapy and
individual counseling
Modified Therapeutic Communities intensive group and individual counseling are pro
vided to individuals with the greatest need
Aftercare Services large group counseling, monthly individual counseling and recovery
groups are provided
Linkages to Community Treatment linkages to community-based treatment
•
The Department will provide a continuity of services to inmates in transition. RESTART
calls for providing services to offenders with the greatest needs and risks during incarceration, and offering post-release services in the community, through a discharge planning
process. Discharge planning will facilitate successful re-entry of inmates through partnerships with community service providers. These partners can provide housing, employment,
treatment, health care, and relationship and family education. The reentry services component includes the following
Expanded Case Management by streamlining administrative policies and mandating the
development of institutional case plans, at least monthly contact between Case Manage
ment Specialists (CMS) and inmates supported by case file entries and case manager-toinmate ratios that are based upon the security level of the assigned facility.
Implement programs designed to prepare offenders for release including cognitive re
structuring, anger management, employment readiness, victim offender impact classes,
in addition to programs designed to facilitate linkages to community service providers
including an exit orientation and community resource information classes.
Social Work Services will be expanded to provide intensive support to inmates with spe
cial needs including those with chronic diseases or conditions including HIV/AIDS, kid
ney dialysis, and early senility. Services include group therapy and discharge plan de
velopment.
Transition Coordinator positions will be created to develop discharge plans for those of
fenders not needing specialized services and serve as liaisons between the prison facili
ties and the community at large, developing partnerships with community agencies/ or
ganizations.
It is important to note that these program components will be offered in conjunction with one
another. These programs will be provided to inmates as a part of comprehensive, individualized case plans that will be developed in response to assessed risk and needs. This coordinated
approach is based upon best practice models to serve the needs of inmates prior to release to
prevent recidivism and continue to address the safety needs of the public.
Why do this now?
We believe that treatment works. As a person who has been involved for the past 30 years in
the criminal justice system, and as a current officer of the American Correctional Association, I
can tell you that what we have been doing, nationally and within our own state, simply is not
working. We cannot continue to return untreated former inmates to the communities from
whence they came. It is not a cost effective approach, in terms of dollars, as well as human
capital. The success of RESTART will be measured for years to come by looking at recidivism
rates, crime indexes and the effectiveness of drug treatment programs. All of these things will
be looked at in light of unemployment rates, available housing and the accessibility of educational and job training programs. The time has long passed for us to continue a failed program
of “lock ‘em up and throw away the key.” That philosophy has not made our neighborhoods
any safer, and it never will.
223
References
Lawrence, Sarah, Daniel P. Mears, Glenn Dubin, and Jeremy Travis. 2002. The Practice and
Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York,
New York: Oxford University Press.
224
DWI Treatment Unit
The DWI treatment unit and the program approaches discussed in this article address New
Mexico Corrections Department (NMCD) response to the safer reentry of DWI offenders back
into the community. The state of New Mexico has long recognized the serious problem of DWI
among its residents. DWI results in many motor vehicle crashes, unintentional injuries, and loss
of life. DWI has a great impact on families and communities, and on the criminal justice system. Governor Bill Richardson and the New Mexico legislature have considered many strategies to reduce the incidence of DWI offenses including increasing prevention education and
community treatment, utilization of Drug Courts, and increasing penalties for DWI offenders.
Secretary of Corrections, Joe R. Williams, was closely involved in this effort and Erma Sedillo,
Deputy Secretary, served as the chairperson of the Governor’s Task Force on DWI. Many initiatives that arose from the task force’s work are now being implemented throughout state and
local governments.
NMCD reserves a high percentage of beds for addictions treatment (currently about 12% of the
overall prison population) through its Therapeutic Community network which operates in
nearly every prison complex in New Mexico. Addiction psycho-educational services are also
provided on an outpatient basis. Addiction Services has a very aggressive and successful volunteer program which utilizes volunteers from the AA and NA communities to provide in-prison
12 step meetings, sponsorship, and community re-integration referrals to inmates in treatment
and in general population.
The NMCD and the Addiction Services Bureau recognize the need for a targeted approach to
225
more specifically address the DWI offender. While a large number of inmates are receiving
substance abuse treatment services, they were integrated into the range of service modalities.
The department has begun to systematically identify inmates with DWI and DWI-related offenses such as vehicular homicide, and to track the utilization of treatment services among this
population. It was also recognized that even with enhanced sentencing, most of these individuals were not in prison with long sentences and that they should be identified as high priority for
addictions services prior to returning to the community. Many of these individuals are alcohol
dependent, and without treatment intervention, will continue to pose a significant risk to the
community by continuing to drink and drive. Though many of these individuals functioned
well in existing treatment programs, NMCD decided to target these offenders with a comprehensive alcoholism-specific approach to the problems and the reentry needs of these offenders.
It was also anticipated that many “new offenders” would be entering the NMCD due to the enhanced sentencing and public awareness of the seriousness of the DWI situation.
Under the direction of Secretary Williams, and with the efforts of the Addiction Services Bureau, a newly constructed housing unit was designated to specifically serve DWI offenders and
address their treatment and re-integration needs. The program is housed at the Roswell Correctional Facility, near Roswell, New Mexico and will hold 72 inmates during its first phase. Expansion potential exists at the existing site, depending on future legislative appropriations. The
facility has a strong educational and technical vocational component and a long established
practice of active work involvement for its inmates. It is currently a level 2 minimum restriction facility but maintains much of its “culture” as a “work camp” from being a minimum security compound.
The program will utilize a blend of “best practices” and components which have proven to be
successful within NMCD and nationwide. Additionally it will have an increased emphasis on
some of the unique aspects of alcoholism and alcohol treatment.
In order to target the primary DWI population, we are working closely with the classification
department to identify all new DWI offenders at the Reception and Diagnostic Center and refer
them directly to the Roswell Facility for DWI program screening and participation. Additionally, classification is identifying those DWI offenders currently in the system with appropriate
time left on their sentences (6 to 12 months) for possible transfer to the facility. We do not anticipate any difficulty finding sufficient numbers of offenders for the new unit.
The 72 inmates will be divided into two groups and receive primary programming and treatment either in the morning or afternoon. Initial individualized assessment will incorporate
chemical dependency issues, educational and vocational needs, and family/community support
concerns. Based on these comprehensive assessments, an individualized treatment and programming plan will be developed to address the inmate’s needs. When not in the treatment unit
programming, inmates will be directed to participate in either employment activities or educational activities such as GED preparation or vocational programs. They will also be mandated to
participate in community oriented activities such as AA meetings, unit meetings, unit maintenance, and graduation activities.
The treatment modality will be a modified therapeutic community (TC) program. Therapeutic
Communities have functioned effectively in NM prisons. We anticipate closely reviewing the
226
TC model to identify those aspects most beneficial to the alcohol dependent DWI offender and
provide increased cognitive educational approaches shown to be effective with this population.
By incorporating a blend of most effective approaches, we hope to significantly impact the
DWI offenders and reduce future offending. Due to the shorter sentences received by many of
the DWI offenders, they often will not have the 12 months it requires to complete our TC programs. We will thus modify the programs so they can effectively serve those with 6 to 12
months, thus being able to treat the great majority of newly committed DWI offenders.
The program will include curriculum similar to those effectively used in community DWI
classes, as well as many of the aspects covered within our TC programs. These include both
psycho-educational and group treatment aspects of chemical dependency, anger management,
communication skills and interpersonal relationship building, cognitive-behavioral approaches
to criminal thinking, parenting and family relations, relapse prevention, and aftercare planning.
We also anticipate engaging the inmate’s family in both the treatment process and in preparing
for the inmates return to the community. Treatment staff will provide “family days” when offender families can receive information and group family counseling to address the impact the
offender’s alcohol problem has on the family and the support needed for a successful and sober
reentry. Family members will be encouraged and provided referral information regarding family and treatment support services in their communities including efforts to engage them with
12-step support groups such as Al-Anon and Ala-Teen.
The close involvement, and participation of the local AA community is crucial to the program’s
efforts. NM inmates are actively involved in 12-step programming and utilize sponsors in
many of our facilities. These AA members provide referral for sponsorship and aftercare
through their “Bridging the Gap” program. Thus inmates are provided an important support system upon release through the 12-step community.
Finally, as with any new program, we will develop a strong evaluation component to identify
those DWI offenders most effectively served by this approach. This will include follow-up with
Probation/Parole and treatment professionals within the returning inmates’ home community
and tracking of recidivism of these offenders. NMCD Education Bureau also has a strong program (SOAR) in affiliation with the Department of Labor to assist with job training and placement, and it is anticipated many of these treatment graduates will actively participate and benefit from this program.
The treatment of alcohol dependence and successful community integration can go a long way
to reduce the pain, suffering, and costs to NM residents from this serious criminal behavior. A
well-developed discharge and relapse prevention plan must include partnership with community
resources to include criminal justice professionals, treatment providers, 12-step networks, and
the inmate’s families to most effectively address the DWI problem.
227
Community Orientation and Reentry Program
Overview
The Community Orientation and Reentry Program (CORP) is a unique initiative developed
through the combined efforts of the New York State Department of Correctional Services
(NYSDOCS), the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and the New York State Division of Parole (DOP). It is designed to assist and prepare inmates with serious mental illness
for a successful return to living in the community. The CORP unit, which is located at Sing
Sing Correctional Facility, provides inmates approaching release to the New York City Metropolitan Area and the surrounding counties access to programs and staff dedicated to this transitional effort and to representatives from area community agencies and facilities.
CORP is designed to supplement, enhance, and extend the existing discharge coordination effort and to facilitate community integration beyond the provision of continuity of psychiatric
care. Ninety days prior to release, eligible individuals are transferred to the CORP unit from
New York State Correctional Facilities across the state. In the CORP Unit, individuals participate in a comprehensive curriculum which focuses on developing the skills and knowledge necessary for success in the community. CORP programming is provided by an interdisciplinary,
multi-agency treatment team and includes the unique addition of reach-in services provided by
community agencies from the communities to which CORP participants will return after release
from prison. It also has the essential addition of working with community housing providers to
assist in meeting the great needs for the undomiciled ex-offenders with mental illness.
Together, all three New York State agencies are committed to assisting each individual’s inteMental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
229
gration and success in the community, while maximizing safety for the individual and community alike.
Background
The difficulties inherent to connecting inmates with mental illness released to the community
with services appropriate to identified needs have long been recognized. Barriers to this process often include geographic dislocation of the individual from the home community, lack of
information regarding community resources and entitlement systems, and reluctance by some
systems to provide services for ex-offender populations. When serious mental illness is a factor
for an individual, the likelihood of failure to connect with critical supports can increase. Persons with mental illness may lack skills in areas such as money management, shopping, medication management, structuring free time, and social interaction.
Persons with serious mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system have a high
incidence of co-occurring substance abuse disorders which further complicate the picture. Individuals with co-occurring disorders present unique challenges and generally have a poor prognosis for involvement in treatment relative to those diagnosed with a single mental disorder.
Follow up studies have shown that those with severe mental illness and co-occurring substance
disorder have poorer psychological adjustment, higher rates of rehospitalization, more homelessness, increased violent behavior, and higher rates of incarceration than those with a mental
illness alone.
Further complicating the picture are individuals who are undomiciled. Upon release, these individuals often have no social, family, or professional support in the community. Tackling the
challenges of shelter or institutional living, applying for and receiving entitlements, reporting to
and complying with the conditions of supervising criminal justice agencies, maintaining compliance with mental health treatment, and maintaining psychiatric stability often prove too much
for the homeless ex-offender. Again, the result is too frequently re-incarceration.
According to OMH, 11% of New York State’s prison population (currently at about 69,000 persons) is currently receiving mental health services. The Office of Mental Health has reported a
significant increase in discharge planning services provided on a statewide basis to both male
and female inmates with an Axis I psychiatric disorder who were undomiciled upon release.
OMH reports that since the implementation of pre-release coordination staff in DOCS in 1995,
OMH has seen a 300% increase in discharge planning activity for persons with mental illness
(from 419 individuals to 1,273). In 1988, 58% of individuals who were undomiciled upon release from prison and who required mental health services while incarcerated were considered
seriously and persistently mentally ill. In 2000, there were 542 males with an Axis I psychiatric
disorder released to the New York City area. Nearly half of these individuals (266) were undomiciled upon release. One quarter (137) were released from correctional facilities providing
the most comprehensive services to individuals with the highest treatment needs. These facilities are maximum-security facilities with Mental Health Units that are staffed 24 hours a day.
Development of CORP
Understanding the above factors, The New York State Department of Correctional Services
230
(NYSDOCS), the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and the New York State Division of Parole (DOP) have recognized a need to work collaboratively in providing services to
persons with mental illness under the care, custody and/or supervision of the respective agencies. This collaboration was undertaken in the interest of public safety and to enhance the provision of safe and dignified treatment for persons with mental illness.
NYSDOCS, OMH, and DOP have always sought to improve services to persons with mental
illness involved in the criminal justice system while addressing public safety concerns through
several ongoing initiatives. Many of these initiatives have been helpful in identifying persons
with mental illness and the extent to which the needs of this population following release are
often unrecognized. Our collaborative efforts in this area have served to raise awareness regarding remaining gaps in services and challenge us to find solutions.
In response to the need for continuity of care for persons with serious mental illness being released from prison and returning to the community setting, the agencies have developed a comprehensive transitional housing unit and psychoeducational program entitled CORP
(Community Orientation and Reentry Program.) This program operates at Sing Sing Correctional Facility in Ossining, Westchester County, New York. Program participants are inmates
from all New York State correctional facilities who are transferred to Sing Sing if they are eligible for participation in CORP.
Program participants include individuals scheduled for release to post-release supervision, parole, and maximum expiration of sentence. The program services individuals returning to locations where OMH has established agreements with community-based providers of mental health
services to serve the population returning to the community. These providers are primarily in
the Metropolitan New York City area and surrounding counties where a significant portion of
the inmate population will be returning. Agreements with community providers provide for
pre-release preparation and post release services to CORP participants.
CORP Program Description
CORP consists of both a 31-bed housing unit and a comprehensive treatment program located
at Sing Sing Correctional Facility. The program is designed for 90 days of participation. This
program is designed to address the need for continuity of care for persons with serious mental
illness being released from incarceration and returning to the community. Intensive mental
health treatment and discharge planning services are made available to eligible male offenders
returning to the New York City metropolitan area. Program participation is designed to promote successful community reintegration and supervision.
Potential candidates for the CORP program are screened by OMH pre-release coordinators at
all NYSDOCS facilities housing male inmates in New York State. Based on mental health information, parole documentation, and information from NYSDOCS, eligible inmates are identified. In general eligible inmates must have a serious mental illness, must be receiving the most
intensive levels of mental health services while incarcerated, must be nearing release in the next
120 days, and must be returning to a county in New York where OMH has an agreement with
community providers. There is also an expectation that the individual being referred will benefit from the program. Inmates who have active warrants, medical restrictions that preclude
231
placement, are in acute psychiatric crisis, or have an order of deportation are generally not eligible for the program. Ineligible inmates receive comprehensive discharge planning at their own
facility.
If an inmate is considered to be eligible for CORP participation, staff at the correctional facility
where the inmate is housed will prepare a referral packet and send it to the CORP Admissions
Committee. The Admissions Committee is an interdisciplinary team who review mental health,
parole, and correctional information sent by the referring facility. The committee has representatives from all three agencies involved in this program. Each referral is thoroughly considered
on a case-by-case basis by the committee. Inmates who are accepted for program participation
are transferred to Sing Sing to begin the CORP program.
Once housed on the CORP unit, individuals begin participation in a comprehensive curriculum
which includes psycho-educational, cognitive-behavioral, and psychosocial rehabilitative programming which focus on developing the skills and knowledge necessary for success in the
community. CORP strives to maximize self-reliance and self-suffiency, while identifying and
securing all necessary components of the unique safety net each individual may require. Connecting participants with agencies, programs, activities, professionals, supportive family members, and peers in the community and preparing them to embrace and employ their regained
freedom for positive effect can begin to break the cycle of recidivism and promote and support
recovery.
CORP utilizes a multi-disciplinary approach focusing on skills and knowledge essential for success. Each individual is evaluated for risk management obstacles to their success following release, and this information is utilized to plan treatment while in CORP and for discharge planning and community linkage. In treatment groups held 5 days a week in the morning and afternoon, CORP participants learn a variety of skills. Participants learn about resources in the community and how to access them. They are educated about the medication they are prescribed
and the possible side effects. They learn to identify their thoughts and behaviors that may be
adaptive in prison but are counterproductive in the community. CORP participants learn how to
manage stress in an effective manner. They work on how to manage their mental illness symptoms. They learn about co-occurring substance disorders. CORP participants are also educated
on how to best work with post release supervising agencies.
A unique piece of this program is linkage to community based case management services which
begin while the inmate is still incarcerated. Several community agencies send staff to CORP to
provide reach-in services. Many of these staff members are ex-offenders and mental health
consumers. These peer educators have a unique perspective and way of interacting with the
CORP participants. The reach-in services may include leading a pre-release group discussion,
pre-release individual case management, providing transportation following release, and coordination of services following release. This insures greater likelihood of continuity of care as the
inmate already has built a relationship that will follow him from inside prison to the outside
community. OMH and DOP have also made essential connections with community agencies
providing dedicated housing for CORP graduates. Many CORP graduates are participating in a
scattered site apartment program which provides supervision from a mental health community
treatment team.
232
Reentry: Transformation of Ohio’s Correctional
Mental Health System of Care
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) has received national recognition since 1995 for the improvements made to its comprehensive correctional mental health system of care. The system provides a continuum of services from screening all offenders entering
the prison system to identifying their mental health needs, to the providing outpatient, residential, and crisis treatment for offenders as needed; to operating an American Correctional Association (ACA) and Joint Commission on Accreditation Healthcare Organizations (JCAHO) accredited 131-bed inpatient psychiatric hospital for offenders dangerous to themselves and others; to partnering with the Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH), and local Mental
Health Boards to facilitate a seamless transition from prison to the community. The mission of
the system is to ensure access to quality care that eliminates needless suffering, improves functioning, and increases safety in prisons and in the community. Over the past nine years Ohio
has been able to accomplish this goal and much more.
Ohio’s Mental Health Profile
In Ohio, approximately 7,500 offenders or 15.5% of the total prison population is diagnosed
with a mental illness. Nine percent of the population is assessed as seriously mentally ill (SMI.)
Following an initial screening at intake, all offenders entering the prison system receive a clinical assessment by a trained mental health professional within 14 days of admission to prison.
As a result of the assessment, offenders are assigned to one of four mental health classification;
C1 - the offender is seriously mentally ill (SMI) based on diagnosis and functioning level; C2 Mental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
233
the offender is in need of psychotropic medication but not SMI (includes many adjustment disorders); C3 – the offender is not in need of psychotropic medication but needs counseling and
support; or N – not in need of any mental health services. At any point during incarceration,
offenders always have the ability to access services as their needs change.
Infrastructure
Unique from the more limited financial support provided within many other states, the Ohio
legislature allocated a $69M line item dedicated solely to the provision of mental health services within the department’s $1.6B operating budget. ODRC created a Bureau of Mental
Health Services to provide oversight and monitor the correctional mental health system of care.
The largest expenditure within the mental health budget is allocated to fund 611 mental health
staff assigned to 32 prisons and central office. The mental health staffing includes psychiatrists,
social workers, psychologists, psychology assistants, psychiatric nurses, activity therapists, and
administrative and support staff. While outpatient mental health care is provided in all institutions for the general population, eight (8) of the institutions also house residential treatment/
crisis stabilization units (RTU/CSU.) A total of 773 beds are available within the 8 prisons for
offenders at all security levels who need an intensive level of residential/crisis care with mental
health staff on-site in the units 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The average RTU/CSU bed
capacity is 85.
Mental Health Reentry Initiatives
ODRC developed a reentry system governing the return of all offenders to the community following incarceration regardless of the offenders mental health needs. In addition, the Department has partnered with state and community stakeholders to develop two innovative and forward-looking reentry programs for offenders with a mental illness leaving prison. Each of the
two programs is described as follows:
Community Linkage Program
ODRC, in partnership with Ohio Department of Mental Health (ODMH) developed the Community Linkage Program in 1995 to fill an identified gap in the continuum of care for offenders
with a mental illness entering the prison system and returning to the community. An interagency agreement was signed by both departments describing the roles and responsibilities of
each of the department’s representatives relative to the Community Linkage Program. This
agreement is reviewed and renewed every two years. The primary purpose of the Community
Linkage Program is the improvement of continuity of mental health care for offenders from admission to their release from prison. A major goal of the program is to increase understanding,
communication, and interaction between and among service providers within the mental health,
substance abuse, and criminal justice arenas.
Ten Community Linkage Social Workers (CLSWs) each assigned to provide coverage for several institutions, work within the prison facilities to assist in the exchange of mental health information for offenders entering and leaving the prison system. They also link offenders to the
community mental health system, as needed upon release, to ensure continuity of care. In prepa234
ration for release, the community linkage social worker reviews the mental health record, consults with the mental health staff, interviews the inmate 30 to 90 days prior to expected release,
and secures a signed release of information. As a result, a community linkage packet containing
mental health information (with a diagnosis, medications, medication compliance, treatment
regimen, response to treatment) is then prepared and forwarded to the community mental health
center, and the offender’s parole officer, if released to supervision. Two weeks prior to release,
the CLSW arranges an appointment for the offender at the local mental health center in the city
where the inmate is expected to live.
As a final step in the release process, ODRC provides the offender with a 14-day supply of
medication and ensures the offender is aware of his/her community mental health appointment.
In addition, if determined necessary for clinical reasons by the prison mental health treatment
team, the institution will transport or arrange transportation for the offender to the mental health
center at the point of release.
Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) Teams:
The forensic ACT program is a service delivery model that provides comprehensive community- based treatment for released offenders under supervision with the highest level of need
due to serious mental illness. It may be the single most researched and proven best practices
treatment model for persons determined to be seriously mentally ill (SMI.)
Currently Ohio has two forensic ACT Programs designed to work with SMI offenders under
supervision in Cuyahoga and Hamilton Counties. ODRC partners with the Community Mental
Health Boards in the two counties to provide limited funds to help support the two teams and
assigns a parole officer dedicated to work with the team staff.
Each team has a psychiatrist, a psychiatric nurse, three community case managers, and a parole
officer. Each of the case managers has a specialty, including but not limited to vocational services, benefits, and housing. All of the team members work with the offenders, and services are
available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
The community ACT staff work with institution multidisciplinary mental health staff and the
inmate to develop a treatment plan, prior to the inmates release, that addresses specific needs.
Intensive supports, as well as clinical treatment are provided in the community in an attempt to
change the lifestyle patterns that often lead to recidivism. Services include linkage to benefits,
stable housing, supportive employment and the provision of clinical services
The expected outcomes for offenders on the ACT team include a reduction in recidivism and
inpatient hospital days, stable housing, benefits, employment, and improved quality of life. As
a result, re-arrests, returns to prison, housing type, employment type, and linked benefits are all
tracked.
Ohio has found that the ACT teams have enabled some of the most at-risk offenders who have
returned to prison in the past, to complete supervision and remain in the community.
235
Summary
ODRC continues to work with key stakeholders (families, National Alliance for the Mentally
Ill, ODMH, Consumer Advocate Groups, the Ohio Supreme Court Advisory Committee, and
Community Mental Health Boards and Agencies) to improve the reentry process both in prison
and in the community. The aim is to develop and refine strategies, and to create new partnerships to support the successful transition of offenders with a mental illness from prison to the
community. The innovative work now underway demonstrates that it is possible to support offenders with a mental illness to become productive citizens of the community, thereby contributing to the enhancement of public safety.
236
Consumer-driven Reentry Programs for Mental Health Services
In the last few years, the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) has experienced a dramatic increase in the number of incarcerated men and women who have some form of serious
mental illness. The results of a unique mental health classification system developed by ODOC
(Powitzky, 2003) revealed that approximately 6,000 (26 %) out of 23,000 inmates have a history of, or are currently exhibiting some form of mental illness. Of the 2,000 female inmates,
1,050 (50.3%) and of the 21,000 male inmates, 5,024 (24.4%) fall in that category. In response,
ODOC has developed some innovative programs and services based on the evidenced-based
practices that are effective in recovery, and the key to successful recovery services is a viable
reentry program.
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) has identified six
evidence-based practices for which they have issued guidelines, workbooks, and implementation resource kits. Consumer support groups and training are widely supported in the six areas.
In the 2003 report of the President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental health, Goal 2 was
identified as “Mental health care is consumer and family driven.” In the discussion of that goal,
the Commission recommended that there be increased opportunities for consumers and families
to share their knowledge, skills and experiences of recovery. It also observed that “consumers
as providers expand the range and availability of services and supports that professionals offer.”
However, none of the reports specifically identify corrections as an excellent context for providing consumer-led services, nor have correctional systems incorporated this practice in institutional and reentry programs. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC) is breaking
new ground with incorporating peer-support training programs within the facilities in a manner
that provides continuity of care in connecting the inmate with programs and support groups
237
available after discharge from ODOC.
Oklahoma is fortunate to have a strong network of consumer and family advocacy organizations
with proven successes in community-based consumer/family programs. This success has
helped to establish the evidence upon which the above-mentioned reports were founded. These
consumer and family advocacy organizations including the Oklahoma Mental Health Consumers’ Council (OMHCC), the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Oklahoma (NAMIOklahoma), the Mental Health Associations of Oklahoma and Tulsa Counties, and the Oklahoma Depression Bi-polar Support Alliance (DBSA). Each of these organizations has proven
unique, innovative community-based programs.
This new ODOC recovery initiative began with the implementation of the Wellness Recovery
Action Plan (WRAP) developed by the Oklahoma Mental Health Consumers Council, based in
large part on the work of Mary Ellen Copeland’s book by the same name. This peer-led training
is a 12-week course designed to help the person with mental illness gain the knowledge and
skills necessary to understand, accept, and manage their own mental illness. Through this process, the inmate/consumer develops an individualized recovery plan that helps him or her take
responsibility for managing the mental illness both during incarceration and after release in the
community. Staff training led by the peer-trainers preceded implementation of the actual training. This provided staff a greater understanding of mental illness and the recovery model so that
they were better equipped to support the inmate’s progress while using a common vocabulary.
WRAP training and support groups have been implemented at the “mental health units” (units
providing acute and intermediate mental health care) for approximately 65 females and 100
males. Many general population facilities are preparing to implement groups in their facilities.
The response by both staff and inmates has been very positive.
At the same time the WRAP Program was being implemented, NAMI-Oklahoma developed an
informative and motivational consumer-led training program, In Our Own Voices (IOOV). This
program includes a synchronized presentation of a professionally produced video interspersed
with live sharing from two trained consumers. The video introduces the five stages of recovery:
the dark days, acceptance, treatment, coping skills, and hope for the future. At each stage, the
video depicts eight mental health consumers from a wide range of demographic and diagnostic
groups. After each video segment, the live presenters share how their recovery was experienced at each stage. The presentation then ends with lively question and answer sessions. In
Our Own Voices was presented to all upper-level ODOC managers, who consistently reported
excellent evaluations. A common response was “it was very encouraging and enlightening to
see the other side of the illness.” Since this presentation, IOOV has been in great demand by
inmates of all levels, as well as various levels of correctional staff. It has been very effective in
motivating inmates with mental illness to participate in their recovery programs.
A third, parallel development in most major communities in Oklahoma has been the success of
the Depression Bi-polar Support Alliance (DBSA) in establishing support groups for persons
with all types of mental illness, not just depression and bi-polar disorders. Carefully selected
and trained peer-support volunteers facilitate these groups. When DBSA agreed to join with
ODOC and the other peer-support programs, they provided the critical connection to reentry
support services in the community. In addition, ODOC, DBSA, and the Oklahoma Department
238
of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services are collaborating to develop and implement the
proven “Double Trouble Recovery” (DRT) program for co-occurring disorders.
ODOC is very proud to join in partnership with these mental health consumer and advocacy
organizations to provide what is expected to be a model mental health reentry program for correctional populations.
239
References
Powitzky, R.J., A useful management tool for correctional mental health services. Correctional
mental health report, 4(5), January/February 2003, 65-66, 77-80.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, http://www.samhsa.gov
President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,
http://www.mentalhealthcommission.gov/
240
Fellowship Community Reintegration Service:
A Reentry Program for Mentally Ill Offenders
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
A.T. Wall, Director
In the words of one discharge planner, the Fellowship Health Resources, Community Reintegration Service (CRS) provides hope. The CRS discharge-planning program strives to show
offenders suffering from mental illness that their support system can be repaired, maintained, or
developed even in prison.
The Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC) collaborated with the Rhode Island Department of Mental Health, Retardation and Hospitals (MHRH), to help mentally ill inmates a
little over two years ago. The two state agencies decided to create a non-geographic
“catchment area” for inmates who met the criteria of the Community Support Program (CSP)
for persons with chronic, persistent, and serious mental illness. MHRH used federal funds to
contract with Fellowship CRS for this program.
By specifically targeting discharge planning services for inmates suffering from mental illness,
the RIDOC is able to help ease their transition back into appropriate community settings. CRS
is designed to stabilize inmates while in custody and either refer or reconnect them to community mental health centers upon release.
While in prison, the RIDOC clinical director of mental health along with a team of other professionals including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, mental health counselors, and advanced practice nurses, work with inmates in all levels of security. The fact that 600 RIDOC
inmates (16%) are on prescribed medications makes the adult correctional institutions the largMental Health / Substance Abuse Programs
241
est mental institution in the state. This statistic mirrors the results of a recent U.S. Department
of Justice survey that found roughly the same percent of inmates suffer from major mental illnesses in prisons nationwide. The RIDOC institutional mental health program meets the mental
health needs of inmates and works with community agencies to prevent inappropriate incarceration for the mentally ill. However, it is the CRS program that bridges the gap between incarceration and community-based treatment.
‘John’ started with the CRS program at the RIDOC in July 2002 and is slowly learning that
there is hope and life beyond prison. Since age 10 he had been in and out of the system. His
longest sentence was for 10 years for invading a home with a dangerous weapon. CRS met
John as that term was ending. He was 30 years old. John was diagnosed with schizo-affective
disorder while serving his sentence. He hears voices and is paranoid. Adjusting to his diagnosed condition while on the inside took time, but as his release date neared his anxiety led to
questions about his ability to survive on the outside. Even when he was chosen by the fellowship to enter its assisted living apartment program, John continued to express his trepidation
about functioning in a non-institutional setting.
Initially, participation in the program was restricted to inmates who met the federal and state
guidelines for the Community Support Program (CSP). RIDOC and the CRS recognized that
mentally ill inmates who did not meet CSP criteria were also in great need of discharge planning services specific to their circumstances. While work with CSP-eligible inmates continues,
CRS obtained grant funding this year from the Rhode Island Foundation to add discharge planning/reintegration services for non-CSP eligible inmates approaching the end of their sentences.
CSP inmates are generally considered high risk and needing long-term care. Non-CSP inmates
fall just shy of established CSP criteria. Generally, non-CSP inmates have not been hospitalized for long periods, can function with medications and have the potential to live on their own.
Fellowship Community Reintegration Service for non-CSP follows the same model used for
CSP inmates. Each group has a discharge planner who works to find housing, advocate for resources, and garner entitlements and proper documentation and identification, such as social
security cards and birth certificates. Proper documentation is at the top of the list for community agencies working with recently released offenders. The planner also coordinates care with
the appropriate community mental health or substance abuse programs prior to an inmate leaving prison.
CSP and non-CSP programming diverge slightly during post-release. While CSP tracks clients/
former inmates for one year after release for data collection, CSP clients are easier to track than
non-CSP. There is no structured monitoring based in a residential setting for non-CSP offenders. Instead it is up to the non-CSP discharge planner to coordinate appointments in the community, in conjunction with a parole/probation officer when appropriate.
Corrections Department staff have come to rely on CRS staff as a place to refer inmates with
mental health issues who are nearing release. In 2002, the first full year of CRS, RIDOC staff
referred 131 inmates. About 54% of the referrals already had a CSP history within the community and 79% had documented substance abuse issues. Only 22% had an employment history.
Referrals included inmates convicted of a variety of crimes ranging from non-violent offenses
242
to sexual assault, arson and homicide. Approximately, 62% of the referrals were white and
29% were black. In regards to educational levels, 24% went to elementary school, 34%
claimed some high school experience, and 18% earned GEDs.
Of the 131 referred, CRS accepted and discharged 56 into the community. Ninety-six percent
of them had CSP and substance abuse histories. Eighteen percent had employment histories,
while five percent had sex offender records and four percent had a history of arson.
In an effort to reconnect the inmates with the community upon release, CSP worked with ten
mental health agencies. Nine out of the 10 accepted CRS clients. The connection to community mental health centers did not guarantee housing for all 56 clients. Thirteen percent were
homeless upon release, while 37% moved in with family. The remaining clients entered supported housing, group homes, or were placed in rented apartments.
Eighteen out of the 56 discharges (32%) were recommitted to a correctional institution. The
figure compares favorably to a national recidivism rate of 60% for mentally ill offenders. It is
also consistent with the research that shows that clients who are engaged in mental health treatment and who have some sort of housing upon release are less likely to return to prison. Significantly, none of the clients that reside in the Fellowship’s group homes or supervised apartments since release have re-offended.
John was one of those former inmates who did not return to prison. He moved into a semisupervised apartment with a roommate upon his prison release. As a semi-supervised resident,
he receives help monitoring medications, organizing his finances, obtaining healthcare, mastering adult daily living skills, including grocery shopping and riding the public bus. At first, John
was afraid his old problems and acquaintances would resurface. CRS was able to envelop John
in a “circle of treatment” that included his social worker, parole officer, and doctors to reassure
him. In a semi-supervised setting residents are seen two to four times daily. Staff is available
to mentally ill ex-offenders from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. each day. The average length of stay varies in
the semi-supervised apartments. Similar to the amount of supervision a person receives, treatment decisions are made on a case-by-case basis. The careful discharge planning and comprehensive approach to John’s needs have kept him on the right path.
The collaboration between corrections, mental health and community-based providers provide
an effective mix of services and supervision for a challenging population. In so doing, it reduces recidivism, better protects the community, and improves the quality of life for some of
Rhode Island’s most vulnerable citizens.
243
Reentry Drug Courts in Texas:
Meeting the Challenge of Reintegration
Designing and implementing successful prisoner community reintegration programs to reduce
recidivism and create safer communities is one of the most complex challenges for public policy makers.
Texas’ substance abuse treatment initiative began in 1991, which created a variety of substance
abuse treatment programs for offenders in the criminal justice system of Texas. One of these
strategies was the Substance Abuse Felony Punishment Facility (SAFP). This program provided an alternative to revocation for offenders on community supervision, formerly known as
probation, in Texas. Under this program, an offender would be placed in a SAFP as a condition
of community supervision in lieu of revocation. Treatment was provided in a therapeutic community setting. Upon completion of the six-month program, the offender would be placed in a
residential transitional treatment center (TTC) for 90 days followed by nine to 12 months of
outpatient counseling after release from the TTC.
To enhance the offenders return to the community, HB 2668 was passed during the 2003 legislative session, which authorized the creation of reentry drug courts. This initiative was also
made available to offenders who have received substance abuse treatment in the SAFP’s. Texas
reentry drug courts focus on reestablishing community bonds and continuing substance abuse
treatment through aftercare, thus addressing major factors in the successful return and reintegration of offenders with substance abuse problems into the community.
245
In general, drug courts are a type of intensive supervision consisting of judicially monitored
treatment programs for non-violent offenders who are identified by offense history or assessment. Texas drug courts are also called drug treatment courts to distinguish them from drug
impact case-processing courts. Drug courts may occur at numerous points across judicial influence: pre-indictment, pre-trial, post-adjudication, and reentry. Drug courts may be adult, juvenile, tribal or family. Drug courts include ten key components that unite judicial criminal case
processing with the criminal justice system for maximum impact. Evaluation research indicates
that the model of the drug treatment court is highly effective in reducing recidivism.
The key components of drug courts as identified by the Department of Justice are:
1. Integration of substance abuse treatment with the justice system case processing
2. Use of a non-adversarial approach
3. Early identification and prompt placement
4. Access to a continuum of treatment
5. Frequent testing for alcohol and illicit drugs
6. A coordinated strategy among judge, prosecution, defense and treatment providers to
govern offender compliance
7. On-going judicial interaction with each participant
8. Monitoring and evaluation to measure achievement of program goals and measure effectiveness
9. Continuing interdisciplinary education
10. Partnerships with public agencies and community-based organizations to generate local
support and enhance drug court effectiveness
Reentry drug courts are now being combined in large jurisdictions with other elements of
Texas’ drug demand reduction strategy.
Reentry Drug Court Models
Travis, Solomon and Waul of the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, indicated that the moment of release, and the hours and days that immediately follow are very important for ultimate
success; partly, because a person moves from a highly controlled situation to one of anxious
freedom and overwhelming responsibilities. In the first phase of drug courts, there is the frequent and intense judicial interaction typical of drug court modality, combined with wraparound services from treatment or probation staff which bridges the release gap, and makes a
significant difference in outcomes. A team is attending to early signals of relapse. Unlike other
courts, there is very little lag-time in communication of treatment attendance, participation, and
drug test results. An authoritative and parental justice figure, the judge, is exercising personal
concern, immediate sanctions and rewards. A “bonded-ness” otherwise missing in many release
situations develops between the participant, others in the program and program staff. One senior community supervision officer in Dallas, and a SAFP staff member, noted that not only does
the offender benefit from increased pro-social bonding and the modeling of conventional behavior, but also the judge and the probation and court officers become more concerned, attached, and invested in the individuals being supervised and the eventual outcomes of the court
program.
246
Judge Robert Francis and Judge John Creuzot in Dallas, Texas have begun model SAFP reentry
courts. They have shared their protocols with several other jurisdictions in Texas. Judge Francis notes that throughout the program there are numerous immediate incentives to reward individuals for taking responsibilities, such as gaining career-oriented employment, attending treatment regularly, and contributing financially to treatment. There is an array of rewards and
sanctions available based on the probationer’s performance. Judge Francis has a unique token
system in his reentry court. Each token is worth $25. These tokens may be exchanged for reducing community service hours or reducing fines and court costs. Progress in the program can
result in less contact with the court and eventually early release from probation. Sanctions include loss of tokens, increasing community service hours, increasing supervision contacts, or
jail for some (variable) time. Lying or absconding will result in jail incarceration or return to
SAFP relapse track. Judge Francis’ program has been in place for two years and a recent outcome study shows a dramatic and significant decrease in recidivism compared to comparison
groups.
Judge Francis indicates that the orientation indoctrinates individuals to three main goals in addition to sobriety: no new arrests; reduction in recidivism rate; and employment in a job with career potential; and has two main rules: do not abscond and do not lie. The program phases are as
follows:
1. Phase I begins with an intake and orientation session at the first court appearance and
will generally last 60-90 days. The participant attends treatment and group support,
comes to court each week and receives incentives and sanctions, if warranted.
2. Phase II begins when the participant has completed his/her stay at the TTC and lasts until the aftercare outpatient counseling is completed. The participant attends treatment
and group support, comes to court twice a month, and receives incentives and sanctions,
if warranted.
3. Phase III requires a participant to have in place a self-designed, court approved longterm life plan. The participant must be actively and successfully working toward
achieving the goals of the plan. The participant attends treatment and group support,
comes to court once a month and receives incentives and sanctions, if warranted.
Graduation occurs every three months, and the participant is eligible after completion of the objective and subjective criteria, generally having been in the program for 15 to 21 months.
The judges volunteer their time for this effort, but the rest of the operation of the reentry and
other drug courts are funded by grants and other allocations from Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Community Justice Assistance Division (our probation division), grants from the
Office of the Governor, funds from the local probation departments, Law Enforcement Block
Grants, local county funds, and payments by program participants.
247
Dangerously Mentally Ill Offender Program
Washington State Department of Corrections
Joseph D. Lehman, Secretary
Introduction
During the past several decades there has been a proportionally increasing number of mentally
ill persons entering the criminal justice system nationwide. Washington State is no exception to
this trend. This increase of mentally ill and seriously mentally ill persons incarcerated in jails
and prisons has stretched the resources available, not only to identify them, but also to provide
adequate treatment within the prison systems. Additionally, the transitioning and release of
mentally ill offenders back to the community has met with daunting obstacles.
In 1997 in Washington State, a tragic event occurred, which triggered legislation and extensive
changes in practices of identifying and transitioning dangerous mentally ill offenders from prisons. Following a baseball game in downtown Seattle, a retired firefighter who was walking
with his family, was fatally stabbed in an unprovoked attack by a mentally ill man. This incident created a public outcry in regards to mentally ill persons who had histories of violence and
who were not adequately provided for in the criminal justice and mental health systems.
Few states have procedures established to identify and treat seriously mentally ill offenders being released from prison. These individuals, many of whom have co-occurring substance abuse
disorders, are of significant concern to the public. To address these concerns, a legislative subcommittee was established in 1998. This subcommittee held public meetings to provide a forum for state and local policymakers (including corrections, mental health, substance abuse, and
law enforcement representatives) to discuss the issues and explore possible solutions. Many
topics were raised, including: identification of and treatment provisions for mentally ill offenders who pose serious safety risks, offender supervision, information sharing, coordination of
249
services at both state and local levels, and identification of barriers regarding such concerns as
confidentiality and “turf” issues.
In 1999, the Washington State Legislature passed Substitute Senate Bill 5011, which required
improving the process of identifying and providing additional mental health treatment (and
other services) for mentally ill offenders who pose a threat to public safety being released from
the Department of Correction’s institutions. This legislation defines a “dangerous mentally ill
offender” as an offender who (a) is reasonably believed to be dangerous to self or others and (b)
has a mental disorder.
This legislation mandated the following:
•
The Department of Corrections is to identify offenders in confinement who meet the above
two criteria (a and b), and to consider behavior known to the department and research-based
factors that are linked with an increased risk for dangerous behavior, including an offender’s chemical dependency or abuse
•
The development of a plan for delivery of support services and treatment for the offender
prior to and upon release by a planning team composed of representatives from such agencies as the department of corrections, the state mental health division, substance abuse division, community mental health treatment providers and regional support networks, law enforcement and other individuals as indicated by the needs of the offender
•
The planning team to recommend:
Evaluation of the dangerous mentally ill offender by a county designated mental
health professional for involuntary mental health commitment
Voluntary community mental health or chemical dependency or abuse treatment
•
The Department of Corrections and the Department of Social and Health Services to develop rules and agreements to facilitate Medicaid eligibility applications and decisions prior
to release
•
The Department of Social and Health Services to contract for dangerous mentally ill offender case management and other services through the regional support networks or any
other qualified and appropriate service provider
•
The Washington State Institute for Public Policy, in conjunction with the University of
Washington’s Washington Institute for Mental Illness Research and Training, to conduct an
evaluation of Substitute Senate Bill 5011
Dangerous Mentally Ill Offender Implementation Overview
The dangerous mentally ill offender program was initiated in March 2000 beginning with the
identification process of offenders who would qualify for the program. Any offender who is
committed to a State of Washington prison facility is eligible for consideration if he or she
250
meets the conditions described in the legislation. The legislature’s intent was to provide additional mental health and other necessary treatment services and resources that would not otherwise be available upon release from prison, with the intent of decreasing the offenders' risk to
public safety. The dangerous mentally ill offender program provides additional funding for
those services ($10,000 per year for five years for each dangerous mentally ill offender.) This
funding is provided to the designated mental health agency to pay for these extra services. This
may include not only additional case management and mental health treatment services, but
also fulfilling such needs as chemical dependency treatment, vocational and educational services, living skills, sex offender treatment, and housing.
Selection Process
A number of mental illness indicators are maintained within the Department of Corrections'
electronic program database. A list from this database is generated monthly based on projected
release dates. This produces a relatively large pool of potential candidates whose cases are then
initially screened by the Department of Corrections' dangerous mentally ill offender program
staff. The remaining cases are then further reviewed by obtaining full clinical and other relevant information from the legal and medical files on each offender. Community-based mental
health and psychiatric hospitalization records are also obtained (as available) and that information is reviewed as well. The remaining candidates’ cases are then reviewed by a statewide
dangerous mentally ill offender selection committee, which makes the final determination as to
whether the offender meets criteria to be designated a dangerous mentally ill offender.
The selection committee is comprised of eleven professionals: the Department of Corrections
dangerous mentally ill offender program manager and the mental health division dangerous
mentally ill offender program manager. Additional members include representatives from the
state agency of Alcohol and Substance Abuse, Division of Developmental Disabilities, regional
support networks, community mental health providers, community corrections, law enforcement, county designated mental health professionals, and substance abuse treatment providers.
The committee determines whether the offender meets major mental disorder criterion and presents a high degree of risk to public safety or self (i.e. dangerousness). The committee also
makes recommendations as to whether the (now designated) dangerous mentally ill offender
should be transferred to a prison nearer to the geographic release area to facilitate transitioning
and be referred for evaluation for civil commitment (psychiatric) at the time of release.
Dangerous mentally ill offenders are considered to be one of the highest risk levels identified
within the State of Washington’s offender risk-level identification and management system. As
such, they are also provided the highest level of community transition services and supervision
as available within the department's jurisdiction.
Transition Team
Once selected, a copy of the information reviewed is forwarded to the identified mental health
provider agency so that pre-release engagement can begin. This pre-release planning is to occur
three to six months prior to the dangerous mentally ill offender’s earned/early release date.
251
During this time period, needs assessments, release planning, and services identification occur
by a multi-disciplinary team. This team has been identified and established through collaboration by the Department of Corrections, mental health, substance abuse, law enforcement, and
other stakeholders and will continue to work with the dangerous mentally ill offender following
release. This team continues to work with the dangerous mentally ill offender for up to the full
five years of eligibility with the expectation that through these extensive services, the dangerous
mentally ill offender will become increasingly stable and less of a risk to self and others.
The dangerous mentally ill offender transition team is also known as the multi-system care plan
team, which consists of numerous partners in the dangerous mentally ill offender’s treatment.
The team typically includes the institution risk management specialist, community risk management specialist, Department of Corrections and mental health division dangerous mentally ill
offender representatives, regional support network staff, community corrections officer, community mental health provider and case manager, department of alcohol and substance abuse
representative, law enforcement representative, and any other identified persons or agencies involved with the offender. Team members may also include such individuals as family members
and landlords.
The actual service planning begins while the dangerous mentally ill offender is still in prison.
Meetings will occur with the dangerous mentally ill offender in prison to engage the offender
and develop the best plan possible. The planning team is required to develop a full written transition plan, which is updated at each pre-release meeting as necessary. This plan is to include a
very detailed plan outlining the activities during the first 48-hours after release from prison.
This plan specifically addresses each team member’s roles and responsibilities regarding such
areas as transportation, housing, mental health appointments, obtaining basic necessities, and
other resources.
Preliminary Findings
Currently there are over 275 designated dangerous mentally ill offenders. Of this number, approximately 190 have already been released to the community. Preliminary data based on the
first 100 dangerous mentally ill offenders selected and released provide some promising information. A comparison group was developed utilizing information from data on mentally ill offenders who were released in the years 1996 and 1997.
Pre-Release “Transitional Mental Health Services”
Eighty-three percent of dangerous mentally ill offender program participants had received prerelease mental health services from community providers, compared with ten percent of the
comparison group.
The 83 percent of dangerous mentally ill offender participants receiving pre-release mental
health services averaged 7.3 hours per service month, while the ten percent comparison group
received an average 2.5 hours per service month.
Post-Release Mental Health Services
Ninety-four percent of dangerous mentally ill offender participants received community mental
health services in the first three months of post-release, compared with 29 percent of the com252
parison group.
The dangerous mentally ill offender participants receiving services in the first three months
post-release averaged 11.8 hours of services per month, while 29 percent of the comparison
group receiving services averaged 4.7 hours of services per month.
Post-Release Drug and Alcohol Services
Forty-five percent of dangerous mentally ill offender participants received drug and alcohol services post-release, compared to 25 percent of the comparison group.
It is too early to determine whether these services resulted in reduced criminal recidivism. The
research data continues to be compiled.
Challenges and Successes
Program implementation at an inter-agency level is often challenging, but even more so when it
involves a complex program with many different organizations and individuals who have typically not worked together previously in any sustained manner. Consistent with the dangerous
mentally ill offender legislation, new connections have been established between the correctional and mental health systems at both the state and local levels. One of the unrecognized
strengths of the program is the significant impact it has had on the ability of diverse organizations to collaborate on issues that previously had separated them in some manner.
Within the Department of Corrections, the identification and selection process of potential candidates was greatly refined in the second and third years of implementation with further refinements continuing. The growing number of dangerous mentally ill offenders has had an everincreasing impact on community mental health and other providers, in their capacity to serve
them at such an intensive service level. Several community mental health providers have therefore established specialized programs to work specifically with the dangerous mentally ill offender and other mentally ill offenders. The community partnerships continue to develop and
strengthen, due to the vastly improved communication and collaboration that has resulted from
this program.
When the program was initially implemented, there were significant reservations and fears
among some community mental health provider staff about serving this population, which continues to this day. The label “dangerous mentally ill offender” is rife with stereotypical assumptions and profiling of these individuals. In reality, 75 percent of the dangerous mentally ill
offenders had been previous consumers (albeit sporadically) in the public mental health system
prior to incarceration. This is an area of continued focus which has been positively impacted
through communication, education, specialization, and the mere fact of working with each dangerous mentally ill offender on an individual basis. However, safety planning for providers is a
continued and valid concern while working with this population.
Liability concerns as expressed by provider agencies and their insurance carriers have had significant impact on the willingness to serve this population as well. This is an ongoing issue
which is being addressed and may need additional legislative attention.
253
Summary
The dangerous mentally ill offender program was implemented in March 2000. The program
mandated the identification of seriously mentally ill prison inmates who were assessed to be at
high-risk to public safety or themselves. The program further mandated active discharge/
release planning to include community mental health providers. Case management services begin three to six months prior to release and entitlement applications are submitted prior to release. Community supports, needs assessments, and correlating services are developed as part
of the transition plan, which includes housing and crisis response plans.
The program provides for additional funding for these resources for up to five years to supplement entitlement funds. Preliminary outcome data suggest that the dangerous mentally ill offenders are receiving a significantly higher level of mental health services pre- and postrelease, as well as post-release substance abuse services, than a comparison group of previously
released mentally ill offenders.
A major impact of the program has been the vast degree of collaboration that has occurred
among numerous public and private agencies, and community stakeholders, and the relationships that have been established. This result has likely been one of the most impressive and favorable outcomes of the dangerous mentally ill offender legislation.
254
Elements of Release Planning for Mentally Ill Offenders
Introduction
Mentally ill inmates pose a significant challenge to correctional systems across the country.
Successful community reentry requires a multifaceted approach. The Wisconsin Department of
Corrections (WIDOC) is developing several initiatives to aid in the release planning of mentally
ill offenders who are incarcerated within adult institutions. These initiatives include a new mental health classification system, a process to apply for Social Security and Medical Assistance
benefits prior to release, and enhanced eligibility for minimum-security settings.
Mental Health Classification System
In May 2004, the Wisconsin Department of Corrections will begin to classify inmates according
to mental health status. There are four possible classifications:
MH-0 No current mental health need.
MH-1 Receiving mental health services, but does not have serious mental illness.
MH-2 Serious mental illness.
a. Offenders with a current diagnosis of (or in remission from) the following: Schizophrenia (all subtypes), Delusional Disorder, Schizophreniform Disorder, Schizoaffective Disorder, Psychosis NOS, Major Depressive Disorder, and Bipolar Disorder
I and II.
b. Inmates with current or recent symptoms of Brief Psychotic Disorder or SubstanceInduced Psychotic Disorder.
c. Inmates with head injury or other neurologic impairments that result in behavioral or
emotional dyscontrol.
255
d. Inmates with a primary personality disorder that is severe, accompanied by significant functional impairment, and subject to periodic decompensation (i.e. psychosis,
depression, or suicidality).
e. Inmates with chronic and persistent mood or anxiety disorders or other mental conditions that lead to significant functional disability.
MH-3 Mental retardation. (IQ of approximately 70 or below, with concurrent deficits or impairments in present adaptive functioning).
All inmates are assigned a mental health classification during the psychology intake screening
that is conducted 2 to 5 days after entrance into WIDOC. The classification is entered into a
central computer database for access by appropriate staff. Psychology staff can change the classification any time during incarceration if circumstances warrant. This system provides a classification and communication link between the institution and probation and parole agents. With
this universal means to identify inmates with a serious mental illness, probation and parole
agents will be able to focus their release planning efforts on those inmates who pose the greatest
need for community-based services.
Benefits Application
WIDOC has partnered with the Social Security Administration (SSA), the Wisconsin Disability
Determination Bureau (DDB), Department of Health and Family Services, and the State Council on Mental Health to develop a process whereby WIDOC can assist offenders in applying for
SSA and Medical Assistance (MA) benefits prior to their scheduled release from prison.
Through the process, an eligible offender will begin to receive financial benefits and health care
coverage shortly after return to the community.
Eligible offenders include those who have reached age 65 or have medical or mental health disabilities. For those with an adequate history of employment, benefits can include Social Security Disability (SSD), Retirement benefits, or Medicare coverage. For those without an adequate
history of employment, benefits can include Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Medicaid
coverage if financial need is demonstrated. This paper will focus on the application process for
those offenders who have mental health disabilities, although the process is similar for offenders who have medical disabilities. If both medical and mental health disabilities are suspected,
SSA applications address both issues.
The Social Security Act defines a mental disability as an inability to engage in any substantial
gainful activity by reason of a medically determined mental impairment. This impairment has
lasted or can be expected to last at least 12 months. The new mental health classifications of
MH-2 and MH-3 will identify offenders who, in the judgment of WIDOC psychologists, have
serious mental illness and mental retardation, respectively. Therefore, these classifications serve
as natural screens to identify those individuals who may be eligible for federal entitlements.
The process starts 180 days prior to release. Social workers review mental health classification
codes for all offenders who are scheduled for release in 6 months. If an offender has a mental
health classification code of MH-2 or MH-3, the social worker creates an electronic folder for
the offender that contains an Offender Benefits Tracking Record. The tracking record is a
WIDOC flow sheet that summarizes the required tasks over the following 6 months and pro256
vides boxes for social workers to mark off and date when completed.
Starting at 150 days prior to release, the assigned social worker meets with offenders and assists them in completing the required benefits forms and explains the benefit application process.
Starting at 90 days, the social worker forwards completed forms and mental health/medical records to the SSA and MA office and notifies the probation and parole agent of the submission
of these materials. The SSA forwards these materials to the Wisconsin Disability Determination
Bureau (DDB) for determination of whether disability requirements are met. The institution social worker responds to any further information requests from the SSA or DDB, and facilitates
an SSA interview with the offender if the SSA requests it.
Starting 60 days prior to release, the social worker contacts the SSA if an eligibility decision
has not been received. Once the decision is received, the social worker notifies the offender and
probation and parole agent. If the SSA denies eligibility, the social worker explains the reconsideration process to the offender.
On the day of release, the institution social worker contacts the SSA and confirms that the offender has been released. This informs the SSA that the offender is no longer within a correctional setting and is now eligible to receive benefits.
Once released, the probation and parole agent provides a general support function for the offender. For example, the agent will inform the offender and SSA that the agent’s address can be
used for receipt of a benefits check if the offender does not yet have a permanent address. The
agent may refer the offender to SSA if there has been a change in eligibility due to a new disability. The agent will encourage or assist the offender in promptly responding to additional information requests from SSA.
There are several potential benefits to this process. First, it creates a bridge between institution
staff and community corrections staff, requiring communication, coordination and planning in
advance of an offender’s scheduled release from prison. The outcome is likely to be a more
comprehensive release plan. Second, many of the current costs associated with medication and
psychiatric services provided after release by community corrections will be covered by federal
benefits, allowing community corrections to focus financial resources in other areas. Third, this
procedure ensures that there is not an interruption in critical mental health services that are necessary for successful reintegration.
Eligibility for Minimum Security Placements
Starting in 2004, the WDOC will make it easier for inmates on psychotropic medication to
transfer to minimum-security settings. Compared to higher security settings, these placements
provide more opportunity for job training, work release, and reintegration with the community.
Prior to 2004, offenders on psychotropic medication rarely made it to minimum-security settings due to concerns about emotional stability and the need for psychiatric follow-up. This lack
of access raised significant parity issues for those with mental illness.
257
The process will now focus on the emotional and behavioral stability of individual offenders
rather than the fact that the offender is taking psychotropic medication. Every offender who is
on psychotropic medication and under consideration for transfer to a minimum setting is evaluated by a psychologist for emotional and behavioral stability. This evaluation will include both
a file review and clinical interview. After the evaluation, the psychologist fills out a one-page
form that addresses the eligibility criteria and returns it to the classification specialist.
Eligibility criteria for the least restrictive minimum-security settings include the following: For
the past 6 months, there can be no suicide (or self-harm) behavior or thoughts, no placements in
observation status (suicide watch), and no dangerous behavior such as threats, intimidation, or
assault. The inmate needs to be compliant with medication and able to participate in work,
school and/or programming. For the past 3 months, there can be no change in dose or type of
psychotropic medication (although changes in timing are acceptable).
Every minimum-security setting is paired up with a nearby medium or maximum-security institution to provide psychiatric and psychological coverage. In most settings, offenders are transported to the institutions for appointments. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been
developed between minimum-security settings and corresponding institutions to address on-call
and emergency services, access to mental health services, transportation for appointments, mental health training of minimum-security staff, location of mental health records, and termination
of minimum-security status.
258
Chapter Four
Community/
Super vision Strategies
The Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program:
Managing Offenders upon Reentry for Safer Communities
Indiana Department of Correction
Evelyn Ridley-Turner, Commissioner
The creation of the Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (SOMM) program reflects a long-standing concern of the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC) with the monitoring and management of sex offenders. As early as 1988, the Department initiated sex offender-specific treatment programs at some institutions. By 1992, the Department began to develop the framework for a broader continuum, the containment model, systematically identifying sex offenders at the point of entry, monitoring them through incarceration and supervising
them in the community during parole. With the help of National Institute of Corrections technical assistance, Indiana brought in the consultation expertise of the Colorado Department of Correction, the Kentucky Department of Correction, and several nationally known experts in the
field to help create the current model for the SOMM program.
In 1999, IDOC enlisted Liberty Behavioral Health Corporation to implement the SOMM program within several IDOC institutions and to help build a community-based system of sex offender-specific treatment providers, polygraphers, and specialized District Coordinators, who
could support parole agents in monitoring these individuals in the community. Groundwork for
the program began in the spring of 1999, and services for offenders began in January 2000. The
SOMM mission was established as follows:
The Sex Offender Management and Monitoring Program will develop a collaborative,
statewide system to protect the public by reducing sex offender victimization in Indiana.
261
SOMM provides a continuum of services for sex offenders from incarceration through release
to community parole supervision and discharge. SOMM is a multi-phased approach. Phases I
and II are available to sex offenders in eight IDOC facilities. Phase III is community based.
Phase I (awareness) is mandatory for incoming sex offenders and voluntary for previously incarcerated offenders. It includes a basic 15-hour sex offense specific, psycho-educational curriculum and sets a foundation for Phase II. Phase II (psycho-education) is a voluntary program
of 150 hours of sex-offense specific programming with an additional 30 hours of more intense
programming for those in need of additional work. Phase II includes Static-99 risk assessments
and the development of individual relapse prevention plans for each offender. In this phase,
information is gathered for inclusion into the national Violent Criminal Apprehension Program
(ViCAP) database. Interest in Phase II services among committed sex offenders has been
strong, resulting in waiting lists for this phase. The Phase II summary report provides information for the supervising agent and district coordinator to begin to establish services, develop supervision plans and facilitate smooth reintegration into the community.
SOMM Phase III (Community Monitoring) facilitates a smoother reentry into the community,
and includes comprehensive, coordinated parole supervision. Teaming up in Phase III are specialized parole agents, credentialed treatment providers, polygraphers and district coordinators.
District coordinators serve as the liaison between the treatment provider, polygraphers, parole
agent and the community.
Phase III is mandatory for SOMM Parolees. It is designed to support and optimize the community reintegration process for SOMM offenders including:
•
Multi-agency collaboration - SOMM district coordinators, specialized parole agents, and a
network of credentialed sex offender treatment providers and polygraphers
•
Monitoring of parolee participation in community-based treatment and adherence to parole
stipulations.
•
A tracking system to monitor outcomes and re-offenses by type.
•
Sharing knowledge of sex offenders within a Containment Team.
The containment approach allows for and encourages communication among the agencies involved in monitoring and managing sex offenders in the community. This promotes wider coverage of the sex offender's movement, compliance with special sex offender parole stipulations,
and socialization (back into the community). Open communication among the agencies also
helps to counteract the inevitable manipulations, denial, and secretiveness that characterize sexual offending behavior patterns. Each discipline and agency brings its own expertise and specific information about a given sex offender. All are valuable in creating a more thorough understanding of risk factors and individual needs.
In this approach, the SOMM district coordinators, the IDOC, the Indiana Parole Board, sheriffs
and other local law enforcement, community agencies, treatment providers, polygraphers and
others work together to monitor compliance with post-release conditions for supervision, including sex offender-specific treatment, cognitive-behavioral management, polygraphy, and
262
other services and supports. Regular containment team meetings include the SOMM network
treatment provider, polygrapher, specialized parole agent, and district coordinator. Annual
meetings of SOMM stakeholders have included community mental health, legislators, the Indiana Department of Mental Health, victim advocates, prosecutors, law enforcement, community
corrections, and others.
Since SOMM began services in 2000 through February 2004, 3,307 offenders have completed
Phase I; 77 have completed Phase II, and 20 have completed the additional 30-hour intensive
program. One thousand four hundred and seventy-three (1,473) SOMM parolees have been supervised within Phase III. Of the 546 parolees currently in Phase III, 89% are in network treatment and 939 polygraphs have been completed. The current recidivism rate for SOMM parolees with any new offense is 6.5%, as compared to the national average of 36%.
The Indiana Sex Offender Management and Monitoring (SOMM) Program is an innovative,
evidence-based program that invites collaboration between public, private, state, and local entities for the reduction of sex offenses. SOMM provides specialized programming for adult sex
offenders committed to the IDOC and utilizes a containment model to provide maximum protection to the public during supervision in the community. Early evidence suggests that the
SOMM continuum of services and monitoring provides better re-integration into the community
for adult parolees and reduces victimization. Since the IDOC releases about half of adult offenders to probation supervision under the jurisdiction of local courts, the Department is working with the judiciary and others to expand awareness of the SOMM containment model and
resources to serve other community corrections populations.
263
The Shawnee County Reentry Program
Through the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) of the Department of
Justice, the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) obtained funding to develop a model of
best practices related to offender reentry. This model will be used to establish changes in policies and practices throughout the system, both by KDOC staff, community representatives and
service providers. The model is being developed in the capital city of Topeka, and is called the
Shawnee County Reentry Program (SCRP).
The program office is located in the workforce development center, upstairs from the local
Workforce Investment Board “one stop,” which is one of the key partners of the program. The
program director works with a program specialist and two case manager advocates, a police department reentry liaison, and facility resource coordinator, to develop, implement, and provide
reentry services to serious, violent and high-risk offenders.
The program is supported by over fifty active community partners, at the state and local level,
who address the criminogenic needs of returning offenders. Partners include local providers of
housing, employment, mental health, and substance abuse services, as well as neighborhood
organizations, victim service providers, law enforcement, and rehabilitated offenders. The partners are active primarily in three ways. The first role is as an active participant on a reentry
steering committee that serves as an oversight group from the community providing advice and
support to the overall program.
The second role of the community partners is to form community expert teams who come together to address particular reintegration needs and identify barriers encountered by offenders
265
when trying to access services, so that offenders’ needs can be addressed at release. This work
is done both at the system level and in regard to specific individual cases.
Third, members of the community serve on Accountability Panels. These panels have three
functions. Within 18 days of release, offenders are greeted by the panel to welcome them
home, let them know the panel members plan to be involved in their success and in holding
them accountable for their behavior. The clear message to the offenders is that the community
hopes they will succeed but will not tolerate criminal behavior. Second, this panel participates
in review of cases where offenders are not doing well, where conditions of supervision are being violated, and when it is necessary, to identify interventions and ultimately make decisions
about whether the offender remains in the community. This is a process of assessing risk, determining if interventions less than imprisonment can lessen the risk, determining if missing
resources need to be obtained, and ultimately deciding whether to leave the offender in the
community. The third function of the panels are to recognize and celebrate success. Sometimes success can be found in a lengthened period of sobriety, obtaining meaningful employment, completing a significant goal, or completing and graduating from the program.
Against the framework of this community program, offenders are identified throughout the
Kansas prison system who are between the ages of 18 and 35, are 12 months from release, have
served two years or longer, and who are scheduled for release to Shawnee County. This involves a great deal of dialogue with facility classification and case management staff. A review
of the offender’s history occurs, including an LSI-R assessment, to determine his or her risk
level. Male offenders identified as suitable candidates for these services are housed at or transferred to Lansing Correctional Facility (LCF). Lansing is one hour from Shawnee County, and
the closest facility housing male offenders. It houses inmates of all custody levels and has an
on-site Therapeutic Community, medical and mental health care, and an Intensive Management
Unit which provides cognitive programming and services to repeat disciplinary violators. The
females in Kansas are housed in the Topeka Correctional Facility (TCF) exclusively, so they are
already located in the best location for these services.
Once the offender is located at LCF or TCF, the case manager advocate conducts a lengthy interview to obtain information necessary to start transitional planning. Then, in collaboration
with the offender and unit team counselor, a detailed, tailored case plan is developed. Work is
done under this plan, to address criminogenic risk and need, and to stabilize the offender in anticipation of release in six months. At this point the transition team is joined by the parole officer from the community and the police reentry liaison officer. The plan is updated with an eye
toward release within six months. Housing, employment, family, treatment, and other needs are
addressed. Work with the offender includes formal classroom work delivered by staff and volunteers and individual case management. Pending detainers are identified and addressed, home
plans are reviewed for approval, and job preparedness and cognitive work are center pieces,
with the offender being held accountable to the plan she/he negotiated along the way. Mentors
who have been trained to address job preparedness and cognitive issues are matched with appropriate offenders, when these areas are identified as high criminogenic risk/need issues for
the offender. The mentor meets with the offender weekly working on release planning, addressing the psycho-social implications of release, providing the offender with a pro-social influence, and targeting the criminogenic issues. In this respect, the mentor works as part of the
266
transition team.
Before release the parole officer holds an interview with the offender, as does the police officer
reentry liaison. Expectations upon release, as well as a clear message of a supportive helping
hand, are delivered to the offender. Mental health and substance abuse assessments are completed after a pre-screening, which identifies those offenders in possible need of these services.
Necessary linkages are established in the community through the case manager advocates to
include the scheduling of appointments and any other steps needed to prepare the community
for the offender’s return. Working closely with victim services in appropriate cases, safety
plans are developed, conditions and requirements regarding victim contact are established, and
work is done with the offender to enhance his/her empathy and awareness related to victimization.
At the point of release, the case manager advocate continues to take the lead in addressing
criminogenic needs, and works closely with the parole supervisor to ensure that the supervision
case plan is followed. Any adjustments to the case plan are done by a joint effort with the offender, parole officer, and case manager advocate. This team interacts with the accountability
panel as necessary to respond to positive or negative behavior, and carry out the case plan. At
six months after release, if the parole officer, case manager advocate and offender agree that the
offender is adequately stabilized, the offender completes the reentry program, participates in a
formal graduation ceremony, and the parole officer assumes lead responsibility for the case.
The University of Kansas is providing comprehensive evaluation services, and works closely
with the Program Director and KDOC Director of Reentry to address issues regarding implementation of the program. The Shawnee County Reentry Program is one of the nineteen selected for national evaluation by the Research Triangle Institute and Urban Institute, to identify
overall the practices that are, or are not, effective in reentry. The Shawnee County Reentry Program began serving offenders in mid-2003, and has nearly fifty offenders enrolled as of April
2004. The effective strategies identified and lessons learned in the development and implementation of this model are being used to undertake similar efforts in Sedgwick and Wyandotte
counties, two of the states most urban counties.
267
Victim Services and Offender Reentry
The Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC) implemented the Shawnee County Reentry
Program (SCRP) for serious and violent offenders in January 2003. The mission of that program is to establish community support and provide services to assist offenders in effectively
transitioning from prison back to the Topeka community as productive, law abiding citizens.
The Kansas Department of Corrections Division of Victim Services works closely with the
SCRP to support that mission and to fulfill the vision of the department, “A safer Kansas
through effective correctional services.”
Under the department’s model of offender management through risk reduction, the SCRP relies
on its community partners to assist with offender reentry. Crime victims are an important, but
too frequently, forgotten part of all communities with a unique and important perspective.
Crime victims have an interest in offenders reentering society successfully. They do not want
offenders to create new victims, nor do they want to be re-victimized themselves. Victim notification and victim participation are two basic and important rights of crime victims. These services not only address the needs of crime victims, but they contribute to the larger goal of public safety and successful offender reentry. Including victims in all processes and listening to
their voices should reduce the risk of offenders creating new victims and increase the likelihood
of positive offender outcomes.
The work of KDOC Victim Services focuses on both macro and micro perspectives of offender
reentry and community safety. Crime Victim Awareness training for reentry staff, specific notification procedures, including victims and victim service providers in Accountability panels,
and responding to individual needs of crime victims are methods incorporated as an essential
269
component of successful offender reentry. As the SCRP program evolves, more formal crime
victim awareness programming is planned for delivery within the correctional facilities. Follow-up programming will continue in the community after release. Lessons learned in the
SCRP program about the integration of victim oriented training and services will be used to refine the delivery of similar services elsewhere in Kansas.
In most correctional settings, staff tends to consider only the needs of the offender in release
planning. But the crime itself, the impact of the crime on the victim, and the needs of the victim once the offender is released have historically not been considered. Recognizing the relevance of this information and developing some sensitivity to crime victims is a first step in creating a more comprehensive response to all persons impacted by the return of offenders to the
community.
When the SCRP program was first established, the Division of Victim Services provided basic
Victim Awareness Training to lay a foundation of knowledge and sensitivity about the impact
of crime on victims and to ensure that victims were always regarded as legitimate stakeholders
in this effort. The training included general information about the impact of crime and trauma
on victims, confidentiality, safety planning, and offender accountability. It assisted program
staff to better understand the needs of victims, what victims really think and want (instead of
what is often incorrectly assumed), and what role victims might want to play in actually assisting offenders returning to the community.
Victim Services also developed a procedure for victim notification specific, to the SCRP. Victim Services currently notifies registered crime victims of an offenders release four months
prior to the release date. However, the SCRP begins working with offenders eighteen months
prior to release, which means that crime victims also need to be notified eighteen months prior
to the offender’s release. The purpose of that notification is to provide information to victims
and to identify concerns of the victims. Such early identification offers greater opportunity to
problem solve issues that the offender may be confronted with when released, while offering an
opportunity to develop solutions that offer genuine assurances that victims’ concerns have been
addressed. Specific solutions are developed on a case-by-case basis. The spectrum of issues
range from a victim desiring that the offender be allowed to come home in cases of domestic
violence to a victim having serious safety concerns about the offender returning to a particular
community.
Allowing an offender to return home where the victim resides may or may not contribute to the
offender’s success, and may or may not reduce risk, but is considered, as are all other criminogenic needs presented. On rare occasions, due to real threats to the victim, the offender may not
be allowed to return to Shawnee County. The decision is made based on victim and community
safety and how the risk to re-offend may be reduced by the decision. Communication between
the victim, SCRP staff, correctional facility staff, Victim Services, the Kansas Parole Board,
and parole supervisors occurs on a regular basis and is necessary for successful reentry.
At the system level, the SCRP has accountability panels that consist of various community
members who meet regularly with program participants. These community members include
mental health providers, drug and alcohol experts, representatives from faith-based organiza270
tions, neighborhood representatives, victim services representatives, and other people who provide services within the community. The victim services representatives provide general victim
education, as well as a victims’ perspective on the meaning of public safety when meeting with
the offenders and other panel members.
A number of positive things have occurred as a result of the involvement of crime victims in the
process. Two victim “wrap-arounds” have occurred when the victims contacted victim services
upon receiving notification letters. Wrap-arounds consist of community members and KDOC
staff meeting with the victim to provide resources or connect the victim with resources he/she
was previously unaware of, which improve the victim’s sense of safety, contribute to the victim’s safety plan and/or respond to the victim’s concerns about the viability of an offender’s
progress and supervision in the community.
Another program impact not easily quantified is the comfort this program has provided to crime
victims. Anecdotally, Victim Services received phone calls from several victims initially expressing great concern about particular offenders returning to Shawnee County. Once the victims were provided with more detailed and specific information about the SCRP, they were
more comfortable with the offender’s release because many people and community organizations were involved in the process. Victims have stated that knowing about the program has
helped alleviate their fears.
From the perspective of the SCRP team, there is an understanding of the need to consider crime
victims in the work of reentry. What was the crime? Who is the victim? What is the relationship between the offender and victim? Does the offender owe restitution? These are all questions that are considered in addition to all of the traditional release planning questions.
Kansas has had the opportunity to implement a pilot reentry project for serious and violent offenders. In the process of implementing the program, Victim Services has also had the opportunity to improve services to victims, the community and to offenders. Specific notification, specialized training, and participation on accountability panels have proven to be beneficial to all.
Including victims, their needs and their perspectives may slow the process of developing reentry plans for offenders. It may increase the complexity of the initial work involved. It often
makes things messy. The experience of the SCRP to date, however, is that the time and care
taken at the beginning has truly improved offender outcomes, made victims feel safer, and created a formidable ally and advocate for offender reentry done well.
The Kansas Department of Corrections has services available to over 20,000 registered crime
victims. The SCRP is providing more direction for best practice throughout the system and assists the department in achieving its vision of a safer Kansas.
271
Ceasefire Curb Violence Offender Meetings
In May 2001, President George W. Bush announced Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN.) PSN
renews gun crime enforcement efforts by establishing a task force of federal and local officials
to develop a comprehensive strategic plan to fight gun violence and focus on public safety. In
October 2002, Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole became a
member of the task force established by the United States Attorney, Western District of Missouri. This PSN task force is comprised of representatives from the U.S. Attorney's office;
Kansas City Missouri Crime Commission; Independence Missouri Police Department; University of Missouri-Kansas City Criminal Justice Department; Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; Move Up (a local community organization focused on stopping violence); Valentine
Radford Advertising, Inc.; Clay County Missouri Prosecuting Attorney; Kansas City Missouri
Police Department; Jackson County Missouri Sheriff's Department; Missouri State Highway
Patrol; and Missouri Probation and Parole.
One of the areas the task force has focused on is media outreach and community engagement.
A key component is Operation Ceasefire, an outreach program to prevent gun crime by felons.
The target population of the educational aspect of Operation Ceasefire is aimed at persons who
have been convicted of felonies. It is hoped that these educational efforts will benefit the community with a decrease in violent crimes, fewer firearms injuries and deaths, less disruption to
the families of felons due to arrests, injuries, deaths, and family violence, and a lower rate of
arrests and incarcerations of convicted felons for firearms offenses. An extensive media blitz
using television, billboards, print ads, mailers, etc. was used to educate the public of the consequences, including federal prosecution efforts for felons charged with possession of a firearm.
All of the probation and parole district offices in the western region of Missouri displayed OpCommunity / Supervision Strategies
273
eration Ceasefire posters and provided informational cards to each offender who reported to the
district offices in efforts to increase their awareness. The UMKC Criminal Justice department
prepared a survey, which was mailed to 1000 households in the community, to measure awareness of the Operation Ceasefire campaign as well as safety related concerns. The same survey
was given to all probation and parole offenders reporting to one of the district probation and
parole offices in the western region. This process will be repeated in approximately six months.
In 2003, the task force started the process of implementing offender meetings that would provide further awareness to felons of the consequences of continued involvement in violence and
specifically possession of firearms. These meetings were patterned after similar programs in
High Point, North Carolina and Indianapolis, Indiana. The Missouri parole board agreed that
certain identified parolees, being released to the Jackson County, Missouri area could be given
directives requiring attendance at these meetings. Each inmate is required to submit a proposed
home plan prior to release from prison. Probation and Parole officers in the district offices in
the Western region review the criminal arrest records of each parolee proposing to reside in
Jackson County, Missouri. Any offender who has had an arrest or conviction for a weapons
related offense, an offense that involved a firearm or any violence related offense is targeted for
the Ceasefire Stop Violence offender meetings.
One staff person has been given the responsibility for coordination of this project. The names
of the targeted offenders are kept in a database. Meetings are held once every 3 months. Approximately six weeks prior to the meeting date, the names in the database are checked to determine that they are, in fact, residing in Jackson County Missouri and are available to attend a
meeting. These names are forwarded to UMKC whose staff randomly selects two equal sized
groups - a control group and a group that will actually be invited to attend the Ceasefire Curb
Violence meeting.
Once the names have been assigned to one of the groups, the control group is given a survey
(developed by UMKC) that measures awareness of Operation Ceasefire and attitudes towards
law enforcement and probation and parole. The offenders who have been targeted to attend the
meeting are sent a letter of invitation from the probation and parole regional administrator. The
significant other with whom the offender resides is sent a similar letter inviting them to attend
the meeting with the parolee. The probation and parole officer who supervises the offender
then gives the offender a directive to attend the meeting, making attendance an expectation of
their parole supervision. The names of offenders in both groups is provided to Kansas City
Missouri Police Department who enters this information into their alert computer system. Any
time a police officer has any contact with an offender whose name is targeted in their computer
system, a report is completed providing information about the contact and the report forwarded
to probation and parole. Those reports are reviewed by the probation and parole staff project
coordinator and then forwarded to UMKC for evaluation.
Just prior to the Ceasefire Curb Violence meeting, offenders attending the meeting are given the
same survey the control group was given. These are collected and all surveys forwarded to
UMKC. The meetings are held at a church in the community that has agreed to provide us
space. The offenders and their significant others sit together and listen to short presentations
from representatives from the U.S. Attorney's office, Kansas City Missouri Police Department,
274
Independence Police Department, Jackson County Prosecutor's office, the Federal Public Defender's office, and Probation and Parole. These presentations focus on our desire that the offenders make a successful adjustment in the community and are able to remain arrest free.
There is assurance that resources are available in the community to assist them. They are also
advised of the consequences of continued violent behavior and assured of the aggressive prosecution efforts against felons charged with possession of a firearm.
The offender and his or her significant other are then introduced to representatives from various
community resources that are available to meet with the offenders regarding their specific
needs. Light refreshments are served and the participants are encouraged to take advantage of
this opportunity to meet with the service providers in attendance. Each participant is given a
folder containing information and contact names and telephone numbers for a variety of resources specific to the area of the county in which they reside.
Approximately six weeks after the meeting a letter is sent from the U.S. Attorney and probation
and parole region administrator to the participants who attended the meeting thanking them for
their attendance and encouraging them to continue their successful adjustment and to ask for
assistance if needed. Both groups are given the original survey again in six months. UMKC
Criminal Justice department staff is collecting data and plans to measure any change in attitude
and awareness, as well as additional arrests and convictions.
Thus far, there have been two Ceasefire Curb Violence offender meetings with 30 parolees attending. Ten offenders, who were selected to attend, failed to do so. They have been placed
into a third group that will also be monitored by UMKC staff. The next meeting is scheduled
for April 2004. The hope is to have enough data collected for evaluation by October 2004.
This collaboration has had a significant impact on the relationship between probation and parole
and local law enforcement and the U.S. attorney's office. There is greater understanding of our
job functions and we are working together to positively influence the re-integration of parolees
into this community. These meetings have also brought together community service providers
from throughout the county from a variety of disciplines, and increased their awareness of law
enforcement's efforts to assist offenders. The hope is that these meetings will have a significant
impact on the successful re-integration of the offenders who have had the opportunity to participate in the meetings. This should improve their perception of law enforcement, increase their
understanding of the consequences for continued involvement in violent behavior, aid them in a
more successful adjustment, and increase the overall safety of this community.
275
A Treatment Engagement Strategy for Sex Offenders
Released to the Community
Background
Sexual offenders and their management in correctional and community settings present a formidable challenge for states around the country. Like other states, New Jersey’s system for treating convicted sex offenders has strengths, as well as limitations. The primary strengths include
the state’s Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, which is dedicated solely to the intensive
treatment of convicted sexual offenders, and a long-standing, workable law that separates those
sexual offenders found “repetitive and compulsive” from those not so designated. Repetitive
and compulsive sexual offenders receive state-of-the-art treatment while incarcerated and free
aftercare treatment. By contrast, those sexual offenders not designated as repetitive and compulsive, about 75% of the total, and who are housed in general population receive considerably less
therapeutic attention while incarcerated, and even less once released to the community.
The New Jersey State Parole Board currently supervises approximately 900 sexual offenders
under the New Jersey Code of Criminal Justice (N.J.S. 2C: 43-6.4) Sentence of Community Supervision for Life (CSL.) There are another 2,245 inmates in New Jersey prisons who will be
released under this statute to the New Jersey State Parole Board to community supervision for
life. Although a condition of CSL is that the individual receive sexual offender specific treatment in the community, there is often no financial provision for treatment. Parole officers frequently note that they cannot realistically enforce community treatment conditions because the
offenders are unemployed or severely underemployed, and hence, are unable to pay for even
277
modestly priced treatment. Parole evidence reveals that sexual offenders, with varying risk levels and who are on community supervision, sometimes go months after release before accessing
treatment. Many of these individuals require immediate professional treatment in the community to effectively manage their sexual tendencies. Placing these individuals in the community
without appropriate treatment imposes safety risks. Indeed, research evidence shows that treatment is the best way to reduce predatory behavior among sexual offenders.
A vital component of any community reentry plan for sexual offenders is treatment for sexual
offending behavior. It is frequently argued, by both parole officers and ex-offenders, that accessing treatment in the community is not feasible for people with sex offending histories reentering the community, in part because appropriate treatment services are not readily available in
the community, and in part because those treatment services that are available are too expensive
for people without insurance. New Jersey needed to address this reality in order to promote
public safety.
Design and Development
The New Jersey Department of Corrections, in cooperation with the New Jersey State Parole
Board, developed a grant proposal requesting funding for a pilot intervention that provides free
sexual offender treatment for six months, at participating district parole offices, for sexual offenders released from prison on CSL. It was thought that locating the services at the parole office would increase its convenience, while the "no charge for treatment" provision would reduce
financial barriers, thereby increasing treatment engagement among sexual offenders recently
released from general population. Free treatment is being provided for the first six months
post-release in an effort to facilitate the individual's immediate treatment engagement and to
maintain that connection while the individual is adjusting to the stresses and strains of finding
suitable housing and employment.
Our efforts were recognized and in October 2002, the New Jersey Department of Corrections
was awarded a two-year grant from the Office of Justice Programs under the Comprehensive
Approaches to Sex Offender Management Program. The purpose of the grant is to fund enhanced training for parole officers supervising sexual offenders on CSL and the provision of
free treatment at six district parole offices located in various parts of New Jersey. In addition,
the grant funds a study of the effectiveness of the treatment intervention. The study is being
conducted by the Center for Mental Health Services & Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers
University. The primary goal of this study is to determine whether free treatment at the parole
offices affects treatment engagement for sexual offenders on CSL and to identify the attributes
of the offenders that predict improved access and treatment effectiveness.
An interdisciplinary team has been assembled to facilitate the implementation of the grant. The
team is comprised of representatives from the Department of Corrections, the State Parole
Board, the State Police, and Rutgers University, as well as stakeholders representing the judiciary and victims advocates. The team meets every six to eight weeks to discuss the recruitment
of subjects for the research study, the training of the parole officers, and progress on the research. Details about the training and research components of the grant are discussed below.
Parole and Probation Officer Training. One of the goals of the initiative is to provide all parole
278
officers working with sexual offenders sentenced to CSL with enhanced training on the supervision of these offenders. In cooperation with the Center for Sex Offender Management (CSOM),
comprehensive training was designed covering issues related to supervision strategies, case
management, community resource networking, and information on best practices supported by
research evidence. With funding from the grant, a three-day sexual offender management training program has been provided to all parole officers and select probation officers supervising
sexual offenders. The training program included modules on the psychology of sexual offending, relapse prevention, the containment model, supervision strategies, case management, and
community networking. The training modules were developed and presented by an experienced
team of instructors and included a victim advocate, two State Police investigators, treatment
providers, a representative from the state’s Attorney General’s office, sex offender researchers,
and a Superior Court Judge. A systematic evaluation of the training program is underway.
Feedback from the officers has been very positive. They found the training to be very useful
and directly applicable to their daily case management of the sex offender population. In addition, as part of the grant, a resource directory has been assembled and distributed to the officers.
The resource directory, organized by county, identifies available resources to sexual offenders
for treatment, housing, employment, and other social services.
Treatment Engagement Intervention. A major component of the grant is the provision of free
treatment to recently released sexual offenders at the parole district offices. Whether convenience and affordability matters in terms of treatment engagement, it is of central importance to
New Jersey's effort to engage recently released sexual offenders in treatment. For this reason,
the research component of the grant focuses on assessing whether providing free treatment at
the parole offices improves treatment engagement post-release. It is important to note that the
study population includes a broad group of convicted sexual offenders. To be eligible for the
study the sex offender must (1) be on CSL; (2) not have been evaluated for treatment by a community provider in the past year; and (3) be on the parole registry for the six participating district parole offices. Eligible participants are given a flier describing the study by social workers
at the prison or parole officers at the district offices. Those interested in learning more about the
study sign the flyer and return it to the social worker or parole officer. Once signed, the researcher meets with the individual to discuss the details of the study. After reviewing the details
of the study and the requirements for voluntary consent, researchers invite interested individuals
to participate in the study. As a condition of participation, volunteers are provided with an opportunity to receive free group therapy at the parole district office for six months. Volunteers
are interviewed for 30 minutes by researchers at the point of enrollment in the study, and at 3-,
6-, and 9-months post-enrollment. The interview includes questions about their need for, and
use of, a broad range of services, their motivation to use services, the barriers they experienced
in accessing services, and their satisfaction with services.
Therapy groups are provided at the parole district office where the individual is required to report. The therapy is provided by licensed psychologists experienced in sexual offender treatment. The therapy groups have ten or fewer members. The groups are scheduled in the evenings to accommodate the work schedules of those who are employed. The therapist keeps
weekly attendance records and conducts exit assessments, which are provided to the research
team (with signed consent from study subjects.)
279
In total, 70 subjects have been enrolled in the study since July 2003, with another five expected
to be enrolled prior to the end of the enrollment period (May 31, 2004.) All the subjects are
male and the majority is white (73 %), never married (65 %), and have at least a high school
education (67 %). Three-quarters of the sample were convicted on a charge of child molestation
or incest, and roughly 70 percent of the sample had no prior convictions. Females who were
acquainted with the offender were the most common victims. The research team is still recruiting subjects and collecting data. Results from the evaluation are expected in January 2005.
Conclusion
The New Jersey Department of Corrections and the State Parole Board are committed to developing a continuum of care and community case management, in the reentry process, for sexual
offenders on community supervision. Yet to fulfill this responsibility, information is needed on
which programs work, as are resources to implement these programs. The federal funding provided by the Office of Justice Programs has helped New Jersey on both those fronts. The research component of the study is improving our understanding of the barriers to treatment engagement in the period immediately following release and how these barriers can be surmounted. The resources for treatment and training have improved the effective management
and supervision of sexual offenders by parole officers in the days and months following release.
Most especially, this initiative has improved the safety of our communities - our paramount
goal.
280
Parole Violator Needs Assessment Survey
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
Jeffrey A. Beard, Ph.D., Secretary
Introduction
In response to concerns that parole violators are becoming a driving force in increasing prison
admissions, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PA DOC) recently conducted a needs
assessment of its parole violator population. The primary objective of this assessment was to
explore what was happening in inmates’ lives while out on parole that may have contributed to
their return to prison. Findings from this study are intended to inform more effective treatment
approaches for offenders that will better prepare them for the challenges they will face upon
release.
Methods
To assess the needs of parole violators (PVs), the PA DOC conducted a survey of technical and
convicted PVs who returned to incarceration in twelve state correctional institutions. Nearly
600 PVs were surveyed over a two-month period in early 2003, representing approximately
75% of the PA DOC’s total PV admissions during that time period. The surveys were administered to PVs as soon as possible after their return to prison to elicit fresh recollections of the
events surrounding their violation. The in-depth survey, developed by PA DOC staff, included
questions about living arrangements, financial situation, employment, leisure activities, marital/
family relationships, alcohol/drug use, community supervision experience, and thoughts and
emotions while on parole. At the end of the data collection period, a total of 542 surveys were
completed.
After initial results from the survey were compiled and analyzed, reoccurring themes were further explored through focus groups that were conducted at four of the twelve participating instiCommunity / Supervision Strategies
281
tutions. Approximately 60 PVs were interviewed in small groups of 7 to 10. A “focus group
guide” was developed by PA DOC staff in order to facilitate these group discussions.
Results from the survey were also matched with other PA DOC data sources for three purposes:
1) to look for reoccurring themes across multiple data sources, 2) to expand the data pool of information gathered on parole violators, and 3) to examine the consistency of respondents’ answers as a measure of reliability.
Major Findings
For the most part, PVs reported positive information regarding their social network and living
arrangements. Only 20% of respondents indicated that their prison experience did not prepared
them to meet their post-release living needs. Eighty-two percent indicated that they had few
difficulties finding a place to live upon release. In addition, nearly three-fourths of PVs indicated that they lived in low crime neighborhoods while on parole, although this may be more a
function of individual perceptions of the level of neighborhood crime. Positive findings on living arrangements were further reaffirmed through discussions with PVs in focus groups.
Parole violators also reported maintaining a solid support network of family and friends to turn
to for help or support. Eighty-nine percent of those in a relationship (e.g., wife, girlfriend, etc.)
reported that the relationship was working out mostly good to excellent. Furthermore, 85% indicated that they had at least one friend that they could turn to for help, 89% indicated that they
could turn to their partner/spouse for help, and 89% indicated that they could turn to their family for help. From both the survey results and the focus groups, PVs also reported spending the
majority of their leisure time with family members. The study revealed no clear pattern concerning the extent of PVs’ post-release criminal associations, other than that older PVs appear
to maintain less criminal associations than younger PVs.
For the most part, PVs reported encouraging information concerning employment. Eighty-two
percent of PVs indicated that they were legally employed while on parole. Seventy-six percent
indicated that legal employment was their primary source of income. Only 17% indicated that
it was difficult to get a job when last released from prison. In focus groups, PVs reiterated the
theme that it was not difficult to find a job. A common complaint, however, was that the types
of available jobs were unsuitable and provided insufficient income to make ends meet. To a
certain degree this represents a legitimate concern for the types of employment that parolees are
eligible to obtain upon release from prison. On the other hand, the weight of the evidence gathered from this study suggests that many PVs hold unrealistic job expectations and simply refuse
to take low-end jobs or work their way up from the bottom.
Furthermore, PVs indicated significant financial management difficulties. Financial management problems only exacerbated the quandary of trying to make ends meet while holding lowpaying jobs. Seventy-seven percent of PVs indicated that they had some sort of debt while last
on parole, with a median debt of over $4,500. PVs reported that money management issues
were among the strongest problems contributing to their failure on parole and that prison prepared them very little or not at all to deal with their financial concerns upon release from prison.
Interestingly, while those who indicated illegal activities as a primary source of income reported a significantly larger monthly income than those who indicated legal employment as a
282
primary source of income, both groups reported being equally unable to make ends meet. This
suggests that even when provided with an adequate income, many PVs lack the financial discipline and money management skills to save and pay for necessities.
Survey results and focus group findings indicated that a significant proportion of PVs regularly
used alcohol or other drugs while last on parole. Fifty-seven percent indicated that they drank
or used drugs while last on parole, on average three days a week. Also, 54% reported that they
started drinking or using drugs longer than a month before receiving their most recent violation,
indicating that substance abuse problems were not unique to the last days before receiving a parole violation. However, those who had previously participated in prison substance abuse treatment programming indicated that they were significantly better prepared to deal with substance
abuse problems. This indicates that in-prison substance abuse treatment seems to have a significant impact on PVs’ perceptions of positive treatment effects.
From the focus groups, the most evident trend in the domain of alcohol or other drug (AOD)
use was that there appears to be a dichotomy between PVs with high AOD needs and those with
low AOD needs. For some violators, AOD use represented a major obstacle that significantly
contributed to their failure on parole. These individuals represent the true addicts. On the other
hand, many PVs reported drinking or using while last on parole but their violation did not appear to be the immediate result of their substance use. Instead, for these individuals, substance
use represented one of many symptoms of a more profound problem of anti-social values, attitudes, and beliefs.
PVs indicated that emotional problems (e.g., stress, depression, frustration, worry, etc.) contributed more to their failure on parole than any other potential contributor, including AOD use,
employment, living arrangements, and relationship problems. The majority of PVs recalled that
the moments leading up to their violation were characterized by a variety of confusing and dysphoric emotional experiences. This immediately raises the question of whether parole violations are directly caused by unpleasant emotional experiences or by other factors. Given that
every person experiences negative emotions at some point in life and that most of us do not resort to criminal behavior when experiencing these, it seemed unlikely that the presence of a
dysphoric emotional experience would directly cause an individual to violate parole. Indeed,
further examination of the data and follow-ups in focus groups revealed three co-occurring important factors.
First, many PVs held unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison.
Throughout the survey, respondents reported confidence in their ability to easily find and keep
high paying jobs, avoid risky situations and people, maintain friction-free relationships, and
generally be successful on parole. While 89% of PVs reported that they were mostly or completely confident that they would succeed while last out on parole, by the very nature of this
study all of the respondents failed on parole. It becomes difficult for PVs to manage negative
emotional experiences when they are expecting that life outside of prison will be easy and that
most things will go right for them.
Second, a large proportion of PVs demonstrated strong anti-social attitudes. Most reported believing that more positives than negatives would result from their particular violation (e.g.,
earning respect, getting money, excitement, etc.). When they did discuss negative conseCommunity / Supervision Strategies
283
quences, PVs primarily spoke in terms of negative consequences to themselves and tended to
diminish the negative consequences to others (e.g., pain of victims). One-third of PVs reported
that they often did not care or did not care at all about what others thought of them while they
were last on parole. These types of anti-social attitudes make it easier for PVs to respond in a
criminal manner when faced with negative emotional experiences. A core concern for PVs is
not that they experience dysphoric emotions but that they are unequipped to respond prosocially.
Third, the most prevalent theme identified throughout the entire study is that PVs indicated poor
self-management, self-control, and problem-solving skills in the face of emotional instability or
the daily obstacles of life (often referred to as “coping skills” ). Poor self-management or coping skills were particularly evidenced by four specific traits: 1) impulsivity, 2) failure to generate alternative courses of action, 3) failure to recognize consequences of actions, and 4) keeping
problems to oneself or failing to take steps of avoidance.
Policy Implications For Treating Parole Violators
The results of this study support four specific policy implications for treating PV populations.
First and foremost, programming for PVs should specifically focus on cognitive-behavioral
treatment that involves coping strategies, behavior rehearsal, and relapse prevention components. Programming for PVs should not focus on eliminating negative emotional experiences
but instead should focus on reinforcing pro-social behavioral reactions to negative emotional
experiences. Treatment should emphasize that every person will undoubtedly and unavoidably
experience unpleasant emotional experiences at some point in life. When these uncontrollable
experiences occur, an individual is only able to control his or her behavioral response. Rehearsing problem-solving techniques and pro-social behaviors should be a primary treatment target.
Second, reentry programming should focus more attention on teaching PVs specific and transferable life skills such as financial responsibility and money management techniques. Money
management is a particularly important sub-set of self-management that seems to present significant obstacles for PVs and therefore should be a primary target for prison release preparation. Many PVs need to learn and rehearse the skills necessary to manage monthly bills and
debt repayments, given the salary that they are realistically able to obtain.
Third, given the severity of AOD problems experienced by a certain proportion of PVs, it is important that correctional systems continue to reinforce intensive AOD treatment programs that
are known to be effective (e.g., therapeutic communities.) Conversely, treatment staff should
not make the assumption that all PVs who used alcohol or other drugs while last on parole have
a significant substance abuse problem and must primarily receive intensive AOD treatment. In
fact, it is perhaps more appropriate that PVs with low AOD needs primarily receive a core cognitive-behavioral program that focuses on general attitudinal and behavioral skills that are transferable across various domains (e.g., employment, AOD use, relationships, etc.)
Fourth, programming should encourage PVs to stay “rooted in reality” and maintain realistic
post-release expectations. PVs must come to understand that life outside of prison will not often be easy and that a criminal record can make life even more difficult. For instance, employability training should prepare PVs for the real possibility that they may need to start off work284
ing an entry level job and gradually work up to a promotion or better job. In-prison treatment
for PVs will be effective to the degree that it is able to simulate a real world environment within
the artificial environment of prison. Again, role-playing is a particularly useful tool for simulating such an environment and preparing PVs for realistic life expectations.
285
The Family Life Center: A Holistic Approach to Prisoner Reentry
A.T. Wall, Director
As is the case in every other jurisdiction, large numbers of inmates are released from Rhode Island’s correctional institutions and returned to the state’s communities every year. Because of
the state’s sentencing scheme, virtually all of them serve terms of probation (i.e. split sentences)
or parole following discharge from prison.
These returning inmates are not distributed evenly across the state’s cities and towns. A disproportionate share go to a limited number of neighborhoods. The largest single concentration
(almost one of every four) return to four zip codes in the city of Providence. These neighborhoods, known collectively as the South Side/West End, are under tremendous social stress by
almost any measure. They have among the state’s highest concentrations of persons in poverty,
single parent households, social services caseloads, unemployment and crime. The area has an
especially large number of incarcerated persons as well as individuals on probation and parole
(equating on some blocks to a density of 2000 per square mile.) The locale also has some important strengths: a high concentration of active religious institutions, a number of strong social
service agencies, and dynamic local leadership.
These four zip codes became the focal point of Rhode Island’s reentry effort when two of the
community’s leaders – the Executive Director of the Urban League and the pastor of a local
Baptist church who was also President of the Rhode Island Ministerial Alliance – approached
me with a compelling idea. They acknowledged that their already burdened community was
receiving many released prisoners, imposing additional stress on the neighborhood’s social infrastructure. However, they also knew that the South Side/West End is home to these offenders
and the place of their family and community ties. Their goal is to work with the corrections deCommunity / Supervision Strategies
287
partment to better prepare these inmates for life after prison, and to strengthen the community’s
capacity to absorb them.
Thus began the reentry project that is known as “The Family Life Center.” The original collaborators recruited additional partners from their personal and professional networks into a
loose-knit, highly representative, and broadly inclusive planning committee.
Over a number of months, the committee coalesced around a vision for the project and hammered out a program design. At its core, was the creation of The Family Life Center a not-forprofit organization, with a Board of Directors as broad-based as the planning committee that
gave it birth. The board is composed of both elected and appointed state, and local officials,
law enforcement, victim advocates, ex-offenders from the neighborhood, local residents of
every ethnic group, clergy from across the spectrum of faiths, community advocacy groups, and
providers of social services. The current board chair is an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who grew
up in the neighborhood. The past board chair is a city councilman from the target area who is
still active on the Board.
The Family Life Center provides “one-stop shopping” for offenders returning to the four zip
codes, and for the families and others who are receiving them. The Center has hired a cadre of
Community Living Consultants (CLC’s). The CLC’s are community residents who serve as
resources, case managers, and liaisons to probation and parole officers, law enforcement, victim
advocates, and social service providers.
The multiple issues that returning offenders and their families face require a high degree of case
coordination. The CLC’s meet with offenders and their loved ones in the prisons several
months prior to release. Together they formulate a discharge plan that builds on identified
needs as well as services provided in the prison setting. Working with the coalition of agencies
(housing, employment, substance abuse, health, mental health, parenting, and faith-based organizations who have been part of the initiative since its inception), they arrange for the necessary supports during the period of transition. They draw on the expertise of specialists in the
areas of employment and housing, two particularly challenging components of reentry.
The same CLC who prepares the inmate for release meets with the client on the day of discharge, accompanies the individual to the center, to initial appointments, and continues to work
directly with him/her and the family for up to two years following release. The center is the
hub: the home base of the consultants, a place for meetings of groups, for sessions with probation and parole officers, a locus of information and referrals. As the former Chair of the Board
summarized it, “the program provides inmates with a boost before they get out of prison and a
hand-hold once they’re released.”
As the project developed, with the assistance of The Council of State Governments, it has attracted financial support from several national and one major local foundation. They were
drawn by the unusual partnership among state officials, local officeholders, service providers,
community leaders, and residents; the exceptionally broad ownership of the project, the seamless quality of the program design and the degree of community participation.
288
Since the Family Life Center was already a growing concern, the organization was well positioned to serve as the locus for much of Rhode Island’s activities under the federal government’s $2 million Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiatives (SVORI.) The corrections
department passed portions of the money to such other state agencies as the Department of Labor and Training, the Department of Human Services and the Department of Mental Health and
Substance Abuse. In turn, these agencies entered into contracts for the purpose of funding
housing, employment training, job placement, and substance abuse treatment slots for Family
Life Center clients. SVORI funds are also used to offer faith-based mentoring to the FLC’s
population and an array of services such as victim awareness training for the offenders and
safety plan for victims.
Two new probation officers were also hired using the SVORI money. They are housed at the
Family Life Center and have caseloads composed exclusively of FLC clients. They collaborate
closely with the Community Living Consultants and work to provide community-based supervision.
A key to the success of the project is that the DOC is one player around the table and is in full
and genuine partnership with the other stakeholders in the design and implementation. The outcome is an authentic collaboration that augurs well for the success of reentry in the South Side
and West End of Providence.
289
Reentry in Texas
Offenders who are released from prison face a multitude of difficulties in trying to reenter communities effectively. By singling out offenders who represent a higher risk to re-offend the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Parole Division is taking a unique and unprecedented
step in the area of reentry programming for offenders by offering support for their success.
District Resources Centers (DRCs) were first implemented by the Parole Division in 1994 and
designed to target high-risk offenders who were unable to complete prior supervision periods.
They are a comprehensive approach to supervision with services, promoting personal growth
and responsibility. Recently, the focus of the centers has expanded to also serve offenders who
are newly released from prison. Currently, there are nine DRCs located at district parole offices
throughout the state, primarily in the major metropolitan areas. Parole officers, community volunteers, contracted vendors, and local agencies provide programming and services to the targeted population. Two of the nine centers are targeted for reentry programming. Research has
demonstrated that an offender’s first six months on supervision are extremely critical to his/her
success or failure for reentry into his community. To this end, the division strives to maintain
smaller caseloads at a ratio of 75 offenders to one (1) parole officer.
Once released from prison, an offender reports to a DRC where he/she is immediately assessed
to determine appropriate programming to assist in positive reintegration into society. Referrals
are made with the focus on three core areas: cognitive intervention, substance abuse counseling,
and anger management. In addition to the core courses, each DRC tailors other classes according to local offender population needs. Some examples of these classes include employment
assistance, dress for success (where DRCs provide interview clothing for offenders), faith-based
291
referrals, and parenting classes. The DRCs remain open in the evenings so not to interfere with
an offender’s employment. By structuring newly released offenders’ days and providing immediate referrals and resources, it is the division’s goal that the reentry initiative will increase successful supervision for this population.
The most distinguishing feature of the DRC is the emphasis placed on heightened offender accountability for overall supervision compliance and program participation. DRC officers assigned to the “Rapid Response Team” attempt face-to-face contact with the offender within 24
hours of an alleged problem or reported program non-compliance. Once contacted the offender
is counseled, verbally reprimanded and/or scheduled for a case conference. Depending on the
severity and frequency of the situation, appropriate interventions are utilized.
Program Review
The Dallas DRC is currently the largest in the state. From its inception in 1996, the Dallas District Resource Center took an unorthodox approach towards supervision in every area available
including education, programming, and treatment. This DRC has stepped up the level of accountability to the offender by offering more classes aimed at populations that were previously
forgotten or ignored, but cumulatively make up the majority of the Texas inmate population.
These groups include the Hispanic males, African-American males and the female populations.
During the last few years, the number of females in Texas prisons has quadrupled. The Dallas
DRC recognized the dynamics of this population early and sat down with a team comprised of
management and officers, all female, to address the now prevalent problem. The result of that
collaboration, “Females, First and Foremost,” locally referred to as “F3,” is a gender-based
support group facilitated by volunteer parole staff. This 18-week program addresses various
issues relative to the female population. Issues such as self-esteem, job readiness, parenting,
domestic violence, health care, dating and relationships, and personal grooming are discussed.
The essence of this program is to provide information, education, and self-awareness through
honest discussion, information sharing and networking. The objective is to provide hope for a
better day and a better way of life.
The 353 women who have completed this program, from its onset, have had an opportunity to
meet a diverse group of female experts from the community who address these various topics
and present concise, professional information in an informal atmosphere. The impact these
women mentors leave on the offender is far reaching because the information is delivered with
an open mind, a good heart and an obvious belief that anyone willing, can change. The motto
“Am I my sister’s keeper? Yes I am!” keeps the focus on the type of support needed from each
female involved. This type of collaboration, targeting specific populations, was applied within
other groups as well.
The largest population of released inmates to the Dallas area is comprised mostly of AfricanAmerican and Hispanic males. In an effort to address the needs of this population pool, management selected a diverse group of staff and tasked them to develop a curriculum. The end result was the creation of the African-American Males Survival Skills course (A.A.M.S.) and the
Hispanics Survival Skills course (Hispanos).” Both cultural and gender-based programs are fa292
cilitated by parole staff, and provide information relevant to the respective populations. Among
the topics addressed in this course are: strategies for employment, substance abuse, health issues (i.e. diabetes, prostate cancer, etc.), spiritual needs of men, domestic violence, depressive
disorders, and stress management. As with “F3,” this program excels due to professionals from
the community who volunteer their time to present information with the same determination
and strengths. Since its beginnings, approximately 600 men have entered and graduated the
program. Many of the men, in an effort to give back, return to facilitate classes. Some even
provide guidance to their peers and juveniles steering off-course with factual information from
their personal prison experiences.
The Dallas District Resource Center was further incorporated in the community in the form of a
council. Formed in September of 1996, the Community Partnership Council, (CPC) is comprised of approximately 58 members. Community advocates, church representatives, social
agencies and members of other law enforcement agencies meet monthly for “eye on the prize”
community collaboration to continue established initiatives that aid the reintegration of offenders into society. Current initiatives focus on mentoring for women, youthful offenders, offenders incarcerated 15 or more years, those who fall under SVORI (Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) program, and the faith based initiatives. Each member of the council is committed to reducing recidivism, increasing successful reentry into the community, and providing
resources and referrals to address offender needs. It is, without doubt, the first of its kind
within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the community collaboration is growing
through this medium. The City of Dallas City Hall (Fair Park) has housed art shows, showcasing the talents of offenders. Fair Park has been host to “Success Celebrations,” which recognizes offenders who have completed courses within the district resource center and have gone
on to greater accomplishments in their lives. The good news is that this growth continues.
All of the DRC models throughout the State study and implement similar programs to address
the geographical and unique needs of the offender population in their area. Through our DRC
models, TDCJ strives to provide support and assistance to offenders for what is hoped to be a
positive reentry to their communities.
293
Welcome Back Program
Overview
The Welcome Back Program was launched at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(TDCJ), Institutional Division in September 2002, at the Huntsville Unit located in Huntsville,
Texas. It is part of a larger network of faith communities and support groups known as the Restorative Justice Ministry Network of North America created by Emmett Solomon, retired Director of Chaplaincy for TDCJ. The network has a justice volunteer base of over 60,000
(50,000 in Texas and 10,000 nationally), 12 denominational networks; has an email facilitator
network of 487 members in Texas, and 236 nationally.
The program began as an effort to welcome the offender back into society and to be a resource
for connecting the offender and their family with a faith community during re-entry. Participation is voluntary, and the process of preparing the offender for society begins at the time of his/
her release. Specific program details are outlined below.
Purpose
The purpose of the program is as follows:
•
To restore dignity and ensure the ex-offender feels valued, back in the community as a
contributor to society
•
To facilitate an environment of restoration, wholeness, and forgiveness in welcoming
back the ex-offender to society
295
•
To connect the ex-offender and their family with a faith community that can provide
physical, emotional, and spiritual support, in the community that the ex-offender is returning to
•
To help the offender overcome the possible isolation of release
Operations
The Welcome Back Program is currently implemented at five TDCJ units that release offenders: Huntsville Unit-male; Gatesville Unit-female; Hutchins State Jail-male; Plane State Jailfemale; and Henley State Jail-female. The frequency of programming offered varies by facility
type; correctional facilities offer the program daily, while the state jails offer programming
weekly.
Program participation is strictly voluntary and all pending released offenders are eligible to participate. The program is initiated when the offender completes a program form that provides
information about the offender and their families. Volunteers from various faith communities in
Huntsville and in Gatesville form five teams (ten teams total) of 3 - 5 people who will meet
with the offenders in a group setting. The location of the meeting is generally the unit chapel.
Each team is responsible for the Welcome Back Program one day a week. In Huntsville, the
Welcome Back Program is held in the evening prior to the offender's release, Sunday through
Thursday. In Gatesville, the Welcome Back Program is held on the morning of the offender's
release. At the Hutchins, Plane, and Henley State Jails, the Welcome Back Program is held one
evening a week. Only offenders projected to be released in the following week are allowed to
be in attendance.
Volunteers share information with the offender and their families to help them better understand
the release processes and reintegration into society as a convicted felon. They also address the
offender’s legal status to include restoration of certain rights. Offenders are welcomed back into
society and the value and role of the offender and their family into society is reinforced. Other
program content include: sharing of personal life lessons, learning the importance of allowing
someone to assist, providing them with an 800 number to call for assistance as well as a list of
telephone numbers of network churches and making the offender and their families aware of
various support systems (substance abuse support groups, small accountability groups, clothing,
etc.) that faith communities offer.
In summary, this program complements other agency initiated reentry programs designed to
better equip the offender for reintegration into society, while not compromising the safety of the
general public. To date, the program is well received by the offenders and their families.
296
Collaboration, West Virginia Style
West Virginia Division of Corrections
Jim Rubenstein, Commissioner
Introduction
Just as the adage that “it takes a village to raise a child” exists, it is also true that it takes that
same village to reintegrate an offender. Without the support and assistance of individuals
within the community and community-based services, the task of offender reentry can seem
daunting at best. Looking back, it almost seems that we, in corrections, have been our own
worst enemies when it comes to eliciting community support. We exist in a world of block
walls, fences, and gates. While those security features help to accomplish our mission of public
safety, they oftentimes keep out a public that can be corrections’ biggest ally. There is no doubt
that a number of individuals and agencies have wanted to help alleviate the strain on corrections
for years- to aide in our burden of reintegrating offenders; after all, it is to their communities
that offenders will be returning. But, our closed-system of operations and the public perception
that comes with that design have kept many a good person from attempting to access our system and provide that needed assistance.
West Virginia releases nearly 1,300 offenders annually. Many of those we release have needs
that do not go away with incarceration. They may return to communities better educated and
trained for employment, but they also return to communities with the same addictions and mental health issues with which they arrived on our doorstep. Even the healthiest of offenders face
the stigma and additional burden of being a convicted felon while trying to go home and be successful. It is for these reasons that the Division of Corrections set out on a course to open our
gates, invite communities and state and local agencies to learn about our system, and strongly
advocate for offenders returning home to be recognized as individuals who have “done their
297
time,” and now need a chance to prove that they are not only willing, but are able to be productive, to take care of their needs and the needs of others who rely on them, and to remain crimefree.
Some issues are bigger than one agency acting alone
“Some issues are bigger than one agency acting alone”- this simple statement has become the
driving force behind the agency’s strong push to have other stakeholders come on-line with the
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. While it is true that West Virginia still maintains one of the lowest crime and incarceration rates in the country, we have nearly tripled our
prison population over the last twelve years, and the majority of our offenders will be returning
to communities. In essence, what the public and other state and local agencies perceived to not
be a problem a decade ago, is now becoming a matter of high concern and priority. In fact, our
agency has experienced what we regard as a unique situation, in that other agencies are approaching us and offering assistance as often and as quickly as we are approaching them. Currently, the West Virginia Offender Reentry Steering Committee is comprised of twelve (12)
separate agencies, represented by:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
6 Bureaus of the Department of Health and Human Resources (Public Health, Employment Programs, Children and Families, Family Support, Adult Mental Health,
and Alcoholism and Drug Abuse)
2 Departments of the Division of Corrections (DOC Facilities and Parole Services)
2 Divisions of the Department of Transportation (Public Transit and Motor Vehicles)
2 Law Enforcement agencies (WV State Police, WV Sheriff’s Association)
Department of Education
Mission West Virginia
Governor’s Workforce Development Office
Housing and Urban Development
WV Parole Board
Psi-Med, Inc.
Correctional Medical Services
The Division of Corrections has also successfully convened a statewide Sex Offender Management Steering Committee, dealing with comprehensive approaches to managing the State’s sex
offender population. This Committee is represented by eighteen (18) state and local agencies.
In addition to the groups being led by the Division of Corrections, now more than ever, other
agencies leading initiatives in the state are requesting support and representation by the Division of Corrections to ensure that the offender population is able to access mainstream services.
These statewide teams include: the WV Homeless Coalition, and the Interagency Collaborative
Team dealing with workforce issues.
Developing Collaborative Approaches in West Virginia
The West Virginia Division of Corrections has experienced great success through a simple
“word of mouth” campaign. As the Reentry Initiative expanded, the agency gradually began
298
partnerships with new agencies. As new agencies came on-line with the initiative, word began
to spread to other agencies, who in turn expressed their desire to assist. To solidify collaborative efforts, the Division of Corrections has adopted the following values:
1. Investing key leadership positions: The Division of Corrections realized early on that to
maintain high levels of collaboration, the time of key leadership positions must be invested.
The agency has devoted a great deal of resources in making key leadership positions available and responsible for networking with other state-level administrators. While this investment requires that a good deal of time be spent away from the office and other administrative duties, this was a sacrifice that the agency was willing to make in order to ensure that
partnerships remain solid.
2. Proving the capacity of the agency to be a good business partner: It goes without saying
that few people are willing to do something for nothing. While this is especially true of the
private sector, it is also true of state government. The Division of Corrections knew that to
be successful, we needed the time of decision-makers from other agencies to assist in planning and implementation. To prove our worth as a business partner, the agency regularly
provides staff and leadership resources to various other statewide initiatives, organizations,
seminars/conferences, and activities.
3. Allowing one person to “drive the car”: Each initiative that the agency leads is likened to a
vehicle that will move the agency into the future. As most everyone knows, it takes only
three basic skills to drive a vehicle- turning the wheel, shifting gears, and knowing when to
accelerate or slow down; therefore, the Division of Corrections confidently places one person at the wheel to be the primary driver of the initiative. With the multi-agency steering
committee acting as the navigational system that is capable of directing the DOC through
difficult systems, the driver can then be responsible for getting the agency where it needs to
be. It is important to note that the driver of your vehicle must be mission oriented, and have
the ability to accept and complete multiple tasks. It is also important that your driver possess the ability to read the pulse of the agency. With the Reentry Initiative, great changes
have come about in the basic way the agency conducts business, and it has been critical that
the driver of this initiative be able to sense when the agency is ready for the next stretch of
road.
4. Eliminating previous adversarial roles: Eliminating previous adversarial roles can be difficult since agencies have typically spent years projecting blame and attempting to place responsibility for various aspects of the criminal justice system on others. Recognizing and
overcoming adversarial roles is critical in establishing true collaboration; therefore, the Division of Corrections has taken the lead in opening our agency doors for our partner agencies to take a look inside. This has been worrisome, to say the least, but exposing the workings of our system- bumps, bruises, and all, has actually increased the level of trust between
our agency and the partners. Helping others to understand the corrections system has also
given the partners a sense that corrections indeed does a great deal with very few resources,
hence increasing the level of respect for our agency and the work that we do.
299
Conclusion
In deed, some issues are much bigger than one agency working alone. The West Virginia Division of Corrections can, in no way, ensure an offender’s success without the support and services from communities and state and local service providers. Some may view this admission
as if corrections agencies are admitting they cannot get the job done. In West Virginia, this is
viewed as an accepted statement of fact. Keeping other agencies which have the knowledge,
skills, and resources to provide assistance out is not only unwise, but is contradictory to the
mission of public safety. Allowing those agencies to look inside correctional walls can be intimidating, but the truth of the matter is that if the system and how it can be connected with
other systems is not understood, then few will be willing to make an attempt.
300
Chapter Five
Promising or Unique
Ser vices
Helping Inmates Find The Way Home
Delaware Department of Correction
Stanley Taylor, Jr. Commissioner
One Man Tries to Find His Way Home
In May 2002, Wade Jones walked out of a Delaware prison unsure of how he would do back on
the outside. The 33-year old Sussex County, Delaware man had just served five and a half
years for second-degree assault. He had a home and a job waiting but he feared falling back in
with the crowd that resulted in his going to prison in the first place. Then he remembered what
another inmate told him about a volunteer group that helped inmates get back on their feet once
released from incarceration. Jones realized that was just the kind of help he needed. So he
called the group, hoping they would help him find his way home.
A Calling
In 1996, a small group of parishioners from St. Martha’s Church in Bethany Beach, Delaware,
began a Bible study at the Sussex Correctional Institution in Georgetown, Delaware. The group
of eight, led by Father Jim Lewis, and about five inmates formed an ecumenical discipleship
group and studied the Gospels. Though gathering only sporadically, both the church group and
the inmate participants found much value in the meetings.
Along with its mission to the prison, the small church group took part in other community outreach efforts; sharing meals with the needy, at-risk or vulnerable, helping the growing Hispanic
population feel comfortable in the community, and meeting with residents from stressed drug
communities.
303
In 1997, church members began meeting with other segments of the community, state officials,
criminal justice groups, and ex-offenders, in an effort to discuss and learn about criminal justice
issues. Barbara Carter, a group member, said, “it was important for us to understand the issues
surrounding criminal justice to be effective advocates.”
At the prison, the group continued its meetings with inmates and received permission to hold
special studies; longer sessions dedicated to structured Bible study, prayer, and discussions of
discipline. During one session, the church group shared a meal with the inmates and the
prison’s chaplain.
The group also met with other prison staff including Correctional Officers and prison counselors. “All these different groups of people brought different perspectives to the table,” said
Carter. “Their input was invaluable in helping us to understand how all the different segments
of the prison operated.”
Despite the church group’s Bible study in the prison and various community outreach projects,
one member, Barbara Carter still felt restless. She had felt a call to minister to prison inmates
in a way that would make a tangible difference in their lives. So the group asked the prison’s
Chaplain to turn those sporadic discipleship gatherings into monthly sessions. During these sessions, Carter met an inmate coming up for parole.
Milton Oney was finishing an 18-year sentence for a variety of crimes and was about to appear
before the Parole Board. But with no home, no job, and no help on the outside, his chances for
parole weren’t good. Carter, along with other members of the group, spoke to the Board on his
behalf and detailed her church group’s work at the prison. She promised they’d help Oney once
released. The Board granted Oney parole with the condition he stay in touch with Carter and
her church group. “I realized with Milton’s parole that I had to put my money where my mouth
was,” said Carter.
Carter turned to her fellow parishioners for ideas on how they could help Oney. The Episcopal
Diocese hired him as a cook for the church’s retreat house and conference center. As a prison
cook for many years, Oney felt at home in a kitchen. But the newly freed inmate didn’t have a
permanent home, a car, or many clothes. Carter and the group helped with his initial needs
while arrangements were made with family. They also organized a donation drive to help him
find clothes and transportation. They talked to nearby parishes. One local church sold a car to
Oney at a significant discount and allowed him to pay over time. The group took turns driving
with him, helping him to readjust to being behind the wheel again. The group also arranged for
the Episcopal Diocese to send Oney to a local cooking school. Living with family and now with
a job, a car and in school, Milton Oney was well on his way home. But Barbara Carter knew
there were “lots of Miltons who needed help.”
The Way Home
Now 1998, Barbara Carter wanted to institute a formal program to help inmates re-enter society. With the success she and the church group had achieved with Milton Oney, she knew there
were more inmates they could help. She had been deeply moved by what she saw and felt dur304
ing her trips to the Delaware prison and she firmly believed that inmates need extra support as
they are released from incarceration if they are to succeed. “If we don’t help these people as
they get out of prison, we’re setting them up for failure,” said Carter.
The many contacts Carter made during her involvement with the prison Bible study served her
well. She called on many people for help in getting started with her program for released offenders. She learned about various sources of funds targeted to help offenders reenter the community after serving time in prison. That year, she applied for several grants and was awarded
two. Monies from the Delaware Criminal Justice Council and the United Thank Offering of the
National Episcopal Church allowed her and the group to formalize its efforts to help inmates
transition to freedom.
With the added work came the need for greater organization. The group decided to hire a coordinator. They didn’t need to look far. Barbara Carter was the perfect choice.
Now this new initiative needed a name. One day, Father Lewis spoke of his excitement at this
new endeavor to help inmates find their way home. His thoughts struck a chord – and inspired
their new name: The Way Home.
With two Way Home participants and a telephone, Carter got to work. She met with staff and
Father Lewis to draft a process that would guide their efforts. This process includes identifying
inmates appropriate for the program and goods and services inmates need at the time of release.
The Way Home begins its inmate interactions three months prior to release. Prison counselors
identify inmates nearing release and refer names to the group. The three months allow for faceto-face meetings and in-depth needs assessments. The meetings accomplish other goals. They
gauge the inmate’s desire to change, determine needs, and build relationships. Both sides must
agree to the partnership for work to continue post-release.
While the inmate prepares for release on the inside, The Way Home starts its work on the outside. The answers to critical needs are explored: housing, clothing, identification, medical care,
and substance abuse treatment. Shelters and recovery homes are contacted about housing. The
group checks its clothes closet for matches or contacts other churches for additional donations.
In addition, staffers try to match a volunteer mentor to an inmate; a relationship that enhances
the inmate’s feeling of stability and chances for success.
Tony Neal coordinates The Way Home’s mentoring program. He says the relationship between
offender and mentor is invaluable. “Mentors undergo six hours of training. They’re helping inmates with everything from table manners and how to use the ATM…to how to talk to their
kids and solve problems with their spouses.”
The day of release, a Way Home staff person meets the offender at the prison gate. Every offender gets a welcome basket filled with weather appropriate clothing, toiletries and an organizational kit. The kit includes a phone card, stamps, envelopes, pen, paper, and a calculator.
They also help the individual get an identification card. If the offender has a home to go to, The
Way Home provides the first load of groceries. If the inmate goes to a shelter, 30 days of meals
305
are provided. A hotel is a last option. Once the offender is situated, additional planning takes
place. Appointments for job interviews, substance abuse meetings, medical care, social services, or meetings with probation officers are scheduled. If a mentor has been assigned, those
meetings begin.
In addition, The Way Home provides other support. Drug and alcohol awareness meetings are
held weekly and The Way Home encourages active participation if a need is identified. Exoffender support groups and women’s groups also take place every week. Two local psychotherapists work pro bono to provide counseling. Way Home staff members carry pagers in case
an offender needs immediate help. Involvement in a faith-base group is encouraged. The Way
Home encourages education and will help offenders accomplish the next step in their educational journey. It coordinates with a local college to help participants apply for Pell Grants and
financial aid. Former inmate Wade Jones has taken advantage of the college opportunities and
will graduate this May with a degree in Human Services.
The Future
The Way Home carries a caseload of approximately 50 offenders. For a full-time staff of just
two and challenges unique to a rural setting, this is a remarkable feat. Way Home staffers are the
first to admit they can’t, and don’t, go it alone. Partnerships with social service organizations,
state agencies, and churches are the key to success. Every offender receives several months of
intensive assistance. Slowly, though, the program removes itself from daily involvement. Participants are encouraged to stay in touch and staff will call once each week for a progress report. In all, The Way Home offers offenders in the program three years of post-release case
management.
Barbara Carter is already looking toward the future. Currently, the program helps only those
inmates returning to Sussex County, Delaware. Carter hopes to expand the program to Delaware’s other two counties. The Way Home also hopes to open a walk-in service center, which
would provide access to computers, office supplies, a washer and dryer, and a small library. It
would be a place where offenders could go to work on a resume, do some laundry, or just receive some support. With a shortage in transitional housing, The Way Home also hopes to open
a residential center; giving offenders two years of housing, with programming and support,
while they get back on their feet.
“Many of the men and women leaving prison face daunting challenges,” said Carter. “Many
are in recovery, penniless, have no transportation, perhaps not even identification. I would challenge anyone to put life back together under these circumstances. I don’t know of a single person who has never made a mistake, myself included. I don’t know where I’d be without the loving guidance of mentors and friends. It is critically important to be connected with positive,
supportive people as we face up to our mistakes and work to build a brighter future.”
Wade Jones looks toward a bright future too. As he nears his college graduation, he admits his
look to the future must come with a glimpse toward the past. “The help I got from The Way
Home is easily the difference between me being incarcerated and living the productive life I
now live”, said Jones. “Money can’t buy what they did for me. They saved my life.”
306
Involving Multiple Agencies in Reentry by
Means of Memoranda of Agreement
Delaware Department of Correction
Stan W. Taylor, Commissioner
Overview
It takes more than any single agency or organization can do to successfully assist violent offenders make a smooth transition back into the community after completing a term of incarceration. If individuals are to succeed and avoid recidivism after being released from incarceration,
they must have more support than any state’s Department of Correction can provide on its own.
That is why multiple government agencies and community organizations must collaborate to
help individuals leaving prison as they move back into the community. This is recognized by
the U.S. Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which has garnered the support of multiple agencies
for the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative at the federal level.
To address violent offender reentry as comprehensively as possible in Delaware, the Delaware
Department of Correction entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state’s
Department of Health and Social Services, the Department of Labor, and several other agencies.
The Department of Health and Social Services is serving as the lead in this agreement, which
outlines responsibilities and timeframes for efforts to develop and implement a statewide reentry program for serious and violent offenders between 18 and 35 years of age about to be released into the community.
The Delaware Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Program has recently completed its development phase and is now beginning work with its first clients. We are confident that, with the
307
support of the agencies that have joined this MOA, we will help many offenders successfully
rejoin the general population as productive members of society.
Goals of the Memorandum of Agreement
The goals and objectives of the program under the MOA are to:
1. Prevent Recidivism
a) Initiate the reentry process in the correctional setting prior to discharge with contact between the offender and a case-management team
b) Engage the offender fully in the planning process with a full understanding of
the expectations and consequences of their participation in the process
c) Based on the unique needs of the offender, provide individualized support and
services to ensure successful reentry into the community
d) Exercise active supervision of the offender to ensure accountability through
graduated sanctions for noncompliance or criminal behavior
2. Enhance Public Safety
e) Enhance public safety through coordination with state and local law enforcement
agencies to ensure accountability
f) Provide active, ongoing management, and supervision of the offender
g) Utilize technology, as appropriate, to ensure the offender does not pose an undue
threat
h) Exercise zero tolerance for new criminal activity
i) Develop and implement individual reintegration plans with appropriate levels of
supervision
3. Redeploy and leverage existing community resources by developing linkages and accessing currently provided services.
j) Use federal funds only to design, build, test, and improve a system that utilizes
existing resources so reentry programs do not depend on temporary federal funding
k) Use federal funds only to enhance existing state or local resources and provide
options not otherwise available or sufficient
l) Increase communities leveraging and allocation of resources to provide for the
sustainability of the reentry initiative
m) Enhance partnerships among government agencies and community organizations
n) Enhance the availability and quality of reentry services
4. Assist the offender to avoid crime, engage in pro-social community activities, and meet
family responsibilities.
o) Promote productive engagement between the offender and community organizations
p) Provide for and expect the offender to be a contributing, productive citizen
q) Increase involvement between members of offenders’ support networks, including families, and returning offenders
308
5. Ensure Program Sustainability.
r) Ensure current community and government resources are utilized and will remain accessible once federal funds are unavailable
s) Ensure that broad government and community support exists and that these relationships are enhanced and built
t) Ensure that this initiative is viewed as integral to community and public safety
Addressing the three phases of reentry
The Delaware Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Project is designed to address the offender’s needs during three phases of reentry, which Delaware has modeled after those defined
by OJP. Components of each phase involve various combinations of agencies included in the
MOA.
The Institutional Phase
Key Components
• Selection of high-risk participants
• Needs assessments and development of plan
• Implementation of Phase 1 Plan (Basic needs and education, employment support, mental health, substance abuse, legal issues, monitoring for compliance.
Transition
Key Components
• Reception from prison
• Revision and modification of plan
• Case management
• Court supervision
• Ongoing assessment
• Plan for Phase III
Sustain
Key components
• Continued community support
• Continued involvement
• Offender contact with social support network
Agency roles and responsibilities
The plan established in the MOA provides a comprehensive approach to reentry management
by incorporating elements including:
•
Clear and ongoing authority to hold the offender accountable through appropriate and
graduated sanctions
309
•
•
•
•
•
A full diagnostic and risk assessment process
Development of a reentry plan that clearly addresses the offender’s issues and serves as
a guide to the offender, case management team, and others monitoring the offenders
progress and compliance
Utilization of existing resources
Involvement of – and coordination with – law enforcement agencies
Coordination of extensive employment-related resources, including the Workforce Investment Board, the Department of Labor’s One-Stop Centers, and the Department of
Education
To successfully guide offenders through the first two phases of reentry and to support them in
the sustaining phase, it is crucial that the agencies involved maintain their commitment and uphold their promises to the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Project. For that reason, the
Memorandum of Agreement includes a detailed breakdown of each agency’s roles and responsibilities.
Individuals representing those agencies to the Reentry Project are high-level managers with the
authority, responsibility, and control of resources to support the project. As part of the MOA,
the individuals committed to be part of the Reentry Decision-making Committee (RDC), which
met once a moth for the first 12 months of the project and now continues to meet every other
month. The RDC tracks the progress of the project, receives monthly status reports from the
project director, and modifies the MOA, policies, procedures, and data collection methods as
necessary. The RDC also will pursue alternative sources of funding to sustain the project after
the initial 24-month period.
Delaware Health and Social Services
Division of Substance Abuse and Mental Health (DSAMH)
The primary roles of DSAMH are to: (1) serve as the lead administrative agency for the Delaware Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative and (2) to oversee the Case Management
Teams that will work with the offenders throughout the three phases of reentry.
Specific DSAMH responsibilities include:
• Staffing, administering, and monitoring the progress of the project
• Providing substance abuse and mental health assessments and services to offenders upon
release
• Monitoring offenders for drug use via urinalysis (in conjunction with Department of
Correction)
• Providing transitional housing and family/social support services via contractors
Division of Social Services (DSS)
The primary role of DSS is to provide expertise and coordination necessary to ensure that offenders receive the social services and entitlements, such as Medicaid, that support reentry.
310
Superior Court of Delaware
The primary roles of the Superior Court are to (1) set pre-release terms and conditions, and (2)
monitor offenders for compliance with the terms and conditions of release and impose graduated sanctions for violations of probation.
Department of Correction
The primary roles of the Department of Correction are to (1) identify eligible offenders, (2)
schedule pre-release services, (3) transport offenders to pre-release court appearances, and (4)
monitor offenders in the community for adherence to terms and conditions of probation and/or
release.
Specific Department of Correction responsibilities include:
• Monitoring offenders for drug use via urinalysis (in conjunction with Delaware Health
and Social Services)
• Disseminating medical history file, in accordance with confidentiality regulations, to the
case management team
• Identifying appropriate interventions to avoid criminal behavior triggers
• Monitoring offenders for compliance and evaluating progress
Department of Labor
The primary roles of the Department of Labor (DOL) are to (1) identify the employment and
training needs of offenders, (2) provide appropriate employment training and referral services,
and (3) assist offenders in becoming bonded.
Specific DOL responsibilities include:
• Assigning a Prison to Work Administrator to coordinate DOL involvement in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Project
• Providing reentry skills training and services to offenders at the prison sites (in conjunction with the Department of Education and the Department of Correction)
• Ensuring consistent service and support to facilitate transition to workforce
• Developing and providing appropriate materials for offenders returning to the community (in conjunction with all other partners)
Workforce Investment Board
The primary role of the Delaware Workforce Investment Board is to set policy and oversee the
employment training offered under the Delaware Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Project.
Specific responsibilities of the Workforce Investment Board include:
• Setting policy and overseeing the employment training programs for the project
• Maintaining and monitoring market information to ensure that offenders receive training
that meets current labor demands
311
Department of Public Safety, Department of Education and Delaware State Housing Authority
These departments participate in the activities of the Reentry Decision-making Committee, providing insight and supports as appropriate.
Public Defender’s Office
This office assists offenders with legal issues resulting from previous offenses and violations.
Office of the Budget/Statistical Analysis Center (SAC)
The SAC is the agency responsible for collecting, maintaining, and analyzing data related to
program outcomes, performance measures, and quality improvement. Data is related to recidivism, employment, substance use, level of functioning, number accessing mental health services, percent taking medication regularly, and percent accessing other social services, including Medicaid.
Conclusion
As previously stated, offenders reentering the general community after a period of incarceration
require a variety of types of support services to become successful, productive members of society, rather than returning to criminal activity. No single agency or community-based organization can expect to succeed in guiding offenders successfully through the three phases of reentry.
As offenders typically have a variety of needs and concerns, it is imperative that a variety of
agencies become and remain committed to such an initiative. By developing a Memorandum of
Agreement to secure the written commitment of high-level administrators in agencies that can
provide the needed support services, serious and violent offenders can successfully rejoin the
community.
312
Changing the Culture In the Idaho Department of Correction
Idaho Department of Correction
Tom Beauclair, Director
Changing the culture in any organization is a huge undertaking. It takes a vision that resonates
with staff, and an education effort that reinforces key messages continuously. Staff must understand how they fit into this new culture, be encouraged to support the new culture, and be held
accountable for their role in creating and maintaining the change.
The Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC) is now in its third year of developing a new culture that is more open, positive, proactive, and professional. The mission has been identified as
one of protecting the public. The rest of the mission states, “We safely manage offenders, provide opportunities for offenders to change, and successfully return offenders to communities.”
While there are many successes to share, a changing culture is a process, not an event. It involves a huge commitment of time, energy, and constant monitoring to keep a culture moving
forward to a new vision.
Ready For Change
A little history is needed to understand the culture that existed within the department as the
change effort was launched. A legislative committee issued a scathing report in 1999 outlining
morale issues and concerns within the department. Turnover was high at the time of this report
and lawmakers demanded changes to address morale issues. During this same time frame, the
department became the target of an Attorney General investigation. That investigation, completed in the spring of 2001, was very critical of the department’s handling of a serious internal
management issue and prompted the previous director to resign.
313
A new director was hired to lead the department in the fall of 2001. As a new director leading
an organization starving for positive change, there was a small window of opportunity. As
much as we all resist change, the department and staff needed a new direction after a long series
of public humiliations. The new director, along with top administrators, moved quickly to create a new culture within the organization.
Mission, Vision and Values
The top priority was to create a new strategic plan. The department needed a mission that would
inspire staff and help mold a new culture. The department also needed a vision that restored
honor and lifted up the professionals working for the department. Values were needed to guide
behavior. This effort was needed to heal staff, and to mend the department’s badly damaged
reputation with key stakeholders both internally and externally.
A group of key leaders was brought together to create this new mission, vision and values. An
outside consultant with expertise in strategic planning was hired to help guide the planning
process. The leadership team wanted a plan that created an environment that inspired compassion and commitment to the ideals of corrections.
When the group finished, we had our mission, vision and values. This plan became the roadmap
for everything that was to come. The mission, vision, and values combined with some key goals
still serve today as the IDOC’s strategic plan.
Education
Key in our strategic plan is the focus on the professionals in the organization. The vision is:
“To develop an organization respected for its professional integrity and ability to protect its
communities, where each person actively participates in offender accountability and readiness
for change.”
The word professional creates an image of what was, and is, expected. It creates pride for a job
well done and sets a standard for all staff. Part of the goal in setting the mission, vision, and values high was to draw professionals to the organization and inspire top-notch behavior within the
existing staff. That professional affirmation helped make the next process of cascading the message throughout the organization a little more successful.
The new director visited each work site and delivered briefings to each shift to educate staff on
the mission, vision, and values. Top administrators also made trips statewide to reinforce the
message. All took on the personal task of being role models of the values, modeling their commitment to open dialogue and committing to the professional success of others. Stories were
shared about appropriate behavior that exemplified the values of the department. We made certain the message was constantly and consistently communicated to all staff.
Probably the most effective thing done in this education effort was laminating the vision, mission, and values on a card the size our identification badge. The two items hang back-to-back
from each employee’s lapel or Lanier, as an easy reference to the department’s new mission,
314
vision and values. Employees still reach for the card as a reference or to make a point about
why we do what we do each day.
A similar commitment to communicating the new vision was needed with external stakeholders,
such as judges and lawmakers. The evidence of a shift in the department’s image with lawmakers was evident in a recent survey. Of those answering the November 2003 poll, 80% agree or
strongly agree that the department is more professional than it was two years ago.
Seeing a shift in culture
Early in the change process there was exciting evidence of a noticeable shift in the department
culture. A consultant who taught quarterly classes to the department’s future leaders included a
performance climate assessment in his classes. Consultant Paul Knudstrup said the atmosphere
with the department was negative and angry when he started training IDOC managers in 1999.
That has changed.
Here’s one example of the impact the strategic plan had on the culture just six months after it
was introduced. Knudstrup’s climate survey asked if employees understood the mission and
goals of the organization. In July 2001, before the new strategic plan just one person in the leadership class gave this category a high ranking. In April 2002, half the class ranked this as absolutely true. The consultant attributed the change to a message that appeals to a higher sense of
purpose and excitement about the strategic direction of the department. “You can change a culture and change it in a short time if you have a message that rings true and appeals to a higher
sense of purpose,” Knudstrup told us.
The department shared this information in a May 2002 news conference and instead of a news
story about investigations and resignations the headline on a local newscast stated: “High praise
tonight for Idaho’s Department of Correction. A training consultant says he’s seen a major climate change within the department.” For a department that had just survived two years under
media siege this ten seconds was salve on wounds that were finally healing.
The real work begins
The first phase of this culture change went smoothly with employees welcoming the clear direction and noble vision. The job became more difficult as employees were asked to use the strategic plan to change the way they performed their daily jobs. Connecting the ideal with reality
has taken most of two years.
Several key concepts were used to drive the idea of providing for opportunities for offender
change. We redefined the role of correctional officers as not just security, or risk control, but as
facilitators of the programs that can reduce the risk of recidivism.
What was once considered programs domain is now everyone’s responsibility. Dozens of officers are now trained to facilitate cognitive self-change classes, a cornerstone class in changing
offender behavior. We have also raised the awareness of how officers’ everyday interactions
with offenders can help model behavior.
315
We discontinued programs that were not research-based. We standardized the programs proven
by research to help reduce risk. Now if an offender transfers from one institution to another they
do not start over, but instead move into the same program at the new location.
Another key initiative was rewriting policy in prisons to support more alternative sanctions and
focus disciplinary offense reports on more serious infractions only. As a result, the number of
disciplinary offense reports in prisons is down and the conviction rates have increased.
In communities, a new policy and focus on interventions and alternative sanctions is resulting in
fewer parole violations. Offenders are being given alternatives to keep them on track in communities. One probation and parole officer recently reported to the Board of Correction that ‘car
talk’ among officers centers on how to help offenders having trouble rather than how to bust
them.
We are working to create a holistic case plan for each offender. As offenders enter prison their
needs are assessed. If they are lacking education, a plan for education is included. Other risk
factors are also addressed through programs and education. The case plan also helps them prepare for reentry and includes programming in the community after they have been placed on
parole.
Where we are
In its third year, the strategic plan gained momentum as a real functioning document to drive
the planning for the entire department. Our central office operating plan ingrains the mission,
vision and values in the daily actions of staff. Many policies were rewritten, and much training
has happened to make these new ways of doing business understandable and attainable for staff
in the field.
Even with this effort, more work was still needed. On year three of the plan, we challenged
each work site to create its own operating plan. We asked them to make the vision, mission, and
values real for their staff. All plans dovetailed with the Central Office Operating Plan and the
overarching strategic plan. The result was a leap in understanding. Last year 25% of staff did
not know how the vision, mission, and values related to their job. This year, just 10% still have
not made that connection.
What’s next
Moving an agency forward into a new culture is difficult and our work is not complete. The
next phase in our evolution is to create a business plan. The strategic plan with its mission, vision, and values will be the first page of this document. Our updated operating plan will follow,
and for the first time we will tie in capital and budget plans to create one centralized document
to drive our actions. Each work site will again be challenged to create an operating plan that
compliments and builds on this central plan.
The new culture with the department is dynamic and moving forward. However, it will revert
316
back to historic practices without constant care. Quite frankly, it is easier to turn a lock and
keep the door closed than it is to provide an offender an opportunity for change.
We must stay focused on the ideals of our mission, vision, and values in our everyday work and
continue to communicate and educate staff on how day-to-day work relates to that vision. Our
road map is the strategic plan, operating plan, and business plan. It is our shared mission, vision, and values. We must continue to use it in our decisions to stay on course and build on its
ideals. We have the map and we will continue to drive forward.
317
Project RISE: Reintegration Into Society through Education
Indiana Department of Correction
Evelyn Ridley-Turner, Commissioner
Offender reintegration is a major focus of corrections today. A declining job base in the
“manufacturing-heavy” Midwest means that Indiana offenders face even greater challenges in
finding employment when they return to the community than they did only a few years ago.
Finding new and effective means of linking offenders to jobs is essential to fulfillment of the
Indiana Department of Correction’s public safety mission. We have taken a positive step in
the right direction with Project RISE, based at Westville Correctional Facility (WCF), a lowmedium correctional facility for adult males located in northern Indiana.
Project RISE, Reintegration Into Society THROUGH Education, is a joint effort of the Indiana
Department of Correction and the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (DWD). The
purpose of Project RISE is to assist the reintegration process of the offender, thus reducing recidivism. The Department of Correction offers education and training necessary for employment to eligible offenders. DWD provides a link to employment and support services after the
offender is released.
Program History
Project RISE began in October 1999 as a pilot project, Project RIO. Project RIO, ReIntegration
of Offenders, was modeled after the Texas program of the same name. The pilot project initially involved only the building trades, business computer applications, and culinary arts programs. The project was based upon three (3) basic tenets:
•
Increasing prison populations can be affected by reducing recidivism rates of offenders
319
•
•
Education and employment provide strong links in reducing recidivism
A collaborative environment is desired between the Indiana Department of Correction
and external agencies to create a continuous transition process that reduces overlapping
reintegration efforts and promotes public safety
A National Institute of Corrections sponsored visit was arranged in October 2000 with the
Texas Department of Correction to gather first-hand knowledge of the Texas Project RIO. The
purpose of the visit was to improve the design, delivery, management, and evaluation of the
Indiana pilot Project RIO initiative.
Following the visit to Texas Project RIO, improvements were initiated. The name was changed
from pilot Project RIO to Project RISE, Reintegration Into Society THROUGH Education, in
January 2001. The program began incorporating students from all vocational programs. Project
RISE procedures were standardized and expanded to include the procurement of necessary portfolio documents. Evaluation of Project RISE effectiveness began through recidivism data, follow-up communication with released participants, and employment information. Expansion of
Project RISE to include offenders in post-secondary education began in July 2002.
Program Objectives
•
•
•
•
To provide services to eligible offenders by generating a career plan, cover letter, resume, and the ability to secure documentation necessary for an employment portfolio
To provide job assessment and training through Indiana Department of Correction education services programming during incarceration, leading to gainful employment upon
release
To provide access to additional facility programming through referrals, ensuring that
barriers to employment will be addressed prior to release
To provide labor market, job search, and placement services to participants through
various media, thus easing the transition to the community
Program Description
The Indiana Department of Correction initiates services to vocational students at the Westville
Correctional Facility through an applied academic class and eleven vocational programs. Applied academics instructor Jo Ann Ficken, a NIC-trained Offender Workforce Development
Specialist (OWDS), inventories interests and skills, to facilitate better career choices. Job readiness skills and knowledge and corresponding labor market research are included as essential
steps in the development of a career plan. The cognitive-behavioral program, Thinking for a
Change, assists offenders in acquiring improved reasoning skills and instilling a work ethic.
Job-readiness skills training include application preparation, cover letter and resume construction, and a videotaped mock interview session. The Federal Bonding program and WOTC tax
credit are introduced as traditional and non-traditional job search skills are refined. Social Security cards, birth certificates, GED/diplomas, and other necessary documents are secured for
portfolio development.
Tier I: Entrance to vocational programming in applied academics class
320
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Vocational orientation
Refine math skills
Computer literacy
Job readiness skills
Portfolio development
Secure documents
Employability skills
Education, training, and portfolio updates continue as students proceed to their chosen vocation.
Referrals are made to substance abuse treatment, stress management, anger control, and other
programs that affect employment barriers.
Tier II: Enter vocational program or exit program prior to completion
• Continue portfolio development
• Work ethic
Vocational training is completed and certification is obtained. Available outside certification is
applied for. Resumes are updated and portfolios are organized.
Tier III: Complete course requirements and vocational certification(s)
• Application and testing for outside certifications
• Revise resume
• Complete portfolio development
Students who are within six (6) months or less of release attend a Project RISE seminar presented by Dwayne Shaffer, a representative from the LaPorte WorkOne office, a division of
DWD. The Project RISE seminar provides an employment link as WorkOne services are described. Employability skills are refined, and job search skills are refreshed during the seminar.
Participants pre-register with the WorkOne’s Customer Self-Service System, a statewide computer network of employment and labor information known as “CS3.”
Tier IV: Attend a Project RISE Workforce Development seminar
• Refine employability and job search skills
• Partial registration in WorkOne computer system
Release
Two (2) weeks prior to release, portfolios are forwarded to the address provided by the offender, and Project RISE participants receive a mailing. The mailing contains job search reminders and indicates the appropriate WorkOne office to contact. Full “CS3” registration upon
release produces job matches and enables the Department of Workforce Development to better
provide post release assistance.
Tracking
Tracking of released offenders is essential for evaluating program methodology and effectiveness. Recidivism is tracked to determine rates and reasons for re-incarceration with the DepartPromising or Unique Services
321
ment. Employment data of released Project RISE participants is collected to inform program
improvements. This tracking is accomplished through the “CS3” system, Department of Workforce Development contacts, the Indiana Department of Correction website, and probation/
parole information.
Program Methodology
Program methodology is based upon teaching job readiness skills and knowledge essential to
the development of a career plan. The initial counseling and assessment of capabilities and interests in Tier I lead to better career choices as the foundation of the career plan. Standardized
programming ensures essential points and concepts are taught to all offenders in the applied
academics class and vocational programs. Understanding and behavioral change are the result
of repetitive learning activities. A coordinated, collaborative effort among the applied academic
teacher and vocational staff provides effective programming for the Project RISE participants.
Cognitive-behavioral programming help offenders acquire better reasoning skills and change
behavior instilling a common work ethic necessary for employment and job retention.
Evaluation Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Career plans generated
Program participants
Number of personal documents obtained prior to release
Portfolios forwarded to Department of Workforce Development
Vocational completions
Referrals to appropriate programming
Certification received
Department of Workforce Development statistics
Program benefits
Number of “CS3” partial registrations
Offenders released
Number of “CS3” completed registrations
Program Effectiveness
Project RISE is successfully reducing the recidivism rate of participants released from the
Westville Correctional Facility. Recidivism is defined as return to incarceration with the Indiana Department of Correction. The Project RISE recidivism rate through March 18, 2004 is
11.06 percent, comparing favorably with the Correctional Education Association’s The Three
State Recidivism Study (2001) recidivism rate of 23.20 percent.
Project RISE has positively impacted the unemployment rate of participants who fully registered with the Department of Workforce Development CS3 system upon release. Since the inception of the program, between 70 percent and 75 percent of Project RISE participants gained
employed within thirty days of their release.
322
Summary
Project RISE data regarding reduction of recidivism and unemployment rates for participants is
very encouraging. The collaborative effort involving the Indiana Department of Correction and
Indiana WorkOne benefits all involved. Educational services provide the offenders with assessment, employability skills training, and vocational instruction. The career plans and portfolios
generated by the offenders assist WorkOne in job placement and other services provided. The
Indiana Department of Correction benefits by reducing bed demand, as offenders with skills
and job contacts are less likely to return. The collaborative reintegration system promotes offender success and public safety, which benefits all the citizens of Indiana.
Current plans call for incorporation of Project RISE into the Department’s case management
system that is under development. Project RISE is to be expanded to most adult Indiana Department of Correction facilities, including female facilities. With DWDs support, we are developing partnerships with WorkOne local offices across the state and planning job fairs.
323
Transitional Jobs Project …And Employment for All
Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional
With over 8,000 people returning to the city of Baltimore from state prisons each year (a rate
six times the national average by population), Baltimore faces an immense challenge to public
safety and human capital development. Half of those returning are likely to be re-incarcerated
or have their time under supervision lengthened for new violations, a number 25% above the
national average. Much of this recidivism traces back to unemployment rates at or above 50%,
and to attendant problems such as low academic achievement, unstable housing arrangements,
and inadequately treated substance abuse. Securing employment is difficult enough with a
criminal record for those without adequate education and with other barriers, the task is much
more difficult (Job Opportunities Task Force, 2004.)
We recognize that gainful employment is a key component to the offender’s reintegration into
the community (Bushway & Reuter, 1997; Taxman, Young & Byrne, 2001.) A consortium of
more than 20 city and state agencies, including the Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services, private foundations, and social service organizations, drawn from the
workforce and criminal justice fields has come together over the past year to plan a new transitional jobs program tailored for ex-offenders. The program responds to the vast unmet needs in
Baltimore, and builds on good practice here and elsewhere. The offenders targeted by this initiative will be those who are “difficult to serve,” having little to no employment experience and/
or training, and low reading levels and comprehension.
Transitional jobs programs are designed to provide temporary employment in a structured setting, and to help overcome barriers to long-term participation in the labor market such as poor
work or literacy skills. Transitional jobs offer paid work experience for up to six months at the
325
minimum wage. During this time a transitional worker develops a work record, participates in
classes or individualized efforts to gain or improve job-related skills, and receives support services to ensure adequate housing and childcare. After three months’ successful transitional
work, most programs heighten efforts to help the worker move into an unsubsidized job with
decent wages, benefits, and advancement potential, and places all participants in unsubsidized
jobs by the six-month point. The program also provides ongoing support and assistance to keep
people in jobs and advancing for at least the first twelve months following placement.
The results of these programs are encouraging. During 2000-2002, the Center for Employment
Opportunities in New York City saw 56 percent of those who enrolled in its transitional work
program after leaving state institutions move into unsubsidized employment at an average wage
of $7.31 (CEO, 2004.) What is more, CEO reports a job retention rate of approximately 75% at
the six-month mark following placement. A Baltimore program featuring transitional jobs and
comprehensive support services can aspire to reduce re-arrest and re-incarceration among exoffenders, and to help a significant percentage move into and keep unsubsidized employment.
With the help of national experts, the consortium established goals of reducing re-incarceration
among ex-prisoners, and helping growing numbers of ex-prisoners move into and keep mainstream employment. Employment will not only help ex-prisoners become economically self
supporting; for every person who does not return to prison, the state will avoid at least $25,000
per year in housing costs. In its first 18-24 months of operation the program will move 100 exprisoners into employment and lay the groundwork for growing to serve 400-600 annually.
The project will provide eligible ex-offenders with transitional employment, support services,
placement in the labor market, and 12 months of post-placement retention services, in order to
improve public safety and reintegration. For the first program cycle, numerical objectives that
flow from the stated goals are as follows:
•
•
•
•
Provide transitional jobs and support services for 100 ex-prisoners
Place 70 ex-prisoners into regular employment, and provide them with retention services for 12 months
Assist 50 ex-prisoners (70%) to retain jobs or continue working for twelve months following exit from the transitional work phase of the program
Reduce re-incarceration among participating ex-prisoners by 50%
In order to ensure reaching these goals and objectives, the program will operate with three major phases: 1) recruitment and selection “behind the fence” in cooperation with the Maryland
Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; 2) up to 6 months of transitional work
experience on work crews, during which time participants will devote 28 to 32 hours per week
to work and 8 to 12 hours per week in job search, career development, and other support activities; and 3) competitive employment and retention services for 12 to 15 months, including continuation in education and skills training as needed until the 12-month retention period expires.
The comprehensive program design and methodology will lead to outcomes including: More
ex-prisoners will re-integrate into society more fully, through a combination of work and other
supports; ex-prisoners who are working and have access to other supports will be less likely to
326
engage in criminal activity, thus enhancing public safety and reducing re-incarceration; the
State of Maryland will avoid at least $1 million in prison costs in the first program cycle; and
program participants will obtain training and education capable of securing a more reliable
long-term position, as well as advancement, in the labor market.
Funding to launch the program has stemmed from at least three types of sources: 1) private philanthropy, 2) city, state, and Federal government grants or Federal pass-through funds, and 3)
work-based contracts. To date over $950,000 has been raised. Over time, pending successful
deployment of work crews and negotiation of agreements with public agencies, the portion of
funds generated by work crews will increase. In addition, as reentry grows in policy importance and transitional jobs programs prove effective statewide and nationally, the Baltimore
project will aggressively seek additional public funds that become available. Project implementation is scheduled for mid-May 2004.
327
References
Bushway, S and P Reuter, 1997. Review of Labor Market Crime Prevention Programs. In
Sherman, L.W, Gottfredson, D. C., MacKenzie, D., Eck, J., Reuter, P. & Bushway, S.
1997.
What Works? What Doesn’t? What’s Promising: Report to Congress.
Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
Center for Employment Opportunities, 2004. www.ceoworks.com
Job Opportunities Task Force, 2004. Connecting Low Income Families to Good Jobs: A Policy
Road Map for Maryland. Baltimore, MD.
Taxman, F.S., Young, D., Byrne, J., 2001. From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in
Offender Reentry. Report prepared for the National Institute of Justice, Washington,
D.C.
328
Nebraska’s Reentry Initiative Pilot
Practitioners who are involved with reintegration of inmates back into the community recognize
the complexities involved in this effort along with the potentially positive impact on reduction
of recidivism.
The Nebraska Reentry Initiative, which is in the initial stages of implementation, is a coordinated plan to address these complexities by promoting a manageable and seamless continuum
of programming, treatment, and supervision from incarceration to the community. The Reentry
Initiative Pilot for serious and violent offenders has been separated into three phases: Phase 1 Protect and Prepare: Institutional Based Programs; Phase II - Control and Restore: Community
Based Transition; and Phase III - Responsibility and Productivity: Long-term Community Based
Support.
Phase I - Protect and Prepare: Institutional Based Programs occurs in Nebraska’s secure institutions where project participants will be screened and selected from the existing offender population. Criteria for all states awarded Reentry grants from the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, include violent and/or serious offenders 19 to 35 years of age who are at
high risk for recidivism and returning to specific geographical locations. Our pilot is for those
offenders returning to specific zip codes in the metropolitan Omaha area. Selection for participants results from risk assessment instruments and a revised/validated classification system.
The Department of Correctional Services has contracted with The Criminal Justice Institute,
Inc. (CJI) to design an objective risk/needs assessment instrument and to redesign the Department’s classification system.
329
A Reentry team will be assembled for individual participants based on each inmate’s particular
needs, strengths, deficits, and existing supports. Each will be “tailor-made” and will change
membership as the inmate progresses through the program. At any given time, members of the
team may consist of institutional case managers, law enforcement, parole board members, parole officers, transition officers (explained in Phase II), treatment and community services representatives, inmate family members, victim services representatives, and clergy. A Personalized Reentry Program Plan (PREPP) will be developed at the time of the offender’s admission
into the Department. For those offenders already incarcerated, the PREPP will be developed at
least one year prior to the offender’s parole eligibility date.
Phase II - Control and Restore: Community Based Transition is the point at which the offender
is transferred to a Community Corrections Center for placement on a work detail either at a
Community Corrections Center or in the community for a three-month period. The offender
then progresses to the work release program for six months to establish employment and to continue reintegration more extensively with the community. The offender will subsequently be
paroled. The Nebraska Board of Parole is the entity which has the statutory authority to conditionally release inmates into the community, impose sanctions, and revoke parole. The Board
of Parole is the reentry authority for Nebraska’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Program. The Board is a separate and distinct entity apart from the Department of Correctional
Services; therefore, a mutual agreement was entered into between both agencies to coordinate
all aspects of the transition process.
While in the transition phase, the offender continues to participate in prescribed programming
and treatment as stipulated in the PREPP. Prior to moving to a Community Corrections Center,
the offender will be introduced to the availability of services while the Reentry team works to
establish a continuum of treatment and programming in the community. Family and community ties will be reestablished by working with family members and community service providers to strengthen family relationships and connect the offender with social organizations. If
housing is required, the local housing authority and other local agencies will be contacted for
assistance in finding a residence prior to the offender’s release on parole. The team will provide assistance in finding employment and/or vocational training. Substance abuse programming and mental health treatment received in the institution will be continued in the community. Intensive supervision and additional surveillance of serious and violent offenders, will be
accomplished through electronic monitoring with collaborative efforts between Parole Administration, transition officers, and law enforcement. Relapse prevention and graduated violation
sanctions will be built into the project.
The Nebraska Reentry Initiative provides for the creation of two positions identified as transition officers. The individuals in these positions will work with offenders/parolees, institutional
staff, parole staff, and community programs, in a role similar to that of a case manager. The
transition officers will provide continuity, by working with program participants at inception
into the program at the institution, while at the Community Centers in Phase 2, through parole,
and after discharge.
The Department has entered into an agreement with the University of Nebraska at Omaha
(UNO) for an inter-disciplinary team that will assist in facilitating the implementation of the
330
Reentry Initiative. This team will hold a series of meetings with state and local partners to familiarize them with the project, solicit information regarding available resources and services
that will be needed, and foster communication to enhance the coordination and delivery of services. UNO will also conduct an outcome and process evaluation of the project, by assessing
the impact of the program on public safety, recidivism, cost effectiveness, and achievement of
project goals.
Partnership with other state, county, and city government agencies, as well as with local service
providers and community groups, is critical to any corrections transition program. To initiate
this effort, a number of representatives from these organizations were contacted to explain the
project. The response was extremely favorable with all agreeing to partner through formal letters of understanding. Agencies involved in the Initiative include: Nebraska Department of
Health and Human Services; State Office of Work Force Services; Nebraska Commission on
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice; Nebraska State Patrol; Nebraska Department of Labor;
Nebraska Board of Parole; State Probation Administration; University of Nebraska and Omaha
College of Public Affairs and Community Service, Douglas County Sheriff; Douglas County
Department of Corrections; Omaha Mayors Office; Omaha Police Department; Greater Omaha
Workforces Development; Nebraska Fatherhood Initiative; Offender Accountability Synergistic
Interactive Services; Nebraska Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives; and the Nebraska U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Oversight for the program is being provided through the formulation of two steering committees. The Statewide Reentry Steering Committee is comprised of state agency directors, the
Chairman of the Nebraska Board of Parole, the State Probation Administrator, representatives
from the University of Nebraska at Omaha, the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement
and Criminal Justice, and the State Community Corrections Division.
The Department’s Reentry Steering Committee is comprised of representatives from all institutions, the substance abuse and mental health programs, Parole Administration, planning and research office, the Nebraska Board of Parole, and the State Community Corrections Division.
This committee is tasked with providing oversight at the Department level for all phases of the
initiative. Members from this group will assist in the development and implementation of the
risk assessment instruments and the classification system. An additional committee was established to develop a residential program at the Omaha Correctional Center. This pilot program
will serve as the model for future Reentry programs throughout Nebraska.
Phase II includes an extensive public information effort. Six focus group presentations will be
conducted with groups of similar interests (i.e., faith-based, victims groups, housing, employment, education, treatment programs and law enforcement) to provide an overview of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, and to describe Nebraska’s project in particular.
Through town hall discussions and providing information in response to questions, it is expected that future partnerships can be generated and community involvement will continue to
grow.
The Department is in the process of developing an eight-hour training curriculum to be presented to community groups and volunteers participating in the project specifically designed to
331
assist them in working with offenders. Subjects to be covered will be adapted from the Department’s present pre-service courses including discrimination, harassment, diversity, religious
practices, orientation to corrections, correctional communication, inmate rules and regulations,
victim awareness, and games inmates play.
While Phases I and II are detailed and comprehensive, Phase III - Responsibility and Productivity: Long-term Community Based Support will provide the gauge for measuring the success of
the initiative. In practicality, this phase is an extension of Phase II without formal control and
supervision provided by the Department of Correctional Services. Phase III includes continued
support of community and community-based organizations (including faith-based groups), continued involvement of relevant support services to address specific needs (e.g. substance abuse),
and encourages contact with the offender’s own personal social support network for ongoing
community support. The University of Nebraska at Omaha (UNO) will develop performance
measures and a database to gauge offender progress after parole supervision has ended. Statistics will be drawn from periodic record checks, participant interviews, control groups, offender
surveys, socio-demographic characteristics, treatment providers, employers, and educational
records, to determine the overall impact of the project on recidivism rates.
While in prison, programming sets the stage for the gradual transition to a Community Corrections Center and eventually to the community. Each phase presents unique opportunities for
diverse teams to interact and work toward the common goal of the offender’s successful reintegration. Perhaps one of the most important features of the initiative is that upon the offender’s
discharge from parole, the offender’s reentry team will remain intact to provide continued support as needed. Offenders who have successfully transitioned to the community may be a part
of this team for other participants.
332
Responsible Parenting Program
Background
The United States Congress identified responsible fatherhood as a critical issue in 1998-1999.
In fact, current studies have clearly shown the impact of parental incarceration on children.
These children may suffer self-esteem issues, fear, anxiety, depression, eating disorders, sleeping disorders, diminished academic performance, early involvement in the criminal justice system, as well as myriad other issues. Additionally, these children are five to six times more likely
to become incarcerated. Studies show that the development or improvement of the incarcerated
parents' relationships with their children is vital if we are to prevent or reduce the intergenerational cycle of criminality. Nationwide it is estimated that more than 2 million children have a
parent or parents who are currently incarcerated.
The Program
In 2000, the New Jersey Departments of Corrections and Human Services began planning efforts to collaboratively respond to this issue. The Responsible Parenting Program is an interdepartmental initiative that aims to increase responsible parenting through the provision of specific services to allow incarcerated parents to assume emotional and financial responsibility for
their children. The primary goals of this initiative are to develop or improve relationships between children and their incarcerated parent(s) and to increase the offender’s understanding of
their child support payment responsibility.
To fund this initiative, the New Jersey Department of Human Services provided federal TempoPromising or Unique Services
333
rary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) dollars to the New Jersey Department of Corrections. A Memorandum of Understanding guides ongoing development between the two state
agencies. In addition, an interdepartmental advisory board that includes representation from the
Departments of Corrections, Human Services, and Labor, as well as the State Parole Board and
the Residential Community Release Programs, oversees the initiative.
Participation in the Responsible Parenting Program is voluntary for female offenders who are
incarcerated at Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women and for male offenders who are
assigned to one of five designated Residential Community Release Programs. The Responsible
Parenting Program is currently provided at the below listed New Jersey Department of Corrections' contracted Residential Community Release Programs:
•
•
•
•
The Center for Urban Education (CUE- Ogden) in Newark
Hope Hall – Volunteers of America, Delaware Valley in Camden
The Kintock Group in both Bridgeton and Newark
The Port Program in Newark
Eligibility criteria for program participation are broad. Targeted participants are within 4 to 12
months of release from custody. Priority for program participation is given to offenders experiencing child support, parenting, or child custody problems. An integrated information technology system now allows the New Jersey Department of Human Services to identify child support
obligators who are in the custody of the New Jersey Department of Corrections. In addition, the
Department of Human Services, Office of Child Support Services, confirms the existence of
child support obligations prior to the participant's assignment to the program.
The specific services currently provided to Responsible Parenting Program participants include
the following:
Parents Anonymous of New Jersey, Inc. - Parents Anonymous of New Jersey,
Inc. provides an educational/support group entitled “Parenting Our Successors in
Society Effectively (POSSE).” The Department of Corrections has subcontracted with Parents Anonymous to provide a 16-week parent education, selfhelp, or mutual aid experience to identified residents at the five designated Residential Community Release Programs. There is also a female-only Parents
Anonymous support group at Kintock -Newark. A trained, professional facilitator leads each weekly, two-hour program. Participants are encouraged to take
leadership roles in the group activities. Upon release from the Residential Community Release Program, participants are encouraged to continue attending a
Parents Anonymous POSSE group in the community for continued support. Parents Anonymous of New Jersey, Inc. facilitates community support groups
throughout the state.
Reconciliation Ministries, Inc. – Reconciliation Ministries, Inc. provides a series
of parenting skills workshops entitled “Together Inside and Out” at Edna Mahan
Correctional Facility for Women. The series of ten, two-hour workshops are offered in the maximum custody unit and on grounds of the facility. Weekly home334
work assignments and constructive responses from the program facilitator help
to individualize the program to each participant’s specific needs and concerns.
Goals of the “Together Inside and Out Program” include the development of reentry skills to resume parental roles upon release, increased education in custody
and parental rights, and enhanced knowledge of mentoring skills for children and
teens. Reconciliation Ministries sponsors an annual family day event for all program participants in which the children are transported to the facility.
Department of Human Services – The Department of Human Services is an integral part of the Responsible Parenting Program. In addition to funding this initiative, the Department of Human Services contracts with a private vendor to
provide educational seminars on child support issues (i.e. parental rights, child
support order modification procedures) for both the Responsible Parenting Program participants and the Residential Community Release Program staff. In addition, the Department of Human Services, Office of Child Support Services, has
assigned a departmental liaison to the Responsible Parenting Program. The liaison works closely with the New Jersey Department of Corrections’ Responsible
Parenting Program staff and is available to assist with specific child support
questions or concerns. The liaison also meets monthly with the Residential
Community Release Program providers. The Office of Child Support Services is
currently reviewing policy and other state best practices to guide future developments of this initiative.
Department of Labor - The Department of Labor participates on the advisory
board for the Responsible Parenting Program. This department has assigned a
liaison to work closely with the Departments of Corrections and Human Services
to determine strategies to provide employment training, education, and job
search assistance to program participants. For example, the Department of Labor
has garnered the support of the local One-Stop Career Centers for this initiative.
The One-Stop Career Centers deliver informational workshops to program participants and have assigned liaisons to each participating Residential Community
Release Program and Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women. Workshops
are provided to educate the Responsible Parenting Program participants about
the services that are available at the local One-Stop Career Centers and the methods to access employment services.
Workplace Literacy Learning Labs - As an additional step to link Responsible
Parenting Program participants to employment, computerized workplace literacy
learning labs were developed at two of the pilot sites for the Responsible Parenting Program. The workplace literacy learning labs help improve competencies
that an individual is required to obtain to compete in today’s labor market. Initial start-up costs for the two labs were funded through Responsible Parenting
Program Grant funds available in the first funding cycle of the program.
Community Support/Aftercare Services - The Department of Corrections has
subcontracted with the Center for Family Services, a nonprofit community
335
agency located in South Jersey, to provide community support services. The
Center’s “Self Assurance and Self Sufficiency Program” for Responsible Parenting Program participants focuses on supporting participants in reentry and linking them with available community resources. The program integrates a service
model of counseling, case management, and advocacy. Community support services are provided for up to 90 Responsible Parenting Program participants returning to South Jersey annually.
Listed below are two of the current goals for the second funding cycle of the Responsible Parenting Program:
The Responsible Parenting Program Advisory Board recognized the need for additional parenting skills and support services for female inmates in New Jersey.
The need is particularly evident for women participating in the department's substance abuse treatment therapeutic community program. As a result, the
“Parenting From Prison” program will be implemented at Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for Women and a Residential Community Release Program in
North Jersey. Parenting skills and community support group services will be facilitated by Parents Anonymous of New Jersey, Inc. The “Parenting From
Prison” program is scheduled to begin on April 21, 2004.
The “Parenting From Prison” program will have two phases. Participants will
engage in a sixteen-week parenting education and support group program within
the Therapeutic Community at the Edna Mahan Correctional Facility for
Women. Community support group services will also be available at the Residential Community Release Program in Newark for female inmates who are
transferred from Edna Mahan Correctional Facility.
This program will ideally include all facets of the Responsible Parenting Program that are currently available to the male offender including assistance with
understanding and navigating the child support system, and employment training
and job search assistance. Responsible Parenting Program participants will continue to work closely with Department of Labor One-Stop Career Centers when
they arrive at the Residential Community Release Program. The women will
also have community support services available when they return to their community of residence. Community support services will be available through the
subcontracts between the Department of Corrections, the Center for Family Services, and a soon to be identified community agency provider in North Jersey.
•
336
The Department of Corrections is currently seeking proposals from communitybased agencies in North Jersey to provide support services to Responsible Par
enting Program participants who return to communities in North Jersey.
Through the subcontract with a North Jersey community-based agency, partici
pants will be provided with individual and/or group counseling services to cope
with the transition from prison to community. In addition, case management
services will include housing, transportation, employment assistance, and refer
rals for treatment such as alcohol and drug or mental health counseling. A con
tract is anticipated to be established by June 2004.
Inmates in New Jersey who are assigned to a Residential Community Release Program are
closely monitored, counseled, and supervised by staff, providing an ideal situation for implementing the Responsible Parenting Program for the male inmates. The Therapeutic Community
within the female institution provides a structured safe "family" environment for the women to
participate in the Responsible Parenting Program, and assignment to the follow-up Residential
Community Release Program will provide them with continuity of care. The opportunity to
continue to attend parenting support groups upon release to the community provides the exoffender a refuge to discuss parenting concerns and receive feedback from other parents.
Conclusion
A review of the literature indicates that the time that many offenders begin to “fail” in their reentry efforts is when they are no longer under the supervision of the Department of Corrections
or the parole authority. The goal of contracting with a non-profit agency in the community is to
provide assistance at this difficult time. Contracted services through non-profit community
agencies for offenders who have returned to the community provide an additional opportunity
for Responsible Parenting Program participants to obtain assistance with reentry issues, as well
as provide an avenue for clinical intervention for those offenders who may have additional parenting or treatment issues.
While the New Jersey Department of Corrections fully endorses the Responsible Parenting Program for incarcerated male and female offenders and other reentry initiatives, it is our firm belief that the best intervention is prevention. That is why the efforts of the Responsible Parenting
Program extend past the offender’s exit from the correctional system. The program encourages
ongoing support to ex-offenders in their child rearing efforts with the hopes that their children
will not commence criminal lifestyles.
With this commitment to prevention, we have embarked on establishing and, where appropriate,
intensifying our programs directed towards diverting crime risk populations from the correctional experience. Through the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Grant Program, announced by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration of Children and Families,
we hope to partner with community and faith-based agencies in the mentoring of children of
prisoners in New Jersey. We have also produced crime prevention public service announcements that are shown in schools throughout the state. As well, we have engaged inmates in
speaking to youth about gang awareness and prevention and the dire consequences of drug and
alcohol use. This is our best intervention.
337
Going Home Initiative
North Carolina Department of Correction
Theodis Beck, Secretary
Introduction
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) is an unprecedented collaboration
among the U.S. Departments of Justice, Commerce, Housing and Urban Development, Health
and Human Services, Labor, Education, Agriculture, and Veterans Affairs. In the summer of
2002, sixty-nine grantees throughout the United States received funding to develop, implement,
enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies to ensure public safety and reduce serious, violent
crime, and recidivism. In North Carolina, this reentry effort is known as the Going Home Initiative (GHI) and targets 18-35 year old offenders who have at least 90 days of community supervision upon release from prison. Specifically, the GHI projects targets offenders returning to
13 counties across North Carolina. These counties represent both urban and rural areas, and
thus present the real challenges facing inmates in making a successful transition back into the
community.
Obstacles to Successful Transition
There are two major obstacles to successful transition: housing and employment. In North
Carolina, the GHI project is taking unparalleled steps to address these major obstacles. Although departmental staff provide inmates with information and refer them to resources, the
availability and accessibility of housing and employment opportunities are especially problematic for offenders. Criminal offenders are often barred from public housing resources and employment assistance which are targeted to low wealth individuals or special populations. In a
recent report by the Legal Action Center entitled After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry (Legal
339
Action Center 2004), North Carolina ranked 32nd among all states in terms of the number of legal roadblocks faced by people with criminal records when they attempt to reenter society. How
can any offender make a successful transition from prison to the community if they don’t have a
decent place to live and a job?
State Agency Partnerships
The North Carolina Department of Correction (NC DOC) through the GHI project is establishing partnerships at the state level to address the housing and employment concerns of released
offenders. The department is also looking at the broader policy implications and how some of
these identified roadblocks can be removed. Simply put, North Carolina is thinking outside the
box and building relationships to create stronger, safer communities.
On the housing front, the department envisions a statewide network of housing providers that
work together to advocate for and pursue additional funding resources. More specifically, this
network or coalition will develop strategies for promoting the needs and challenges of providing housing for offenders. Network partners may include faith-based initiatives or non-profits
who build affordable housing that would be open to offenders. Other network partners may include community-based organizations that operate reentry programs that make housing available to participants. The NC DOC is collaborating with the Department of Health and Human
Services to support a staff position, the homeless policy specialist, and is developing a 10-year
plan to end homelessness for the state of North Carolina.
Likewise on the employment front, the department is working internally to improve how inmates are prepared for work through revised policies and job preparation programs. The department has also developed a short-term strategic plan that emphasizes what works, as well as skill
development opportunities that are available to inmates during incarceration. This internal review has directly increased the number of inmates identified for construction crews, community
service/work projects, and vocational programs. A recent example is the partnership between a
community college and Corrections Enterprise plant. Inmates are transferred to a designated
prison unit to learn basic welding skills through the local community college. Upon completion
of the welding class, the inmates are transferred to a prison unit that houses the Corrections Enterprises Metals plant in order to use their welding skills.
The NC DOC is cultivating relationships with community-based organizations and the local
JobLink (One-Stop) Centers to assist offenders with employment. Although the economy presents significant challenges, the North Carolina Community College System and the Department of Commerce are state agency partners in the GHI project. Released offenders in the pilot
communities will be able to access these resources to help them search for jobs, complete applications, and receive case management support. Additionally, these agencies will help identify
potential employers and match offenders with appropriate jobs.
Prison and Community Partnerships
The Going Home Initiative (GHI) is a collaborative effort between the North Carolina Department of Correction, North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, North Carolina
340
Department of Commerce and the North Carolina Community College System. Through the
Going Home Initiative, the state of North Carolina is creating a systemic pre-release, community transition and reentry infrastructure. The goals of the Going Home Initiative are to ensure
public safety by reducing recidivism through successful community reintegration, to create a
sustainable transition and reentry process that ensures coordinated services and supervision of
offenders released from prison, and to establish a statewide network of government agencies,
community and faith based organizations, businesses and citizens committed to successful offender transition and reentry. In order to accomplish this, our efforts focus on improving coordination of program and service delivery in prison, identifying transition and reentry needs earlier, creating an outcome-oriented case planning process, and coordinating the seamless transition between prison and the community.
The target population for the Going Home Initiative is offenders released from prison under
community supervision (e.g., parole or post-release) with at least a 90-day term. They must be
between the ages of 18 to 35 at the time of release and returning to one of the following counties: Buncombe, Henderson, Caldwell, Catawba, Burke, McDowell, Wake, Durham, Lenoir,
Greene, Wayne, Duplin, and Pitt. The Going Home Initiative is a three-phased process designed
to address the stages an offender goes through when returning to the community. Phase I- Institution Based Programs: Services provided in this phase include education, mental health and
substance abuse treatment, job training, mentoring, and full diagnostic and risk assessment.
Phase II- Community-Based Transition Programs: Services provided in this phase include education, housing, mentoring, life-skills training, assessment, job skills development, mental
health, and substance abuse treatment. Phase III- Community-Based Long Term Support Programs: These programs connect individuals who have left the supervision of the justice system
with a network of social service agencies and community-based organizations to provide ongoing services and positive mentoring relationships. Although the initiative is divided into three
distinct phases, one of the major themes of the Going Home Initiative is shared decision making
across each of the phases. The Department has adopted the Offender Management Model
(OMM) to engage agencies, organizations, and volunteers, at all levels to restructure interventions and services into a seamless continuum.
The Going Home Initiative established a State Planning and Advisory Team consisting of representatives from the four major departments and the Governor’s Office. This team advises the
Going Home Initiative Project Director on policy issues. The Going Home Initiative Project
Director serves as the point of contact for state, local, community-based agencies, organizations
participating in the initiative, and monitors implementation and oversees operations of the cluster communities. The Going Home Initiative has been very successful in engaging additional
partners to include: the Division of Community Corrections (DCC), Division of Prisons (DOP),
Criminal Justice Partnership Program (CJPP), Transition Aftercare Network (TAN), Division of
Alcohol and Chemical Dependency Programs (DACDP), Employment Security Commission
(ESC), JobLink Career Centers, Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities (TASC), Vocational Rehabilitation, Weed and Seed, Housing Authority, and Social Services.
To tackle the problem of barriers to employment, the North Carolina Department of Commerce
is providing funding for six Offender Specialist positions to service the thirteen counties taking
part in the Going Home Initiative. The Offender Specialist serves as the main point of contact
341
for the cluster communities on all employment issues. The Offender Specialist is responsible
for providing direct services that address the employment and training needs of GHI participants. The Offender Specialist completes an individual service strategy or education and employment plan for each offender. The plan reflects an objective assessment of the offender’s
academic and occupational skill levels, career interests, work history and job readiness as well
as needed support services. The Offender Specialists provides core, intensive and training services in an effort to assist GHI participants obtain and maintain full-time, gainful employment.
The Offender Specialist provides these services to offenders during incarceration and after release. The Offender Specialist will identify offender-friendly employers within their designated
counties and develop a network of prospective employers.
Changing the Odds
The North Carolina Going Home Initiative theme, “Changing the Odds” speaks specifically to
the emphasis that has been placed on reducing and/or eliminating barriers that ex-offenders face
when returning to the community. Organizational capacity building is an important part of this
initiative. At a “Changing the Odds” training conference in January 2004, over 170 state and
local partners came together to improve skills and discuss shared decision-making. Trainers
presented information on employment, training for ex-offenders, correctional case management,
capacity building and sustainability, mentoring, housing for ex-offenders, and working with
community partners. In April 2004, thirty partners attended a training for Offender Workforce
Specialists, to increase knowledge and identify effective strategies. A “Changing the Odds –
Part II” conference is tentatively planned for January 2005.
Over the three-year life of the Going Home Initiative, local planning teams will work with approximately 240 serious and violent offenders returning to their communities. They will work
to change the odds locally so that each offender will be given opportunities for successful reentry to that community. GHI is a commitment to change how we do business, sharing resources
and decision-making to make a difference in the lives of these offenders and in the safety and
quality of our communities.
342
JobStart II: Transitioning Inmates to Employment
North Carolina Department of Correction
Introduction
JobStart II - prison-to-work project – began in the N. C. Department of Correction in August
2003, with funds granted by the North Carolina Governor’s Crime Commission. The goal of
the project is to prepare selected inmates to secure employment as close to their date of release
from prison as possible, and to retain employment for at least one year. My goal is to create a
system of transition activities for offenders throughout the department that increases their success in the community and therefore increases public safety.
Pilot Sites and Phases
There are ten JobStart II prison pilot sites across the NC Division of Prisons, including minimum and medium custody units and one female facility. Project staff plans to work with approximately 100 offenders during the pilot period. The project consists of three phases: selection and orientation of prospective inmates, intensive pre-release job search, reentry preparation, and follow up contact in the community for six to twelve months.
Prison case managers at the pilot sites nominate inmates who meet the specified criteria for participation. The target population includes inmates who participated in core educational, vocational, cognitive behavior intervention, and treatment programs. Three project staff review the
records of the nominated inmates to confirm their qualifications and conduct an on-site orientation. Each inmate is interviewed individually during the orientation and offered the opportunity
to sign a participation agreement. The general profile of the inmates selected for JobStart II is
343
reflective of the overall prison population, although some may have completed more programs
than the typical inmate and may be more motivated to pursue and retain employment following
release.
The second phase of the project, intensive job search and reentry preparation, is conducted six
to nine months prior to release by project staff in the form of a weekly, three-hour workshop
held at each pilot site. The primary focus of the workshop is the development and initiation of a
comprehensive job search plan specific to the inmate’s job skills and county of release. In conjunction with the inmate’s case manager, thorough reentry plans are made, including confirmation of where the inmate will live, referrals for aftercare support, financial resources for the first
90 days, and verification of essential reentry documents. The key to this phase is starting the job
search process prior to release; accordingly, the inmate participates in the workshop series up to
the time of his or her release.
The relationship formed between project staff and the inmate in phase-two is critical to the success of the project’s third and final phase: post-release contact and follow-up documentation.
To the extent staff has developed a relationship of trust and open communication, the more successful the post-release phase. During this phase staff will be maintaining periodic contact with
the offender and continue to function as job coach and advocate as the offender continues implementation of his or her job search/reentry plan or deals with on-the-job issues. Staff also
continues to serve as a go-between for the client, as needed, in accessing agency services, prequalifying employment opportunities, and assisting as needed in a mentoring capacity. All three
phases are important, but the post-release support provided in phase-three is critical to the exinmate’s success in fulfilling his or her work objectives.
The Interagency Offender Workforce Development Advisory Board supports the ongoing implementation of the project. This board is comprised of representatives from other state and
federal agencies having a stake in the delivery of services to the offender, including the Social
Security Administration, Veterans Affairs, Vocational Rehabilitation, Community College System, Social Services, Motor Vehicles, Employment Security Commission, and the Department
of Labor’s Bureau of Apprenticeship & Training. Meeting bi-monthly, the board provides advice and assistance in assessing various obstacles to offender reentry, while also providing assistance in resolving specific JobStart II participant issues between meetings. The project also
benefits from input from a Business and Industry Advisory Committee that provides guidance
to the Division of Prisons on enhancements that can be made to correctional education programming that will better prepare inmates to meet employer expectations.
Best Practices
To date based on the operation of JobStart II, staff developed a set of best practice recommendations. These were shared with the Division of Prisons’ administration to assist the Division’s
commitment to developing the most effective possible system of transition services for preparing inmates to reenter the community.
1) Inmates are better prepared for reentry when their preparation is specified in the releasing
institution’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for transition services.
344
Boyd Bennett, Director of the North Carolina Division of Prisons, issued a first-time policy on
Transition Services in April 2001, stipulating that inmate reentry planning is a core component
of the Division’s mission. Each institution is required to develop a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) specifying the steps to be taken at the facility for preparing the inmates within six to
twelve months of release, identifying which staff will be responsible for which aspects of the
SOP, and delineating which position will be responsible for verifying that the inmate is being
released with the essential documentation needed for securing employment. Release documentation includes a Social Security card, a Department of Correction ID, a certified birth certificate, and copies of all certificates earned in prison.
2) A portfolio system serves an inmate well in being prepared to apply for and start work if the
inmate is thoroughly oriented to the value of the portfolio’s contents.
Throughout the NC prison system, and in JobStart II, each inmate has an especially designed
Transition Documents Envelope (TDE) in his or her inmate folder in which personal identification documents, educational and training certificates, resource information on the county of release, healthcare directives, housing referrals, and other post-release documentation the inmate
will need in the community is stored until given to the inmate on the day of release. The effectiveness of the portfolio system depends both of how systematically the TDE is completed and,
even more so, on how well the inmate understands the value and uses of the documents in the
TDE.
3) A standardized reentry course customized to the specific needs of the inmate in search of employment is an effective means of ensuring a baseline of reentry preparation if closely coordinated with the institution’s SOP for transition services.
Whether developed and conducted by staff, the local community college or a volunteer organization, such as Prison Fellowship Ministry, it is essential that inmates within six to twelve
months of release complete a reentry course that addresses the specific transitional needs of the
inmate. The topics included in the course must be planned to cover the broad spectrum of reentry issues faced by the ex-offender, with particular focus on the job search and how to deal with
the criminal record. In JobStart II, inmates are taught to explain their time in prison as one of
their most important strengths because it allowed them to change their lives.
JobStart II is also working with the NC Community College System in the development of an
offender-specific reentry course to be field-tested at all ten pilot sites, the local community college being one of the prison system’s most valued partners in offender reentry. A principal
component of the course will be how to conduct a job search by networking and direct contact
with employers, techniques all ex-inmates must use to penetrate the hidden job market where
the best job opportunities are for ex-offenders.
4) The more that is done before release to facilitate a smooth, expedient reentry, the more successful the inmate will be in following through on referrals and the job search plan.
Overloading the reentry plan with post-release expectations to be completed by the ex-inmate in
the community creates pressure that most offenders cannot handle. To facilitate reentry, it is
345
very helpful if as many reentry procedures can be initiated and completed prior to release. For
example, assessment for services by Vocational Rehabilitation, Veterans Affairs, and community college admissions testing may all be completed prior to release, as has been done for JobStart II participants, some at the facility and others off-site. The Division of Motor Vehicles
also provides documentation on the driver license status of all inmates in JobStart II. This allows the inmate to know precisely what conditions must be met to regain his license, a critical
requirement for many jobs. Often there is a requirement for substance abuse assessment, a condition that can be met prior to release.
5) Referrals to employers and offender workforce development service agencies produce better
results when staff make advance contact on behalf of the inmate.
In the world of sales, it is called pre-qualifying, and the technique also applies to referrals made
in support of offender reentry whereby the case manager, social worker, chaplain, or another
appropriate staff member, makes pre-release contact to provide advance information on the individual, to explain the reason for the referral, to set an appointment date and time, as well as to
establish a basis for feedback and follow-up contact. In JobStart II, the best results have been
realized when such pre-qualifying contacts have been made by staff with both employers and
workforce agencies, paving the way for the inmate to follow through once released.
6) As the critical link between inmates and their successful preparation for reentry, case managers must be well trained and supported in carrying out counseling duties.
No one has more direct contact with the inmate or more influence over his or her preparation
for release than does the case manager in most prison systems, certainly in North Carolina’s. It
is imperative, therefore, that all case managers be trained in all facets of reentry preparation including, correctional counseling techniques, career and employment planning, referral and networking procedures, documentation collection, among other basic tasks they are responsible for
performing. Case managers must also be provided with the tools and information they require to
carry out their jobs including, the latest information on reentry issues facing ex-offenders, references on job and educational planning, and internet access for conducting searches on housing,
employment opportunities, and agency services in the inmate’s county of return, all of which
resource and referral information is now available electronically. One of the goals of JobStart
II is to establish career and employment resource centers at each of the pilot sites for use by
staff and inmates, including a workstation that would permit access to the state’s database of
job openings without compromising internet security restrictions.
7) Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) with other agencies having a stake in offender reentry
can be very helpful in facilitating the transition process.
The NC Division of Prisons (DOP) has current Memoranda of Agreement in effect with the Social Security Administration for the issuance of replacement cards to inmates. The MOA with
the NC Division of Motor Vehicles (DMV) allows the NC DOC inmate ID card to be accepted
for purposes of personal identification, with the Social Security card, to apply for a driver license or renewal or for a state identification card. Discussions are also currently being held between DOP and the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation concerning renewal of the MOA for
346
inmate services that previously existed between the two agencies. JobStart II is also recommending formalization of referral procedures with the Veterans Administration (VA) as there
are between 1,500 to 2,000 inmates who served in the military prior to their incarceration. The
DD214 (military record) should, therefore, be requested for all veteran-inmates as the first step
in determining their possible eligibility for VA’s extensive programs. Then the local VA officer should be invited to the institution to meet with those inmates in their final six to twelve
months of incarceration.
8) Contact with service agencies prior to release enhances the likelihood that inmates will utilize these resources following release.
Inmates are typically very poor users of services in the community. For a variety of reasons,
they are neither patient nor persistent in applying for or accessing services that they may be eligible for, such as 90 days of food stamps from social services. However, if they have the opportunity to interact with representatives of these various agencies before release, they are more
inclined to follow up with them after release. Such interaction can be arranged by inviting
agency representatives to speak to reentry classes or to participate in “Transition Fairs,” as recently conducted at one of the JobStart II pilot sites.
9) Employers will visit prisons to learn of the institution’s education programs, to meet with
staff and inmates, and to provide information on employment opportunities in their field of
work.
Prison tours are an excellent way to introduce the business community to the many job training
programs offered at most institutions, as was recently done at one of the JobStart II pilot sites.
Invariably, the visitors are favorably impressed by the variety and quality of programming they
observe and typically leave with a very different impression of the prison system than they had
previously. Business representatives may also address reentry classes, as well as advise staff on
what they are looking for in prospective employees. Job fairs and mock interviews may also be
held, although it may be more manageable for some institutions to conduct small panel discussions on employer expectations or to invite one or more representatives to practice-interview
inmates who have been working on their interviewing skills.
10) The most accessible job market for ex-inmates is in the traditional trades, service repair,
technical specialties, construction, transportation, and hospitality industries; thus training in
these fields should be stressed in prison education.
With occasional exceptions, many fields of employment are virtually closed to most ex-inmates
having certain criminal records, especially with larger companies. Smaller employers, however,
especially those in the fields indicated above, are much more open to considering ex-offenders
who have been well prepared to reenter the work force. The skill level and credentials of the exinmate, however, must be equal to or higher than the competition. The quality of the prison system’s job training programs, therefore, must be strengthened through all available means to ensure inmates not only can demonstrate the required competence but also present the credentials
that demonstrate their readiness to perform on the job. One special way to increase the marketability of the offender’s job value is by providing the opportunity to become apprenticed
347
through the Department of Labor. This is being done at one of the JobStart II pilot sites. Prisons can incorporate applicable forms of work certification into vocational programs, such as a
universal CFC certification as part of HVAC training, or registry with the American Welding
Society for inmates qualifying for that credential.
11) As part of their criminal records speech, inmates need to be prepared to explain to employers the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) and Federal Bonding programs as incentives to
companies for hiring ex-offenders.
Employers are emphatic that ex-inmates must be open, honest and straight-forward in explaining their criminal record. The more genuine and forthcoming the ex-inmate is, the more likely
the employer will consider giving him or her “a second chance.” However, it is also essential
that the applicant be able to explain the benefits of the WOTC and Federal Bonding programs
to the employer as part of his criminal record speech, including how, where, and when, the employer may access these entitlements for hiring the ex-offender. Instruction on the two programs must be included in any reentry class, and the information on both must be included in
the inmate’s transition portfolio. The offender must know the office and contact person in the
community for both programs since both must be initiated at the time of hiring. Since the individual managing these programs will know which employers have used them in the past, this
will further expedite the application process.
12) Cognitive Behavioral Intervention (CBI) is an effective form of training for helping inmates
accept more responsibility for their decisions and being more self-directed in their actions and
job searches.
The NC Division of Prisons is committed to using CBI training as a primary rehabilitative intervention; accordingly, successful completion of a CBI course is one of the preferred criteria for
participation in JobStart II. It has proven to be one of the more reliable predictors of participant
motivation in following-through with job search plans and agency referrals.
13) The poor work history and ethic most inmates share can be redirected by defining all prison
assignments in real-world, work day terms of expectation and rewards.
In JobStart II, inmates are required to practice the types of behaviors that are required in today’s
workplace: being on-time, being prepared and ready to work, maintaining a positive attitude,
relating well to co-workers, individually and in teams; being open to suggestions and wanting to
learn and improve one’s performance, listening and communicating for understanding, and all
the other qualities and skills employers seek in their new hires. To instill these values in the
general population, all assignments need to be defined using the same terms employers use
whether it is reporting for a class, a job assignment, or a treatment session. There should be “job
descriptions” for all assignments, all activities should be supervised, and there should be
evaluation and feedback on one’s performance, as well as an improvement plan. A system of
incentives for rewarding and motivating inmates to continue pursuing their development of job
skills is also important. In JobStart II, inmates are challenged to work on their skill development
as part of their prison experience: to become better communicators, to plan and document their
daily activities, and to concentrate on their ability to focus on the task at hand. JobStart II par348
ticipants leave prison with a letter of introduction stating they are work-ready and with references that will vouch for their job skills.
14) Many inmates have career and employment expectations that are unrealistic or that they do
not possess the qualifications or resources to realize, leading to probable failure.
Prison culture promotes a great deal of false information that inmates become imbued with as
the result of repeated exposure to illusory talk and the circulation of materials containing all
manner of half-true facts. To counter this ongoing barrage of faulty information there not only
needs to be a provision of more accurate, reliable reentry information for both inmates and staff,
but inmates should also receive basic career and employment assessment, the results of which
should be used by case managers in developing the inmate’s reentry plan. In JobStart II, several
assessment instruments are used, most notably the Career Key, a short, easy-to-use career tool
that pinpoints fields of work and that staff could be trained to administer.
15) Inmates completing education programs in prison should be reassessed to document the
gains they have made in their basic skills since being assessed in admissions.
Most correctional systems assess inmate aptitude only in admissions processing, despite the fact
that many inmates subsequently complete programs that change their assessment scores. For
JobStart II, a minimum reading level of 8th grade is required and a higher level is preferred as
there are many workplaces that require a 10th grade reading level or higher due to the technical
nature of the work specifications and job instructions. Prisons need to develop a system for reassessing the achievement levels of inmates completing education programs. These new scores
should be entered into the inmate’s record, which also allows the correctional system to document that its programming has, in fact, had a positive impact.
16) Many inmates can be reunited with their families to the extent that some reentry support
may be provided, including temporary or permanent housing.
In JobStart II, many participants have received post-release support from family members, after
staff reestablished lines of communications with them. This is considered highly important because each inmate must know before he leaves prison exactly who makes up his support network. There is no group that is more basic to that network than one’s family. Often contrary to
the inmate’s belief that ties with their family are broken, it is frequently possible that housing
may be offered as part of the family’s support. Given the constant shortage of transitional housing for ex-inmates, housing support by the family can help address one of the inmate’s most
critical needs.
17) As substance abuse relapse is the number-one cause of job loss among ex-offenders, reentry
plans for inmates diagnosed as substance abusers, should include specific provisions for remaining sober and drug-free.
The evidence is clear that ex-offenders revert to alcohol or drugs when the pressures of reentry
begin to mount or the demands of the workplace are more than they can handle. Inmates not
only need to be fully aware of this pervasive trap and how to keep or get themselves out of it,
349
but should also leave prison with a listing of all NA/AA meeting sites in their county of release,
which can be found on the internet.
18) All inmates require some degree of mentoring to maintain stability in the community.
JobStart II staff provides job coaching and mentoring support to project participants following
their release, as they implement their job search and reentry plans in the community. It has become apparent that this is the most critical phase of the process as virtually all participants, except for the most strongly self-directed, are in need of varying degrees of consultation and assistance concerning work-related problems, needs for services, and other transitional issues.
Matching inmates with mentors can be done through volunteer services or the chaplain’s office,
but it often takes a more organized approach to ensure the mentors are trained, a good match is
made, and support to the mentor is available. In North Carolina, the Transition Aftercare Network (TAN), a state-wide affiliation of faith-based prison ministries, has been developed for
this purpose under the auspices of the Department of Correction.
19) Female offenders typically face more challenges in securing work than male inmates.
In JobStart II, it is clear that the female offenders are generally faced with many more reentry
issues than their male counterparts due to the need to provide for children, secure adequate
housing, arrange for childcare, and juggle schedules. In view of these demands, JobStart II staff
makes additional efforts to address specific issues women have regarding the resources available to them, to include contact information for prison ministries and other aftercare agencies
committed to serving female ex-offenders.
20) Transition services within correctional systems are often disjointed, making it difficult for
staff and inmates to negotiate unintended obstacles to an inmate’s well planned movement
through the system to a successful reentry.
Transition services should be defined as a progression from admissions processing, assessment
and orientation, through work, program and treatment assignments to meet the inmate’s developmental needs, and culminating with thorough reentry training, planning and preparation in
the final years and months of his or her sentence. This can be monitored by a case management
checklist used by all staff to ensure the inmate is progressing according to the intended case
plan. In JobStart II, a good example of efficient inmate management is a collaborative effort in
which inmates graduating from the welding program at one prison who qualify for being registered as apprentices are transferred to the metal fabrication plant at another prison to apply their
welding skills and to advance in the apprentice program.
It is also imperative that the releasing prison facility and the agency responsible for post-release
supervision work closely together, and well in advance of any release date, to coordinate planning for the inmate’s transition from incarceration to supervision in the community. As soon as
notification of release has been received from the parole agency, contact should be made between prison staff and the supervising officer to review the terms and conditions of release and
to plan accordingly for the inmate’s housing, prospects for employment, and other factors impacting the offender’s preparations for reentry.
350
21) Correctional systems are not seen as manpower development agencies even though one of
their principal functions is to prepare inmates for becoming productive workers.
To make a system of offender transition and employment services work requires a centralized
office for coordinating and supporting the various dimensions of the process. The office should
serve as a point of contact for partner agencies, the business community, and ex-offenders in
search of employment. This office should provide timely informational and technical assistance
support to prison staff, especially case managers, as well as to inmates. It should also promote
the continuous improvement of occupational training for inmates, the expansion of apprenticeship and other forms of work certification, the removal of baseless regulatory barriers to offender employment, and the development of a prison culture that reinforces those real-world
values that will serve ex-inmates well in the community and workplace.
351
Reducing Homelessness Among Offenders in North Carolina
North Carolina Department of Corrections
Governor’s Interagency Council for the Coordination of Homeless Programs (ICCHP)
Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. established the Interagency Council for the Coordination of Homeless Programs (ICCHP) in 1992 to serve as an advisory council to the Governor and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. It is comprised of 28 members appointed by the Governor, representing public and non-public agencies serving the homeless or
persons at risk of homelessness, including the departments of correction, public instruction,
community colleges, administration, commerce, and health and human services. The council
provides information on problems and issues affecting persons who are homeless or vulnerable
to homelessness and is charged with providing recommendations for joint and cooperative efforts to address the needs of homeless residents of North Carolina.
In an executive order on April 5, 1999, Governor Hunt appointed the North Carolina Department of Correction (NC DOC) as a member agency of the State Interagency Council for the Coordination of Homeless Programs (ICCHP). Since 1999, a NC DOC representative has represented the department on the council; Governor Michael G. Easley appointed the current representative for a 3-year term in 2003.
Homeless Offenders
In its most recent annual report (CY 2002-2003), the council indicated that of the 45,909 persons reported as homeless by federally funded emergency shelters in North Carolina, 1,205
identified themselves as having been released from prisons. This represents a 20% increase over
353
the previous reporting period. Based on the 106,659 persons living in prisons, jails, mental hospitals, juvenile facilities, and other institutional settings according to the 2000 census, “The
state does not require adequate housing arrangements as a precondition of release.”
Recognizing the need to address the growing number of inmates who may end up as part of the
homeless population in the state, I directed that all appropriate steps be taken to define the problem in terms of its causative factors within the department, to take whatever corrective actions
are needed to prevent homelessness among inmates being released by the state’s prison system,
and to support and collaborate with the department’s partner agencies on the ICCHP in
strengthening the state’s capacity to reduce homelessness throughout North Carolina. Several
key strategies have been implemented by the Office of the Secretary over the past three years,
none of which has been more critical than the department’s support of the state’s ten uear plan
to end homelessness in North Carolina, the most ambitious, far-reaching initiative the ICCHP
has ever undertaken.
NC’s Ten Year Plan to End Homelessness
In September 2001, the ICCHP was authorized by the federal government to coordinate the
state’s participation in the newly initiated Homeless Policy Academies sponsored by the U.S.
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health and Human Services, and Veterans
Affairs. The academies were designed to bring together state level policy makers to begin working on plans to better address homelessness in their respective states. From their inception, the
NC DOC has been an active supporter and participant in the affairs of the academies, which met
in Atlanta in January 2003 and in Miami in January 2004. The NC DOC’s current academy
representative is a social worker in the division of prisons who manages the office for offender
family services and deals regularly with issues of homelessness among recently released inmates. An important outcome from the academies for the ICCHP and its constituent members
has been the formulation of the following mission statement:
North Carolina will work toward ending homelessness across the state by pursuing aggressive prevention strategies and by expanding access to safe, permanent, affordable
housing and coordinated support services to individual needs.
Based on this mission statement, the ICCHP has committed itself to fulfilling a Ten-Year Plan
to End Homelessness in North Carolina with the following three goals:
1. Build state level commitments and leadership for addressing the issues of homelessness,
including the costs and realities of not addressing the problem.
2. Pursue aggressive prevention strategies, starting with a thorough review of discharge
polices, procedures and practices from state institutions.
3. Develop more permanent supportive housing with a concentration on expanding the
availability of services linked to housing by interfacing with the public mental health
system reform underway in the state.
One of the first requirements for fully developing and implementing the plan was the appointment of a homeless policy specialist responsible to the ICCHP. Three Council members - the
354
Department of Health and Human Services, the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency, and
the Department of Correction – jointly funded the position. In May 2003, the Council appointed
Martha Are, former Executive Director of the Coalition to End Homelessness in North Carolina
and Executive Director of Hospitality House in Asheville to the position. Ms. Are has worked
vigorously on building commitment to the plan throughout the state with the full cooperation
and support of our department and the other ICCHP partner agencies, as well as in collaboration
with the office of Phillip Mangano, Executive Director of U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness in Washington, DC.
In her role with the Coalition to End Homelessness, a statewide affiliation of homeless providers, Are collaborated with the NC DOC in organizing a Criminal Justice Task Force on Homelessness. The task force held a series of meetings at a NC DOC facility in Raleigh, NC for the
purpose of identifying and considering the causes of homelessness among the offender population. In addition to several NC DOC participants, other representatives came from the North
Carolina Sentencing Commission, the Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Veterans Administration, North Carolina Sheriffs’ Association, National Association of
Mental Illness, and a cross-section of not-for-profit homeless agencies and faith-based organizations. The recommendations of the task force, developed over a two-year period, were incorporated into the working draft of the ten-year plan.
Survey on Offender Homelessness
Concurrent with the Criminal Justice Task Force, our department began to gather information
on the extent of and factors related to homelessness among NC DOC offenders. In the summer
and fall of 2002, 181 DOC field staff working for the Division of Community Corrections
(Probation and Parole) completed a questionnaire. The unscientific survey results, while not
conclusive, indicate that a majority of staff believed that a significant percent of offenders were
either homeless at the time of release from prison, despite their stated release plans, or that they
were homeless soon thereafter, primarily due to a shortage of transitional housing.
The Office of Research and Planning decided to conduct of survey of some offenders in prison
or on probation to further analyze the extent of and factors related to homelessness. They designed a study to provide descriptive information on homelessness in the offender population.
The study included three convenience samples:
1. A probation and parole population at a NC DOC residential substance abuse program.
2. A group of newly admitted inmates to several prison diagnostic centers.
3. A group of inmates at several prisons who were close to release.
The survey is limited in several ways. First, the data are self-reported. Second, although they
tried to choose representative groups (men, women, adult and youth,) these were convenience
samples not representative samples. Third, since participation was voluntary after the survey
was explained to a group of offenders, there is no way of knowing whether offenders who had
been homeless chose to take part at a higher rate than offenders who had never been homeless.
Thus far, 552 offenders have completed the survey. Between 14 and 34 percent of the offenders
355
reported being homeless at some point; the variation depended on the group that completed the
survey. The majority of offenders reported being homeless more than once. Across all groups,
the most frequently cited factors related to being homeless were drug/alcohol abuse, unemployment, and criminal conviction. The most frequently cited services that offenders reported they
will need involved employment training, drug/alcohol treatment, and counseling.
Additional surveys will be conducted over the next six months. The information will be shared
with other groups involved in homelessness issues in North Carolina. It will also be shared with
the Criminal Justice subcommittee who is charged with determining which data items need to
be added to the information we collect on inmates as they progress through our system.
Discharge Planning Work Group
A current task of the North Carolina Interagency Council for Coordinating Homeless Programs
(ICCHP) is the Discharge Planning Work Group (DPWG) project. This group consists of representatives from a wide range of public agencies which are involved in releasing people from
public oversight or supervision, back to the community. Work group representatives include
such diverse groups as the North Carolina Hospital Association, the Juvenile Court Counselors,
the North Carolina School for the Deaf, the North Carolina School for the Blind, Medicaid, the
North Carolina Sheriff’s Association and the North Carolina Department of Correction.
In late 2003, along with Cabinet Secretaries from the North Carolina Department of Health and
Human Services and the North Carolina Department of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, the group was challenged to develop a plan to prevent the path of homelessness for
many of the people released from state or local institutions. The committee was asked to submit a plan by the summer of 2004. The vision for the Work Group was to prevent homelessness
through the creation of discharge processes that prepare homeless persons in institutions and
publicly funded systems to return to the community, and link those persons to affordable housing and essential services.
The DPWG has met monthly since the beginning of 2004 and is formulating a plan to improve
discharge policies to minimize homelessness of citizens held in the respective public systems.
Risk factors were examined at the initial meeting. Two pieces of information quickly captured
the group’s attention and “brought home” the problems NC is facing.
•
•
60% of the homeless have had interaction with publicly funded systems
18 to 24 year olds are the fastest growing group of homeless
An early task was to define the kinds of data now available to track the homeless at entrance
and exit from the respective systems in order to better understand the scope of the problem.
Subsequent meetings have examined specific elements of discharge planning in the different
public agencies, and have defined community resources available to clients upon release. The
complexities of the systems represented on the committee provide for lively discussions and
challenges in developing comprehensive and complementary approaches to improve discharge
356
planning to prevent homelessness. The committee will present its recommendations back to the
ICCHP by mid-summer.
Advocating for Housing
As a recipient of the federally funded 2002 Serious and Violent Offender Reentry grant, called
the Going Home Initiative (GHI), the NC DOC has identified the shortage of transitional, structured, and halfway housing as a major gap in the state’s capacity to provide appropriate housing
for inmates being released from prison. This lack of housing is an apparent contributing factor
to the growing number of offenders who end up homeless in the state. GHI project staff are collaborating with the ICCHP’s Ten Year Plan. They are holding forums for housing specialists
across the state to determine what financial and technical resources are available for assisting
faith-based and other not-for-profit organizations to establish housing for offenders. They plan
to conduct training sessions in conjunction with Martha Are’s office to bring this capacitybuilding information to these potential providers of offender housing. As a first step in this
process, GHI staff conducted a standing-room-only workshop on “Housing: A Crucial Component Of Successful Offender Transition and Reentry” as part of the 2003 ICCHP-sponsored
Conference on Homelessness. Over 400 representatives of the housing community from across
North Carolina attended the conference.
At the county level, where the success of the ten-year plan will ultimately be determined, NC
DOC staff have been actively involved in contributing to grassroots efforts to build support and
capacity for the plan’s implementation and, specifically, for recognizing the importance of including provisions for offender housing in local planning. On April 15, 2004 in Wake County,
the third in a series of community forums sponsored by a partnership of the City of Raleigh, the
Wake County Commission and the Wake Continuum of Care was held to address the topic of
homelessness. The focus was on substance abuse, mental illness, discharge planning and domestic violence. Staff from the Office of Research & Planning conducted breakout sessions on
various aspects of NC DOC discharge planning that was not only very well received by the
cross-section of concerned attendees from the community, but which also provided staff with
insights into the issues surrounding offender reentry as seen from the community’s perspective.
Conclusion
Since its appointment to the State Interagency Council for the Coordination of Homeless Programs, the Department of Correction has become increasingly involved in and committed to the
work of the council and, most importantly, to the success of the state’s ten-year plan to end
homelessness. Today, a NC DOC representative serves on the council’s executive committee,
providing direction for the plan’s continued implementation, while my office maintains an unswerving commitment to both the mission of the council and its ten-year plan.
357
Citizen Circles: Building Community Partnerships
Citizen Circles create partnerships that promote positive social interaction and accountability
for offenders upon release. Circle members address risks that contribute to criminal activity by
taking ownership over the solution. It is an opportunity for citizens to communicate expectations for successful reentry and help offenders recognize the harm their behavior has caused
others. Offenders are able to make amends and demonstrate their value and potential to the
community. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) has embraced the
Citizen Circle model as an effective reentry initiative and is committed to supporting its expansion into all parole regions. Since Citizen Circles are voluntary community efforts, the department will support those communities requesting assistance.
Ohio, like many states, has embraced the myriad of challenges associated with reentry. In
2002, ODRC issued a comprehensive report entitled The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender
Reentry and Recidivism Reduction (the Ohio Plan.) ODRC has adopted a new vision and mission governing offender reentry. At the core of ODRC’s approach is the notion that reentry is a
philosophy, not a program. Under the Ohio Plan, reentry calls for a broad systems approach to
managing offenders returning to the community. It requires the involvement of every phase of
the correctional system beginning at reception, and continuing through to release and supervision in the community. It expresses a strong commitment to answering the question: What is
needed to prepare this offender for successful reentry? This commitment is summarized succinctly in the slogan: Reentry Means: Going Home to Stay.
One of the key assumptions behind the Ohio Plan is the recognition that community partnerships and collaboration are essential to ensuring successful offender reintegration. It is not posPromising or Unique Services
359
sible for any correctional system acting alone to create effective and durable pathways to reentry. The linkages and connections that are forged with key stakeholders and individuals in the
communities to which offenders return carry the potential to reinforce and sustain the reintegration prospects of ex-prisoners. The active participation of the citizenry, as well as local agencies and groups with an interest in public safety, serves to augment the limited operational capacity of the correctional system.
ODRC has long embraced community justice as a framework governing correctional practices
in its institutions and parole regions. A Community Justice Cabinet was created some time ago
to improve citizen satisfaction and provide guidance through the participation of victims, the
community, and offenders in the process. In addition, the Adult Parole Authority has established community-policing partnerships in several areas of the state. One of the department’s
major new initiatives under the Ohio Plan that speaks directly to the importance of citizen involvement and community collaboration is the development of what are known as Citizen Circles.
Citizen Circles are groups of community members committed to helping offenders make the
change from offender to citizen. Citizen Circles are also designed to build better partnerships
between the ODRC, local citizens, and offenders. The primary goal is to involve local citizens
in the rehabilitative and reentry process while clearly communicating expectations to offenders.
The circle members help offenders understand that acceptance back into the community requires the fulfillment of certain obligations and commitments. The circle includes community
representatives, the offender, and family members of the offender. Together they develop a reentry plan to address needs in the areas of substance abuse, mental health, education, job placement, housing, peer support, and community service.
Involvement in the circle helps offenders understand that being a positive community member
demands certain responsibilities and obligations. Offenders and their families develop working
relationships with members of the circle. Together, they develop accountability plans to promote responsible citizenship, and help the offender become accepted as a productive citizen.
The circle communicates to offenders the belief that their debt has been paid and the community is willing to accept them as restored citizens.
How Do Citizen Circles Work?
Offenders seek involvement with a Citizen Circle of their own free will. A representative of the
circle conducts an interview with the offender and then presents the offender to the entire circle
membership. The circle may accept the offender to the circle based on identified criteria. Examples of criteria used to accept offenders for participation in Citizen’s Circles are:
•
•
•
•
•
360
Completing the application process
Accepting responsibility for past criminal behavior
Accepting recommendations
Participating in community service
Setting goals focused on law abiding and productive community behavior
A focus on the future rather than the past, and the expectation of giving back through community service are key elements for success. Together, citizens and offenders develop agreements
regarding responsibilities and results that will be accomplished through participation with the
circle. The circle creates an environment that fosters acceptance and is focused on the offender’s personal strengths. The circle encourages positive bonds with citizens by creating opportunities for using the talents of the offender in service to the community. Recognition and
rewards for success reinforce positive changes and behaviors in the offender. The circle meets
on a regular basis to discuss offender progress, review plans, interview new applicants, admit
new members, and to discharge both successful and unsuccessful offenders.
Identifying Community Stakeholders
The identification of community stakeholders is an important step in developing the Citizen
Circle. The circle should involve the offender, their support systems, victim advocacy groups,
and a host of community members. The chart below represents a typical Circle membership:
Who should be involved?
Faith Community
Corrections
Offender
Law Enforceme nt
Education Professionals
Citizen
Circles
Support Group
Representative s
Offender’s
Family
Ex-Offenders
Victims
Employers
Social Service
A gencies
The community should seek volunteer leaders that bring different types of expertise and centers
of influence than those in formal community roles. The local neighborhood is the place to start
looking for these individuals. Many usually belong to one or more of the following groups:
neighborhood/block associations, service-oriented organizations, parental groups, merchant associations, faith-based organizations, or senior citizens service groups. These members can offer a wealth of resources that are many times unknown and untapped.
361
The Benefits of Citizen Circles
Citizen Circles will play an integral role as ODRC moves forward under the Ohio Plan to create
stronger linkages with community partners supportive of reentry. Since the inception of the
first circles in several communities in North Central Ohio, Citizen Circles have been, or are in
the process of being implemented in twenty-one locations across the state. It is envisioned that
Citizen Circles will eventually become a presence in every major city throughout Ohio. In the
larger metropolitan areas, Citizen Circles are being developed in certain neighborhoods and areas to which significant concentrations of offenders return. Parole officers in Ohio, like elsewhere, are currently faced with high workloads, and fewer programmatic options from which to
draw. These conditions present a challenge to field staff and correctional administrators to find
new models for effectively supervising offenders in the community.
Citizen Circles present an innovative approach to involving the community in the business of
effective community-based offender supervision. They enhance the supervision of offenders by
securing citizen involvement in offender case management. Community members through
hands on contact with offenders become more active in reentry and develop an increased
knowledge of the correctional system. They develop a better understanding of the correctional
process and the issues offenders face as they transition from prison to the community. Offenders themselves develop a more positive attitude as they return to their communities and are
given opportunities to give back and to become productive members of the community.
As the expansion of Citizen Circles continues, and the lessons that are learned are factored into
improvements in the circle process, community safety will be strengthened. It is expected that
offenders participating in Citizen Circles compared to non-circle participants will show reduced
rates of re-offending, lower rates of unemployment, higher completion rates for provider-based
programming, and increased compliance with the conditions of supervision. A thorough
evaluation is currently underway by ODRC, and the preliminary results support these expectations.
In Summary
Under the Ohio Plan, Citizen Circles are designed to address the multitude of challenges that
offenders face upon their return to the community. Such circles draw on the social capital provided by linking a network of community-based partnerships with individual citizens and local
agencies that have a direct stake in the outcomes that are achieved. Citizen Circles seek to create and sustain collaborative relationships that are able to more effectively supervise offenders,
impose greater leverage and accountability over them, and contribute to greater public safety in
the process. The operation of Citizen Circles incorporates the greater operational and resource
capacities of local communities in responding to the problem of crime. Ultimately, Citizen Circles recognize that it takes a community to successfully transition offenders home.
362
Fathers Matter and the Children of the Incarcerated
Families and Reentry: The Challenge
The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) recognizes the importance of
family in the reentry process, and has developed specific ways for family members to positively
engage with an incarcerated loved one. Family support can be a critical stabilizer for incarcerated offenders and profoundly impacts the offender’s successful transition into the community.
Oftentimes, family members bring unique perspectives and critical resources, such as emotional
support, employment contacts, initial financial resources, and housing opportunities. Typically,
families have been left as isolated entities and “closed out” of corrections. Communication
with family members has historically been directed through the offender with little regard for
the family members’ special circumstances. Borrowing from the model of victim services,
ODRC is moving forward to give a voice to family members and positively engage them in the
process of reentry.
The incarcerated parent and the children left behind bring daunting challenges and opportunities
for ODRC to intervene in intergenerational cycles of incarceration. The creation of cross system solutions to meet the needs of the children of the incarcerated strengthens the family, as
well as our communities. Unfortunately, no single system identifies and services children of
the incarcerated. The quickest ways to identify the children are through their incarcerated parents. Consequently, ODRC is working to develop linkages with the Ohio Departments of Job
and Family Services, and Education, along with city governments to address the needs of the
family and create a cross system network to provide services to these kids. What follows highlights several different ways ODRC is involving families in reentry.
363
The Family Council: The Voice
A family council has been formed composed of various state department representatives, family
members, non-profit agencies, faith-based groups, and family-counseling practitioners to address offender/family issues across the reentry continuum. The council will review ODRC
policies and procedures, and recommend changes to remove barriers and increase family involvement during an offender’s term of commitment. In addition, the council will bring the
needs of the family and communities to the attention of correctional administrators to begin
identifying and creating cross system approaches to assisting the family with reentry needs.
Family Orientation
A family’s needs – that is, the needs of the child, the incarcerated parent, the caregiver and immediate family member - may begin at the time of arrest and continue through the incarceration and return of the parent to the community. While newly incarcerated offenders are unfamiliar with correctional processes, family members are even less familiar. Moreover, the family
members and the offender have concerns about each other, and the welfare of the family. To
address the initial needs of the family members, ODRC has created a “family orientation” program at the three reception centers. The orientation permits face-to-face interaction between
family members and correctional case managers. Family members are encouraged to ask questions while staff shares the rationale behind institutional policies. The goal is to familiarize family members with the actions they can take to support the offender without enabling negative
behavior. Family members are informed about the various correctional departments and the
programs available to offenders. Support groups and resources are also shared with family
members. It is during this orientation that correction’s staff makes a “first impression” on family members and invites them to participate in the offender’s rehabilitation.
Institution Programming: Families Make a Difference
ODRC has long recognized the importance of family involvement in the rehabilitation of offenders. In past years, a greater emphasis was placed on the incarcerated mother. Programs
such as day camps for “Moms and Kids,” extended special visits, inside play areas, and child
development classes are commonplace in female institutions. To further support the family
unit, Ohio passed legislation in 2000 to create and sustain a long-term prison nursery program.
ODRC also developed a policy for birthing support persons (BSP) in the community to assist
the pregnant inmate throughout the birth of her child. This includes the BSP attending Lamaze
training with the offender inside of prison and being present at the birth of the baby in a community hospital.
ODRC has also steadily increased programming to uphold the incarcerated father’s role in their
children’s lives. Fatherhood specific programs are routinely offered to male offenders, such as
“My Child and I” days, Girl Scouts, and a statewide 60-hour Responsible Family Life Skills
Parenting program. It is not unusual to see family members and children attend special events,
such as GED or program graduations for their incarcerated family member. Early on, ODRC
began developing the concept of family bonding and created reading rooms in every institution
visiting area. These reading areas create opportunities for offenders to read to their children
and interact on their child using educational and interactive activities. Parents in prison can
also record and send taped books to their children through the Aunt Mary Storybook program.
364
Reentry, however, has taken family involvement in institutional programs to a much deeper and
responsible level. Family members are now permitted, and encouraged, to attend selected inprison programs with the offender and work together to develop “family reentry” plans. Some
programs (e.g., long-term substance abuse treatment programs) require family members to attend the last eight weekly sessions. In addition, family members and released offenders return
to program sites to give testimony to participants. It is anticipated that the family’s active involvement in institution programs will increase the offender’s commitment to change, and lead
to a successful reentry into the family and community.
Parents in Prison: Fathers Matter – A Community Responds
In March 2004, ODRC and the Center for Families and Children, a non-profit community
agency in Cleveland, Ohio co-hosted a conference entitled “Fathers Matter: Prisoners as Parents and the Challenge of Reentry,” in Columbus, Ohio. The three-day event focused on the
challenges of parenting from prison and the hardships endured by families in the community.
The first evening commenced with a panel discussion by state legislators and policymakers involving issues pertaining to reentry and the barriers to successful reentry. The second and third
day consisted of workshops, national speakers and family members of the incarcerated. What
made this conference unique was offenders from selected prison programs and their family
members participated in the conference as workshop panelist and attendees. Childcare was provided by ODRC employees thereby permitting children’s voices to be heard.
The success of the event measured by conference evaluations and feedback from various community agencies makes this event a best practice worth replicating in other jurisdictions. The
unique partnering between non-profit agencies and state government, the topics offered, and the
opportunity to permit inmates and their families to participate in the program set this conference
apart from others.
Collaboration: The Way of the Future
Culminating these efforts, ODRC recently received a commitment of approximately 3 million
dollars from the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) grant administered by the
Ohio Department of Job and Family Services to pilot “Family Life Centers” inside three prisons. The pilot: Children of the Incarcerated Parent: Breaking the Cycle, will establish three
centers at three different male institutions to permit residential parenting and family development activities that eventually lead to family reunification. The sites will incorporate Ohio’s
reentry efforts and permit family members to participate in prison-based programming, while at
the same time, accessing additional resources in the community. ODRC is partnering with
three community agencies: the Center for Families and Children out of Cuyahoga County,
Alvis House in Franklin County, and Talbert House in Hamilton County to provide wrap
around services for the families in the community, in addition to the faith-based community for
mentoring and support services. It is expected that this pilot will serve as a benchmark for engaging families in effectively supporting offender reentry transitions during and after a period
of incarceration.
365
Medical Parole Process in Oklahoma
The offender medical parole process in Oklahoma has significantly evolved during the last five
years. It was generally recognized that the process to parole terminally ill offenders needed to
be improved and streamlined. In June 2000, representatives for the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections, the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board, and the Governor’s office met to examine
the medical parole process. All three entities agreed that considering medical parole for terminally ill offenders was “doing the right thing for the right reason.”
The Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board is a constitutional, five-member, part-time body
charged with making clemency recommendations to the Governor concerning convicted adult
felons. Members of the Board are appointed, three by the Governor, one by the Chief Justice of
the State Supreme Court, and one by the presiding Judge of the Court Criminal Appeals. They
hold office co-terminous with the Governor. The Board meets each month at one of the State
penal institutions.
It was agreed by all, that offenders were not to be medically paroled due exclusively to financial
concerns. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections agreed to make policy revisions to clarify
and simplify the process. The existing criteria in the policy and procedures was examined and
modified. The Pardon and Parole Board also agreed to pursue statutory changes which could
speed up the process for medical parole for terminally ill violent offenders. Much of the preliminary parole process was legislatively mandated and could not be easily shortened. For example, the Pardon and Parole Board must consider consecutive cases individually; this slows
the parole process, as each case must be considered independently. The governor’s office
agreed to continue to evaluate and process each medical parole candidate who was approved by
367
the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.
Political changes can certainly affect the process. As soon as the new governor takes office, it
is vital as part of the orientation process that contact is made by the Corrections Director and
Deputy Director of Medical Services to familiarize the new Governor with his role in and the
significance of the medical parole process. There is a fine balance between letting a convicted
criminal out of his sentence due to his physical condition and demonstrating the state’s compassion for a dying human being and his or her family. The victim and his or her family must also
be considered in the process.
Due to political considerations inherent in the parole process, on an almost annual basis, the
legislature promulgates the legislation to remove the governor from the parole process completely. Thus far, this has not become a reality.
Since October 2000, 97 offenders have successfully completed the medical parole process and
were released from custody. Statistical breakdowns indicate there are currently five active offenders in the process. There are 219 offenders listed in the inactive category, which means the
offender has been denied at some point in the process but could be reconsidered if circumstances change. Eighty-two offenders are in the closed category, which indicates the offender
was discharged from the system or died during the medical parole process. The notable impact
of Hepatitis C, HIV diseases, and cancer will continue to have an important influence on medical paroles.
The medical parole process begins when the facility physician identifies an offender as a potential candidate for medical parole (see criteria below). The recommendation is based on his/her
determination of eligibility from patient/physician observation. The physician documents the
following: diagnosis, prognosis, degree of ambulation, treatment regimen, level of care required, and resources available (community, family, medical, Veteran’s Administration benefits, Indian Health Services). Medical paroles are considered only if there is a viable continuity
of care plan in place for the offender.
Upon receipt of the medical request for parole consideration, the facility head or designee develops a summary of the individual’s incarceration that includes the offender’s prior criminal
history, a summary of offender’s disciplinary record, any assessed needs, time remaining to
serve, employment history, a verifiable offer of residence and a statement of concurrence or disagreement. A disagreement with the physician’s recommendation must state the reason.
The following criterion is used to evaluate possible medical parole candidates:
368
•
Offenders who have committed the “truth in sentencing” crimes are not eligible for medical parole until they have completed 85% of his or her sentence. Offenders sentenced to Life Without
Parole and Death are not eligible for consideration for parole, but sentence commutation is a
possibility in these cases.
•
Offenders who have committed crimes in the highest crime category (per DOC ‘severity
of crime’ index - but NOT ‘truth in sentencing’, e.g.- first degree murder, rape, manslaughter, second degree murder, etc.) must be non-ambulatory, incapable of reoffendPromising or Unique Services
ing with total care required. These offenders are medically paroled to a secured nursing
home only.
•
Offenders who have committed crimes in the high crime category (e.g. assault and battery with a dangerous weapon) must meet the following criteria: terminally ill with poor
life expectancy (one year or less); or a medical condition has rendered the offender no
longer a threat to public safety (e.g. stroke, severe dementia, neurodegenerative disease).
Offenders who have committed crimes in the moderate or low categories are evaluated
using the following criteria (please note that medically paroling offenders utilizing this
criteria scrutinizes the offender’s program completion and other potential indicators of
risk to reoffend): chronic illness with poor prognosis; permanently diminished level of
physical functioning; permanently diminished level of cognitive functioning; severe illness and is minimum or community custody status.
The facility physician’s recommendation, along with the statement of the facility head’s concurrence or disagreement is submitted to the deputy director of medical services. The deputy director of medical services or designee then reviews the request and supporting documentation
and concurs or denies. A denial will be returned to the facility head and physician and supported by documentation stating the reason for the decision.
•
The deputy director of medical services or designee forwards completed and approved requests
to the director of the department of corrections for consideration. The director reviews the data
and forwards approved medical parole candidates to the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board.
The board’s executive director facilitates an investigation of the candidates and schedules a
hearing before the board at their monthly meeting.
If the Pardon and Parole Board approves the medical parole, the paperwork is forwarded to the
governor’s office for approval or denial. Although Oklahoma’s medical parole is a process
with many steps, the time frames for each are kept short by statute or policy. The medical services division maintains a database of the requests for medical parole and the outcome of those
requests.
In a number of cases, the sentencing courts have been contacted and based on the offender’s
physical condition, sentences have been modified for those offenders on indeterminate sentences.
Continuing training for physicians and wardens provides support for and emphasis on the rationale behind medical parole. Additionally, a training emphasis needs to be placed on the
length of time the process takes from beginning to completion. A minimum of six months
needs to be allotted for completion of the medical parole process. Prognoses are difficult to estimate but offenders with a projected life expectancy of six months or less obviously need to be
processed first. This type of training is paramount to the long-term success of the medical parole process.
369
Summary:
Since 2000, medical parole in Oklahoma has been refined and streamlined to provide a clear
and understandable process that balances compassion for terminally ill offenders with the mission of the department to protect the public. The medical parole process is now an ongoing part
of the medical services utilization management plan and continues to afford opportunities to
parole medically appropriate offenders in a safe and fiscally responsible manner.
370
Project Bridge: A Reentry Program for
Inmates with Infectious Diseases
A.T. Wall, Director
Continuity of care is important for anyone in transition, whether they are moving from hospital
to home, or from prison to community. Yet, the relationship between release from prison and
the need to provide ongoing health care has often been overlooked.
The fact is that public health is public safety. Even if recently discharged inmates do not reoffend, their health can pose a threat to the public. One-third of all HIV-positive tests diagnosed in Rhode Island are identified at the Department of Corrections. Most of these cases involve drug addicts using needles. While the Rhode Island Department of Corrections (RIDOC)
inmate population receives quality care during incarceration, there is a serious risk that they will
become lost to the health care system after they leave the prison. Their condition can deteriorate. The likelihood that they will convey disease to others spreads, and their downward spiral
accelerates. They are often re-incarcerated in worse health than when they were released.
A collaboration project between the Rhode Island Department of Corrections and the Miriam
Hospital in Providence, Project Bridge, works to keep former inmates who are HIV positive in
the loop of health care and supportive services as they reenter the community. The Project
started in 1997 with funding from the U.S. Health and Human Services Administration, HIV/
AIDS Bureau of Special Projects of National Significance Program. Its goal is the improvement of medical continuity of care through social stabilization. Stabilizing a client includes
helping to find housing, transportation, mental health, and/or substance abuse treatment. The
program also aims to improve ex-inmates’ access to services by helping them develop appropriate social skills. Over the course of the 18-month program, clients are taught how to model and
371
rehearse appropriate behaviors. They are coached through different scenarios that test their
coping skills. Appropriate responses and behaviors are reviewed. The entire Project Bridge
experience is voluntary for former inmates.
Prior to Project Bridge, inmates were treated in the prison by physicians associated with the
hospital’s Immunology Center for HIV care. Once released those connections were lost.
Through Project Bridge, the same doctors an inmate came to know and trust on the inside continue as their treating physicians on the outside.
Since 1997, seventy-eight percent of the participants followed through with their full 18-month
program. The eight percent who did not complete the program were unavailable upon release
from prison. Of the clients who completed the program, 80 percent were still continuing with
care at 24 months.
RIDOC’s own health services staff identify potential Project Bridge clients about three months
prior to their release. They explain the program to inmates and offer a referral. Inmates who
express interest in the program meet pre-release with a Project Bridge discharge planner. During initial discharge planning meetings, inmates identify community contacts and describe their
post-release needs. Program enrollment is complete after a meeting in the community postrelease. Generally, clients have one month to make the appropriate contact with Project Bridge
before they are deemed inactive.
The average age of a Project Bridge client is 39 years old. Everyone admitted into the program
is HIV positive. On average each has served a minimum of four sentences, primarily for drug
offenses. Eighty percent have a history of drug abuse with needles. Sixty percent presented
with a history of mental illness, while five percent were chronically mentally ill. Twenty-five
percent of the clientele is female and 75 percent is male.
Once former inmates are enrolled in the project they are assigned to a team of two mental health
social workers in addition to the treating physician. According to Project Bridge, sharing the
responsibility decreases staff burnout, which concurrently decreases service gaps and the costs
of recruitment and training new staff. The team members possess necessary and complementary skills.
The MSWs are licensed mental health professionals who are educated in social policy, discrimination law, effective advocacy strategies, and eco-behavioral interventions. They provide the
clinical judgment that guides the intervention, do case planning and are responsible for addressing crisis situations. The MSW is responsible for case planning. The outreach worker or BSW
works as a role model and provides “hands-on” assistance. They spend time locating clients
who missed appointments, accompany them to all medical appointments. They know the
neighborhood and have access to social networks.
With the exception of medical care, which is provided by the Immunology Center, Project
Bridge team provides all coordination and access to services. By retaining primary responsibility for the treatment plan and service delivery, duplication is avoided, efficiency increased and
stress is minimized.
372
The project follows the standards of care of both the medical and social service professions.
Board certified infectious disease specialists who are experience in HIV treatment provide all
medical services. All of the HIV/AIDS treatment recommendations of the National Public
Health Service are integrated into care. Project social workers also adhere to the standards outlined in the National Association of Social Worker’s Code of Ethics. Every intake, treatment
plan, semi-annual review and case conference forms is reviewed by the project director. The
RIDOC staff serve as liaison between the institution and Project staff. The Department also
maintains databases to track program referrals, medical and social data for evaluation.
Every six months Project Bridge conducts a focus group with clients. Consistently the project
receives praise for its client-centered work. Clients have said that without the extra set of ears
and eyes follow-through on medical orders would be difficult. The MSWs are there to listen
and help interpret a physician’s orders. Likewise they help the physicians to understand the difficulties their clients face. They guide ex-offenders who are already coping with major medical
conditions through the welter of challenges in housing, access to federal benefits, receipt of
identification, and transportation that are essential if they are to lead healthy and law-abiding
lives.
Project Bridge costs about $200,000 annually to operate. The average cost per person per 18month is $5,000 for clients without serious mental illness. The cost jumps to $8,000 per 18months for people with serious mental illness. As is true of many social programs, Project
Bridge’s funding is precarious. Given its proven benefits, all parties involved are eager for the
program to secure a funding stream whose own stability will allow it to stabilize the lives of
clients for many years to come.
373
Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice currently incarcerates over 9,000 offenders in administrative segregation. On average, Texas releases over 1,321 offenders directly from administrative segregation to the community. In order to try to reduce the recidivism rate among
these offenders and assist in their reentry into the community, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice applied for and received a $1.9 million grant from the United States Department of
Justice to provide programming for serious and violent offenders. This grant will provide prerelease in-cell programming, transitional services, and post-release supervision for offenders
released from administrative segregation.
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) is a coordinated partnership between the correctional institutions, Rehabilitation and Reentry Programs Division, and Parole
Divisions of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The goal of the program is to reduce the recidivism rate for this population by addressing
those issues that most often contribute to recidivism. The agency will involve the community,
as well as other state and federal agencies, in the offender’s release planning. Faith based organizations, mentoring programs, Alcoholics Anonymous, and other support groups will provide services to the offenders prior to and after their release.
To be eligible for this program, offenders must be male and under the age of 35. They must not
have committed a major disciplinary offense in the last 90 days. In order to ensure a smooth
transition to the community, the offender must not have a felony or INS detainer or be serving
consecutive sentences. Many are confirmed gang members. While gang renunciation is not a
pre-requisite to program placement, parole approval is contingent upon their gang renunciation.
375
They may volunteer for the program or be approved for parole contingent upon completion of
this program. Offenders must be within six to eight months of their release on parole or mandatory supervision and have at least one year remaining on their sentence for supervision purposes at the time of their release. Sixty-three cells in one cellblock have been designated for
this program. It is anticipated that 100 to 150 offenders will receive services each year. The
program is scheduled to begin in April 2004.
The program consists of two phases. Phase I is a six-month in-cell program that will be provided prior to the offenders release. Programming will be delivered through personal computers secured to the wall in a tamper-proof enclosure in each offender’s cell. The equipment
includes a monitor, video camera, mouse, and flexible keyboard. Staff will deliver programming through three independent workstations. The equipment allows the instructors to see and
communicate by voice and instant messaging with each offender.
Prior to placement in the program, offenders will complete a survey to determine their interest
in participating in the program. Over 90% of the first group surveyed expressed an interest in
participating in the program. In addition, the offenders answered a series of questions designed
to identify their greatest needs upon release. Other assessment instruments will be administered
during intake and at the time of the offender’s release.
Two twelve-week programming tracks have been developed. The first track will provide cognitive intervention and substance abuse programming. The second track will provide life skills
and anger management courses. Individual self-paced instruction, including literacy courses,
keyboarding, and job skill development modules, will also be available through computer software. Instruction will also be delivered through videos supplemented by workbook activities.
The worksheets are provided to the offender as a pre-test and post-test to each video in the series. Program staff will review the worksheets after the offender has completed the session to
ensure comprehension and participation.
In order to ensure a smooth transition to the community, a mentor from the community to which
the offender will be released will be assigned to the offender at the beginning of the in-cell program. That mentor will communicate with the offender on a regular basis during Phase I. This
frequent communication will provide an opportunity for a trusting relationship to be formed.
The mentor will continue to assist the offender after his release. In addition, the offender will
have opportunities to speak to his future parole officer, reentry coordinator, case manager, and
family for release planning purposes.
Phase II begins during the in-cell portion of the program and continues after the offender is released. The first goal during this phase will be to address all possible barriers to the offender’s
release. A comprehensive assessment, the Corrections Risk Analysis System (C-RAS), will be
used to predict the likelihood of whether the offender will re-offend, their capacity for violence,
and the areas that should be targeted for intervention. An individualized action plan (IAP),
based on identified needs, will be agreed upon and signed by the offender prior to his release to
the community. The case manager, with the assistance of the resource operations manager, will
ensure that post-release resources are available. The parole officer will be provided with information regarding the offender’s assessments, IAP, and transitional planning prior to his release.
In order to ensure the offender’s continued cooperation and participation in the program, the
376
Parole Board will impose a special condition, prior to release, requiring the offender’s participation and completion of the aftercare component.
Upon release to Bexar, Dallas, Harris, or Tarrant County, the offender will report to a District
Resource Center (DRC) where Phase II of the program will continue. The offender will be met
at the DRC by their family member(s), mentor, church member if desired, case manager, and
supervising parole officer. The case manager will provide an orientation to services available at
the DRC and how to access them. The IAP will be reviewed with the offender, family, mentor
and supervising parole officer, breaking the plan into manageable short term goals. A continuum of services, identified through an assessment of needs, will continue through the DRC beginning with more intensive case management and tapering off in later months. Services anticipated to occur through the center include, but are not limited to, housing assistance, employment resources, cognitive intervention, Moral Reconation Therapy, gang renunciation in parole
classes, substance abuse education, anger management classes, mental health services, medication management, counseling, victim impact panel classes, and mentor assistance. Staff will
continue to assist the offender throughout the one-year, post-release portion of the program.
The offender’s overall progress in completing the IAP will be assessed, and both offender and
employer will be surveyed to analyze their experiences and satisfaction throughout the year. At
the end of the one-year period, a variety of outcomes will be measured using various methods.
The Texas Department of Criminal Justice plans to work with a university to assess the long
term benefits of the program. It is anticipated that these offenders will be followed for three
years upon completion of the program to see whether they return to prison at a less rate than
offenders released from administrative segregation who did not receive this program.
For questions or additional information, contact Donna Gilbert or Desiree Hernandez at the
Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
377
Washington State’s Law Enforcement Notification Program
Washington State Department of Corrections releases an average of 750 sex and kidnapping
offenders per year.
The Department of Corrections Law Enforcement Notification Program is one of five distinct
programs within the Community Protection Unit under the Office of the Secretary. The program was created in response to the Community Protection Act of 1990, and has evolved since
then. The most significant change to the program came in 1997 with the passing of new legislation. Current law requires each sex and kidnapping offender who is required to register to have
an End of Sentence Review (multi-agency committee) prior to release. The review determines
the offender’s level of community notification, potential referral as a sexually violent predator,
and also determines if additional notifications to outside agencies or private organizations need
to be completed based on the individuals risk to the community.
Each releasing agency in Washington State came together to develop and implement a process
that would provide the consistency of sex/kidnapping offender leveling, notifications to the
public, and community meetings. This process became the Washington Association of Sheriffs
and Police Chiefs Model Policy. United, all releasing agencies adopted the Washington State
Sex Offender Risk Level Classification Tool for the purpose of leveling sex and kidnapping offenders. Based on point score and notification considerations, the releasing offender is classified as a Level I, II, or III for the purpose of community notification; the score may be mitigated or aggravated as needed.
379
Law Enforcement Notification
Level I: Offenders whose risk assessment indicates a low risk of sexual re-offense within the
community at large. Law enforcement shares information with other appropriate law enforcement agencies and upon request may disclose relevant, necessary, and accurate information to
any victim or witness to the offense and to any individual community member who lives near
the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is regularly found.
Level II: Offenders whose risk assessment indicates a moderate risk of sexual re-offense
within the community at large. Law enforcement may disclose relevant, necessary, and accurate
information to public and private schools, child daycare centers, family daycare providers, businesses and organizations who primarily serve children, women, vulnerable adults, neighbors,
and community groups near the residence where the offender resides, expects to reside, or is
regularly found.
Level III: Offenders whose risk assessment indicates a high risk of sexual reoffense within the
community at large. Law enforcement may disclose relevant, necessary, and accurate information to the public at large.
Law Enforcement Notification and Risk Level Designation Process
Incarceration
Once the offender is incarcerated within the Department of Corrections, the assigned counselor
reviews the offender’s criminal history. The counselor is required to submit an End of Sentence
Review Referral to the Community Protection Unit on all offenders who have been convicted of
a registerable sex or kidnapping offense, crimes against children, current threat, and offenders
deemed to pose a significant risk to public safety. The referral is submitted 18 to 24 months
prior to release or immediately for shorter sentences. Information for the referral can include
all available court documents, institution file material, offense reports, pre-sentence reports,
psychological reports, treatment reports, infraction history.
Records Staff
The community protection unit records staff reviews the referral packet for content. If additional information is needed, they are required to make direct requests to the appropriate agency
for the documents. When the necessary documents are received, the records staff assign the
case to a notification specialist.
Law Enforcement Notification Specialist
The community protection unit notification specialist receives the offender’s file packet from
the records staff and reviews it for completeness. The specialists have the responsibility to
complete the file review narrative which includes the offender's proposed release address, description of the current offense, sex offense history, other criminal history, psychological history, treatment, infractions, employment, and community support. The notification specialist
must also score the actuarial assessments. Currently the actuarials include the Washington
State Sex Offender Risk Level Classification, Minnesota Sex Offender Scoring Tool, Static-99,
and the Rapid Risk Assessment for Sexual Offense Recidivism (RRASSOR.) When the file
380
review narrative is completed, the notification specialist ensures the case is scheduled for presentation to the End of Sentence Review Committee.
End of Sentence Review Committee
The End of Sentence Review Committee includes representation from law enforcement, Child
Protective Services, Department of Social and Health Services, Juvenile Rehabilitation Administration, Division of Developmentally Disabled, Victim Witness, Mental Health, Department of
Corrections Law Enforcement Notification and Civil Commitment program managers, institution field supervisor, and institution manager. Each member of the committee reviews the offender’s narrative report, all file material, and the actuarials (scoring tools.) The case is opened
for discussion, which centers on possible civil commitment, appropriate level of community
notifications, and any additional notifications to agencies such as Licensing or Child Protective
Services. A vote is taken for the final determination of the sex/kidnapping offender's notification level.
Post End of Sentence Review
After the End of Sentence Review Committee reviews the case, it is returned to the notification
specialist and dated for the earliest release date. Prior to the offender’s earned release date the
file is returned to the specialist and is reviewed for final notification to law enforcement, which
must be completed 35 days prior to the actual release. As needed, new information is incorporated and the release address is reviewed. The notification specialists also ensure that the sex/
kidnapping offender registers with Department of Corrections, that the release plan does not
place the offender in violation, and where necessary, that a Risk Management Transition Team
has been developed. Any other notifications deemed appropriate by the End of Sentence Review Committee is also completed and distributed 35 days prior to an offender’s release. The
law enforcement notification and supporting documents are then distributed to the appropriate
agency.
Law Enforcement
When law enforcement receive the offender’s notification and file packet, they review all material including the assigned classification level. If they deem the level inappropriate, they have
the ability to depart from the level designation assigned by the End of Sentence Review Committee. When this happens they are required to forward a departure notice to the law enforcement notification program noting their reason for departure of the original level. Law enforcement prepares their community notification and determines whether a community meeting
needs to take place.
381
Victim Wrap Around
In 1998 a sex offender, soon-to-be released from the Twin Rivers Corrections Center in Washington state, at the expiration of his maximum term, disclosed to his sex offender therapist his
most prevailing fantasies. They involved his 14-year-old victim and her mother. The offender’s disclosure included graphic descriptions of mutilation and murder of both of them.
The offender’s disclosure was so detailed that the therapist, alarmed by the danger and fearing
that this offender might act out his fantasies, contacted the Department’s Community Protection
Unit, and the case was referred to the Victim Witness Program.
Our First Experience
Once the potential danger was revealed and it was recognized that something had to be done to
try to protect the victim and her mother, the department started to mobilize a team of resources
to assist in safety planning for the victim. The mother of the victim was contacted with the information of the potential danger. At the insistence of her mother, the victim, who was now
almost 17 years old, was also told of the risk, in the presence of her mother. The local sexual
assault program in the county where the victim resided was then contacted to provide a community resource for safety planning. The victims met with the local advocate, who provided ongoing support and counseling, which was sustained throughout the offender’s release process.
Local law enforcement agencies in the counties of the offender’s release, as well as where the
victim resided, were then contacted with the information of the offender’s fantasies. From
those separate meetings, it was decided that a joint meeting with law enforcement and department of corrections staff would occur to map out a community response plan for the safety of
383
the victims. Law enforcement decided they would issue a community-wide bulletin of the offender's pending release. Department of corrections staff responsible for the offender’s supervision established a plan which included daily reporting, approved living arrangements, geographic restriction, and a curfew. The victims and their support were not present during this
meeting, but they were informed of the plan and all other information pertaining to the offender's release and supervision.
Subsequent to the offender’s release, after completing his court-imposed sentence, he was not
able to secure appropriate living arrangements, leaving him homeless in the area where the victims lived. Due to the risk he presented, working in collaboration with local law enforcement,
the department of corrections arrested this offender for the violation and placed him in the
county jail. The offender’s reincarceration gave the intended victims a chance to relocate, thus
permanently escaping the potential danger of this offender when he returned to the community.
The success relating to the victim's safety during this first experience, as piecemeal as it was,
moved the department to establish a new program to protect past and potential victims from
possible harm as offenders reenter the community. The “Victim Wrap Around” has become an
integral part of the department’s risk management process for high-risk offenders reentering
society following confinement. Since the first “Victim Wrap Around” held in 1998, close to
180 cases have been identified, where safety plans have been or are being developed with the
assistance of the victim, the community, local authorities, and other criminal justice organizations.
How Does it Work?
The department completes a risk–based classification process for all offenders under its jurisdiction, based not only on the crime of conviction, but the behavior of the offender during confinement. When the offender is close to release, the classification of that offender is reviewed
by institutional staff. If the offender has made a current threat or has demonstrated fixated behavior toward past or potential victims, intends to pursue a relationship with the victim of past
violence, with or without the consent of the victim (as in domestic violence or sexual assault
cases), or is a sex offender, the case is referred to the End of Sentence Review Committee. This
intra-agency committee focuses on information contained in the offender’s file indicative of a
potential harm to the community and the victim. The Level Service Inventory Revised (LSI-R)
assessment tool, along with other risk instruments, are used as a measurement of potential risk.
To determine offenders who pose an imminent threat to the victim, the department established
three criteria, which became the basis in determining if a “Victim Wrap Around” should be developed:
1. Is the offender making a current threat, verbally or in writing, to either past or potential
victims (repeated violations of No Contact Orders certainly may fall under this criteria)?
2. Is the offender demonstrating fixated behavior toward the victim?
3. Is the offender pursuing the relationship with the victim of past violence, without the
consent of the victim?
These criteria support the establishment of the offender’s classification of Imminent Threat,
which is one of the highest classifications established by the department. If one or more of
384
these criteria is met, the case is referred to the Victim Witness Program Manager, who assigns
the case to a department of corrections community victim liaison.
After the case is assigned, the community victim liaison contacts the victim to offer the “Victim
Wrap Around” services. Once it is determined that the victim wants the services, a “Victim
Wrap Around” team is assembled. Core members of the team includes the department’s community corrections officers, risk management specialist, institution classification counselors,
and the victim (including any support they wish, such as family members or friends.) The team
also includes law enforcement personnel and local community victim advocates from the
county where the victim resides. Other team members, depending on the circumstances of the
case, could include members of the mental health and/or chemical dependence community, domestic violence treatment providers, child or adult protective services staff, and prosecutorbased legal advocates.
The assembled team brings expertise, knowledge and support around the primary objective of
developing intensive safety planning and protection for the victim. The comprehensive safety
plan developed around the needs of the victim becomes part of the offender’s accountability
plan (supervision plan.) The victim’s safety plan varies widely based on the individual circumstances of the victim, the offender's safety issues, and the degree of the potential harm. Victims
have direct input into conditions of release, and learn of the degree of offender supervision and
monitoring that will occur. Prior to the release of the offender, the victim is connected with a
network of community and justice system representatives, which assists the victim in accessing
these resources, should a need arise. As one victim very simply summed up her experience
with the “Victim Wrap Around” process, “I thought I had to plan for the release of the offender
by myself, but I now realize I don’t have to because the system has come together for my
safety.” A fragmented system becomes seamless for the victim as a result of the Victim Wrap
Around process. This is very comforting and relieves a lot of the victim's anxiety surrounding
the release of the offender.
Safety Plan Strategies
The safety plan that is developed is tailored to the circumstances and uniqueness of the victim.
The department of corrections uses an array of approaches to keep the victim safe. As conditions of release, the department may prohibit the offender from returning to the area where the
crime was committed. Geographic restrictions may be placed on the offender in a way that we
never disclose where the victim is residing. Electronic monitoring may be used during the initial phase of the offender’s release as a way of monitoring the offender’s whereabouts and curfew requirements. Some Wrap Around team members may conduct a safety “walk- through” in
the victim's home, identifying security issues such as overgrown bushes and inadequate lighting. Victims are provide with a current photo of the offender, which they use in block watch
meetings or to let others know of the personal risk associated with the release of the offender.
The safety plan often addresses the need for the victim, with the assistance of the local advocate
on the team, to obtain independent orders for protection separate from the sentencing order.
The safety plan often covers where the victim resides, works, and socializes. If there is children
involved that the offender may have access to, and this produces safety issues for the victim, the
safety plan extends to the schools or daycare centers where the children attend.
385
Victim Safety and Risk Management Transition of Offenders
The “Victim Wrap Around” process works in partnership with the department’s Risk Management Transition for offenders. Offenders are not allowed to participate in a Victim Wrap
Around and, in fact, the process is kept confidential from the offender. The planning that goes
into effective transitioning of high-risk offenders back to the community takes into account the
team approach similar to that of a “Victim Wrap Around.” The department may meet with law
enforcement, local advocates, criminal justice, and community organizations to map out an effective transition plan for the offender. At times, victims who are supportive of maintaining or
reconciling a relationship with the offender are often used on the transition team.
The difference between the two, however, is the “Victim Wrap Around” does not include the
offender in the safety planning, and places the victim in the center of the process. Victims'
needs for safety are supported and highlighted with the reentry of the offender. On the other
hand, an effective transition plan encourages the offender’s participation and agreement. The
transition team works with the offender on reentering the community. The offender’s needs
around housing and subsistence, for the initial period after release, as well as counseling and
other components for successful completion of supervision requirements and adjustment back
to society, are addressed and supported. Information from these two processes is shared with
staff involved in the offender’s case and is used to establish a holistic and responsible Offender
Accountability Plan.
Our Commitment
The Washington State Department of Corrections' “Victim Wrap Around,” the first such victim
protection program in the nation, reflects our commitment to victims' rights. It has become an
integral component of the department's overall operation and mission of “Working Together for
Safe Communities.” Washington State was the first state, in 1983, to require by law, that victims and witnesses be notified of the offender’s release and transfer to the community. We
have made victims a priority with their safety paramount, as offenders reenter society. Addressing and holding offenders accountable for the harm they do, without addressing victim
safety as a priority in reentry is analogous to reading a good book and the ending is left out. We
should expand our focus as a Corrections profession and realize that our operation is no longer
just about the offender.
386
The Path to Victim Empowerment
Introduction
West Virginia is a state wherein neighbors are still considered family and the legacy of community social events continue from one generation to the next. Much of the state is rural in nature,
and locals have long thought that the majestic mountains in which West Virginia is nestled
would provide protection to the people and communities from the social problems and crime
rate increases that the rest of the country had been experiencing for years. The sad fact, however, is that our mountains have not protected West Virginia from the influx of drugs and violence into our communities. In fact, with a 9% annual prison population increase since 1995,
West Virginia touts a population comprised largely of violent offenders (54%.) The WV Division of Corrections fully recognizes that at least one victim has suffered at the hands of each
offender housed within our correctional facilities, and the agency has made it a priority to both
recognize and serve those victims of our offenders. Through the Office of Victims of Crime
and the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, the Division of Corrections has been
able to continue its commitment to the promise that crime victims be treated with respect, dignity, and sensitivity. Additionally, the agency is striving to enhance the building of mutual understandings and partnerships in order to provide balance to the criminal justice system for victims of crime.
The History
In 2001, the Division of Corrections established the position of Victim Services Manager within
the agency’s Central Office in Charleston, WV, and made a strong commitment to the State to
387
provide direct services to the victims of crime. Since that time, the agency has maintained a
steady momentum in improving services to victims through notification, information, and victim representation at parole board hearings. In fact, in FY 2003, the agency provided direct services to 2,145 victims across the state. Crime victim awareness programs have been placed in
each of the thirteen (13) correctional facilities operated by the Division of Corrections, and various other offender programs have been revised to include a victim empathy component. Staff
and offenders within each of the agency’s facilities/centers actively participate in crime victim
awareness campaigns in local communities and aide local shelters and victim organizations
through philanthropic endeavors. In December 2002, the VINE (Victim Information and Notification Everyday) system was implemented. The Victim Services Manager and other DOC
employees provide assistance to the WV Sex Offender Registry, operated by the WV State Police, in sex offender community notification meetings across the state, and the Victim Services
Manager provides links to community-based victim advocates, prosecutors, victims’ coalitions
and organizations to better serve the needs of victims. In just a few short years, the agency has
truly become a leader in crime victim awareness and services across the State.
The Expansion of Services
From the beginning of West Virginia’s Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, services to victims have been a priority. Realizing that many of the offenders incarcerated in state
facilities would one day return to communities and the general fear this fact invokes within victims of crime, it seemed only natural that the agency should take a leadership role in bringing
together a collaborative, multi-agency, multi-disciplinary team to address how the state would
better empower victims to effectively manage their offender’s release. This team was formed in
September 2003 and asked to conduct planning work that would ensure that the system was
proactive in dealing with victims, aided victims in regaining control, and educated them of their
rights as victims of crime. The team was comprised of crime victims and representatives from:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Division of Corrections (victim services, programs, intelligence/investigation, religious
services)
local victim advocate offices (law enforcement, prosecution, coalitions, foundations)
local and state law enforcement agencies
the state criminal justice administrative and planning agency
the state victim advocate office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
the state association of crime victim advocates
the state paroling authority
This team worked collaboratively over the course of six months to develop a comprehensive,
seamless system of bringing a victim through the criminal justice system, from their offender’s
sentencing to their offender’s release into the community. The product of this team’s work has
become known as “The Path to Victim Empowerment in West Virginia,” and provides the victim with services, such as: appropriate support in providing a victim impact statement; information and notification; support through the parole process; and victim safety planning prior to
their offender’s release.
388
The Path to Victim Empowerment in West Virginia
The premise of the developed system is based on strong collaboration and networking between
local victim advocates, organizations, and foundations and the parole officers, institutional parole officers, chaplains, and victim service representatives of the Division of Corrections. The
developed system adds one additional step to victim services in the Division of Corrections, and
greatly enhances a second.
Step One: Proactive contact
The Division of Corrections has historically attempted to make contact with victims to obtain a
victim impact statement for use in the post-sentence investigation; however, this step of victim
service has been significantly improved and expanded. To replace the prior contact letter that
simply asked the victim to complete a victim impact statement, a standard form letter has been
developed, with sensitivity to the victims and their needs in mind, that clearly establishes the
agency’s desire to provide support and services to victims. Along with this letter, work was
completed to provide victims with a newly designed victim impact statement form that empowers the victim to tell their story in their own unique way. Both the contact letter and victim impact statement form are forwarded to victims with a packet of valuable information concerning
their rights, DOC victim services, requests for notification, VINE, the crime victim’s compensation fund, and answers to frequently asked questions.
Step Two: General services during incarceration of offenders
Since the start of victim services in 2001, the Division of Corrections has provided general services to victims during their offender’s incarceration. These services include referrals to local
victim advocates, notification, information, and support during parole hearings. The agency has
identified victim service representatives in each of its correctional facilities, who are responsible for assisting victims as requests for information are made and providing support and services to victims during parole hearings. Each of the victim services representatives have been
trained in victim sensitivity, empathy, and empowerment, and receive regular on-going training
to keep them abreast of new community-based practices and services that can be referral
sources for the victims they serve.
Step Three: Victim safety planning
With a large portion of the agency’s population being violent in nature, ensuring that victims
are provided with services following the release of their offenders is a priority to the Division of
Corrections. The newly developed system allows for victims to request assistance in planning
for their safety upon the release of their offender. As requests are received by the Victim Services Manager, referrals are made to parole officers working in the community in which the
victim resides. The parole officers, in partnership with that community’s local victim advocate,
meet with the victim and assist him/her in the preparation of his/her individualized safety plan.
Victim service representatives, chaplains, and institutional parole officers from DOC facilities
are called upon to render assistance as needed. Together with the victim, the parole officer and
victim advocate determine what other agencies (i.e. schools, state and local service providers,
389
law enforcement) need to become involved to further ensure victim safety.
Just as there is great concern in the transfer of offender case loads from facilities to communities, that same concern exists for the victims of those offenders. There must be a continuum of
care for every victim. The process of victim safety planning with both the parole officer and
local advocate is seen as a critical step in ensuring that the victim’s case is appropriately transferred from the corrections system back into the community as their offender reenters.
Conclusion
Every correctional administration is faced with the daunting task of setting priorities based on
budgets, and hoping that enough can be done with limited funds to ensure public safety. In order to best serve their public and determine priorities, administrators must ask, “What is it we’re
trying to accomplish here?” For several years now, the West Virginia Division of Corrections
has recognized restorative justice as a priority. In West Virginia, the corrections business is
more than block walls, fences, and gates. We are in the business of identifying and taking steps
to repair harm, seeking to aide victims and restore offenders as whole, contributing members of
society. The employees have found the task of serving victims to be extremely fulfilling and
rewarding. Every day that we look beyond our budgets and expand victim services, our theory
that many great dreams can come to fruition even with financial constraints is proven.
390
Connecting the Dots
Introduction
Correctional systems have struggled with the concept of rehabilitation since the birth of the
medical model theory of criminality and the beginning of the Era of Rehabilitation in the 1920s.
It is not that the system necessarily discounts its ability to rehabilitate or otherwise correct offender thinking patterns and behaviors; it is much more a case that we still struggle to determine
if what we do really works. It takes years to determine the validity of an individual program
and even longer to determine the validity of comprehensive services. Since the 1920s, corrections has made gigantic strides in determining “what works” and best practices in offender services and programs. The West Virginia Division of Corrections now confidently provides evidence-based services and programs to offenders living both within its correctional facilities and
on parole. The rehabilitative challenge in West Virginia, however, has been in bridging the gap
between prisons and parole to the degree that there is a smooth transition for the offender as he/
she reenters the community.
Without bridging the gaps, the nearly 1,300 offenders released annually are left with the feeling
of being dropped from a cliff by his/her facility-based case managers to parole officers 100 feet
below, who have no idea what they have to do to catch this person they know very little about.
Upon evaluation, it was quickly determined that there existed only two options for the agencyeither bridge the gaps to improve the process of reentry and the likelihood of offender success,
or do nothing and expect no improvement in the likelihood of offender success or the overall
recidivism rate. The answer was obvious to the West Virginia Division of Corrections, and it
was on this premise that the agency began work to “connect the dots.”
391
The Need
While correctional facilities and parole services have operated under the same agency for years,
the two have operated independent of one another. It became a priority several years ago for
facilities to begin gaining consistency in their methods of case management, as was the case for
parole services across the state. However, consistency between correctional facilities and parole services did not become a priority until very recently. In fact, historically it was rare that
parole officers would ever be in contact with facility-based case managers prior to an offender’s
parole or even after an offender’s parole was revoked. Even rarer was the opportunity for parole officers and facility-based case managers to attend training together or to network with one
another. As the agency began assessing its needs in the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative, it became very apparent that attaining high levels of consistency, communication, and
networking between prisons and parole services would drive our goal of aiding offenders in
successfully returning to communities throughout the state.
Back to the Basics
The truth of the matter is while the agency recognized the need to link prisons and parole services, the WV Division of Corrections had no strategic plan in place to formally address that
need. Indeed, the initial method of “connecting the dots” was a grassroots effort between the
Director of Programs and the Director of Parole Services. It began with invitations being extended to programs representatives to attend parole meetings and invitations being extended to
parole representatives to attend programs meetings. Once the two groups began sitting down
together, an amazing transformation began to take place. The two groups quickly realized that
while they operated on different ends of the correctional continuum, they were in fact working
toward the same goals of transitioning offenders effectively, holding offenders accountable, and
providing offenders with services and programs to aide them in being responsible, productive
members of the larger community. The issues faced by facility-based staff became important to
parole officers and the issues faced by parole officers became important to facility-based staff.
Most importantly, the two groups realized, without any sort of divine leadership intervention, if
they worked collaboratively the likelihood of each achieving the organizational mission of enhancing public safety would be greater.
With this realization, the Director of Programs and the Director of Parole Services began empowering small working groups, with representation from both areas, to determine how offenders would be transitioned with facility-based staff and parole officers working as a team. As a
result, new policies have been developed that charge parole officers and facility-based case
managers with jointly managing an offender’s case for the last six (6) months of the offender’s
incarceration. Additionally, there are new expectations for sharing of information and personal
contact between parole officers and facility-based case managers. A new offender program
plan has been developed that accommodates the three phases of reentry, and in the span of
twelve months, every parole officer and facility-based case manager in the system has attended
sixty-four (64) hours of joint training in risk and needs assessment and basic case management
skills.
392
The Results
As many will recall of their childhood, when you are connecting dots you may have a basic idea
of what the picture is going to look like, but you are never entirely sure of all the curves and
angles until your work is complete. The same is true for the West Virginia Division of Corrections in this venture. While we are already experiencing an organizational shift, to include improved interpersonal relationships, mutual understanding and respect between the two groups,
as well as an improved work product, we are still not far enough into the initiative to know all
the curves and angles. Anecdotally, we have determined that we are better able to serve the offender population with both groups interacting on a higher plain, and are better equipped to
maintain public safety through providing offenders with more stability during their transition.
Unfortunately, we will not have the scientific results of this reorganization for a number of
years.
Conclusion
Connecting the dots can be a scary thing for correctional administrators. We come from an environment that has historically had lines clearly drawn for us, but we now stand in an era when
new lines must be drawn to continue our pursuit of public safety through successful offender
reentry. The offenders we have on our case loads have few remaining bridges to family and
social support based on their criminal behavior; they have addictions, difficulties in pro-socially
interacting with others, and many have very little experience at making basic life decisions.
There must be a bridge to connect facilities and parole. There must be a sense of stability as
offenders reenter communities; otherwise, we set ourselves and the offenders up for failure
right out of the gate.
Having faith that your team will be able to connect those dots in a way that produces a clear,
identifiable picture in the end is critical. The power of grassroots movements in your organization should not be underestimated in accomplishing necessary changes. Oftentimes it is the
very group you are hoping to change that can give you the “how” of it all. The knowledge and
experience of trained and tenured staff is invaluable to making organizational shifts, and it is
through those individuals that the West Virginia Division of Corrections has experienced great
success.
393
ASCA History
ASCA History
Camille and George Camp
ASCA Executive Directors
The Association of State Correctional Administrators took shape during the 1960’s, as states
began to merge the operations of their growing numbers of prisons into single state agencies.
These newly formed Departments of Correction were headed by many former wardens, as well
as by other individuals from both the public and private sectors. As the number of departments
of corrections increased, the individuals appointed to run these systems began to interact with
each other.
There were many great leaders in the field of corrections who were instrumental in the establishment of the Association. At the risk of omitting someone, these individuals and the jurisdictions they represented at that time, come to mind: Ellis MacDougall (SC), George McGrath
(MA), Fred Wilkerson (MO), Dick McGee (CA), George Beto (TX), Sanger Powers (WI), John
Moran (DE), and Gus Harrison (MI).
They quickly realized that the roles they were now playing varied significantly from the warden’s position that many of them previously occupied. A sense of shared experiences and common bonds as well as the need to discuss problems and possible solutions served to formalize
their informal relationships in the form of an organized pursuit of correctional goals and objectives. Those objectives, which were incorporated into the Constitution and Bylaws of the Association, continue today as the foundation for ASCA’s efforts. They read then and now as follows:
The objective of this organization shall be the improvement of correctional services and practices through promoting and facilitating:
1. the exchange of ideas and philosophies at the top administrative level of correctional planning and policy-making;
2. the advancement of correctional techniques, particularly in the areas of program development, design of physical facilities, staff training, and correctional management facilities;
3. public support for and understanding of the criminal justice system with particular emphasis
on the corrections function and the interest and acceptance by the community of its responsibility for the prevention of delinquency and the reintegration of persons who have come
into conflict with the law;
4. research in correctional practices, anti-social behavior, causes of crime and delinquency and
cooperation in such research;
5. the development and application of correctional standards and accreditation;
ASCA History
397
6. the fostering of legislative and other measures designed to accomplish this objective;
7. the exchange of information with international agencies and organizations interested in correctional programs; and
8. the undertaking of such work and projects of an allied character as may be authorized by the
membership.
Membership in ASCA was limited to that person charged with the responsibility for administering the correctional system in each state, the District of Columbia, and the Federal Bureau of
Prisons. Membership was also extended to the heads of three urban correctional systems and to
the Correctional Service of Canada. The three urban systems were located in Cook County (IL),
Philadelphia, and New York City. Since that time, membership has been extended to all the
provinces of Canada, and to all U.S. Territories and Commonwealths.
For twenty years, ASCA members gathered bi-annually for a luncheon meeting during the
course of the summer and winter meetings of the American Correctional Association. Those
gatherings included time to socialize, hear from an invited speaker, listen to remarks by the
president, and accept a report from the treasurer. During the summer meeting, a slate of officers
were nominated and by acclamation voted into office by the members present. Dues were nominal and served primarily to defray the cost of the bi-annual lunch.
From 1983 to 1984, during the presidential tenure of Don Yeomans of the Correctional Service
of Canada, a significant shift in the course of the Association unfolded. Continuing to exist primarily as a loosely structured and less than purposeful organization seemed to many to be unsatisfactory. President Yeomans charged the membership with choosing one of two options
with regard to the future of ASCA. Either ASCA should become a focused and business-like
organization, with staff and financial resources, to support its work; or it should disband. After
much discussion, the membership voted unanimously to engage staff on a part-time basis and to
increase the dues to finance its operations.
In August of 1984, ASCA selected George and Camille Camp of the Criminal Justice Institute
to become ASCA’s part-time Executive Directors effective January 1, 1985. They have continued to serve in that capacity since that time. Over the last 20 years ASCA has been led by
eleven presidents, each of whom was elected to a two-year term. They include Morris Thigpen
(MS, 1985-1986); Hal Farrier (IA, 1987); David Evans (GA, 1988-89); Thomas Coughlin (NY,
1990-1992); Orville Pung (MN, 1993-1994); Walter Ridley (DC, 1993); Elaine Little (ND,
1994-1996); Harold Clarke (NE, 1997-1998); Joseph Lehman (WA, 1999-2000); Ron Angelone
(VA, 2001-2002); and Reginald Wilkinson (OH, 2003-2004).
Under their leadership, ASCA has been steered by its Executive Committee whose members
consists of the three nationally elected officers – President, Vice President, and Treasurer, as
well as the Past President and four regionally elected representatives. The Executive Committee
is supported by the work of numerous ASCA committees that address the professional concerns
of the membership. ASCA’s newsletter, Corrections Directions, serves to disseminate information ten times a year to the members and to associate members. More recently the creation of
398
ASCA History
the ASCA website and the use of an ASCA email system has provided even greater sharing of
information and ideas between members, and between members and their executive staff.
During the last two years, ASCA’s president, Reginald Wilkinson (OH) has encouraged the participation of associate members and past presidents of ASCA in committee work. The Past
Presidents Committee was created and in their first year they initiated the ASCA Correctional
Scholarship and the Past Presidents’ Award.
ASCA has benefited immeasurably from the lengthy support of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) and support from the Corrections Program Office (CPO) during the Clinton Administration. For more than 20 years NIC has provided the financial support for ASCA’s training programs. Annually, members assemble for professional development seminars over a twoday time period. Normally, intensive training and orientation is provided twice a year for those
directors who have recently assumed the role of head of corrections in their jurisdiction. These
peer-based training programs were modeled after similar programs provided by the National
Governors’ Association for newly elected governors.
In recent years, more federal justice offices have funded ASCA committee work. The Bureau of
Justice Assistance has supported the Performance-Based Measures Committee; the Council of
State Governments has funded mental health and re-entry initiatives; and the National Institute
of Justice has provided funds for correctional research efforts.
One of ASCA’s most important projects is the Performance-Based Measures System (PBMS).
This project will result in a set of cross-jurisdictional outcome-based measures that will serve
both to improve the planning capacity of correctional organizations and as a tool for directors to
measure program performance. The goals of the PBMS are to provide a tool for selfassessment, to provide routine and specialized reports that enable agencies to evaluate their performance over time and provide comparisons against other agencies, and to facilitate information sharing with local, state and federal agencies.
The PBMS committee is working to design a prototype of the PBMS that will enable ASCA
members to collect, manage, and share data on key indicators for public safety, institutional
safety, and offender profiles across state correctional agencies. They are also working to develop a resource manual that documents PBMS administrative rules, procedures, and glossary
of terms as well as the counting rules for the key indicators and measures. In addition, the committee will develop an implementation plan with training modules and quality control procedures for the first test of the PBMS. It is anticipated that pilot testing of the prototype will begin
in mid-to late summer of 2004.
ASCA History
399
Bibliography
Selected Bibliography on Reentry
Allard, Patricia. 2002. Life Sentences: Denying Welfare Benefits to Women Convicted of Drug
Offenses. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.
Allard, Patricia, and Marc Mauer. 2000. Regaining the Vote: An Assessment of Activity Relating
to Felon Disenfranchisement Laws. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.
American Correctional Association. 2004. Directory: Adult and Juvenile Correctional Departments, Institutions, Agencies, and Probation and Parole Authorities. Lanham, MD.: American
Correctional Association.
Andrews, Don A., and James Bonta. 1998. 2nd Edition. The Psychology of Criminal Conduct.
Cincinnati: Anderson.
Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb. 2001. The Comparative Costs
and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime. Seattle, WA.: Washington State for Public Policy.
Association of Paroling Authorities International. 2003. Handbok for New Parole Board Members. See http://www.apaintl.org/Handbook.html
Association of Paroling Authorities International. 2002. “Parole Board Survey 2002.” See
http://www.apaintl.org/Pub-ParoleBoardSurvey2002.html
Austin, James, 2001. “Prisoner Reentry: Current Trends, Practices, and Issues.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 314-34.
Beck, Allen. 2000. State and Federal Prisoners Returning to the Community: Findings from the
Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beck, Allen J., and Laura Maruschak. 2001. Mental Health Treatment in State Prisons, 2000.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley. 1989. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley. 1987. Recidivism of Young Parolees. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bloom, Barbara. 1998. “Women with Mental Health and Substance Abuse Problems on Probation and Parole.” Offender Programs Report: Social and Behavioral Rehabilitation in Prisons,
Jails and the Community. 2 (1): 1-13.
Bibliography
403
Bloom, Barbara. 2000. “Beyond Recidivism: Perspectives on Evaluation of Programs for Female Offenders in Community Corrections.” In Assessment to Assistance: Programs for Women
in Community Corrections. Edited by Maeve McMahon, 107-38. Latham, MD.: American Correctional Association.
Blumstein, Alfred, and Allen J. Beck. 1999. “Population Growth in U.S. Prisons: 1980-1996.”
In Prisons: A Review of Research, Edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, 17-62. Chicago, IL.:
University of Chicago Press.
Bonczar, Thomas P. 2003. Prevalence of Imprisonment in the United States Population. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Bonczar, Thomas P., and Allen J. Beck. 1997. Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State or Federal
Prison. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Boone, Harry B. 1995. “Mental Illness in Probation and Parole Populations: Results from a National Survey.” Perspectives. American Probation and Parole Association. 19:14-26.
Bottomley, Keith A. 1990. “Parole in Transition: A Comparative Study of the Origins, Development, and Prospects for the 1990s.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Edited by
Michael Tonry and Norval Morris, 319-374. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Boyum, David A., and Mark Kleiman. 2002. “Substance Abuse Policy.” In Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, edited by J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia, 331-82. San Francisco, CA.: ICS
Press.
Bradley, Katharine, and Michael Oliver. 2001. The Role of Parole. Boston, MA.: Community
Resources for Justice.
Bradley, Katharine, R.B. Oliver, N. Richardson, and E. Slayter. 2001. No Place Like Home:
Housing and the Ex-Prisoner. Boston, MA.: Community Resources for Justice.
Brown, David E., Edward DeJesus, Sarah Maxwell, and Vince Schiraldi. 2002. Barriers and
Promising Approaches to Workforce and Youth Development for Young Offenders. New York
City, NY.: Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Buck, Maria L. 2000. Getting Back to Work: Employment Programs for Ex-Offenders. Philadelphia, PA.: Public Private Ventures.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2003. Reentry Trends in the United States from http://
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Victim Characteristics 2002 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
bjs/cvict_v.htm
404
Bibliography
Burke, Peggy B. 1995. Abolishing Parole: Why the Emperor Has No Clothes. Lexington, KY.:
American Probation and Parole Association.
Bushway, Shawn, and Peter Reuter. 2002. “Labor Markets and Crime.” In Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control, Edited by J.Q. Wilson and J. Petersilia, 191-224. San Francisco, CA.:
ICS Press.
California Department of Corrections. 1997. Preventing Parolee Failure Program: An Evaluation. Sacramento, CA.: California Department of Corrections.
Camp, Camille, and George Camp. 2003. The Corrections Yearbook 2002. Middletown, CT.:
Criminal Justice Institute.
Caplow, Theodore, and Jonathan Simon. 1999. “Understanding Prison Policy and Population
Trends.” In Prisons: A Review of Research. Edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia, 63-120. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Clear, Todd, and Ronald Corbet. 1999. “Community Corrections of Place.” Perspectives.
American Probation and Parole Association. 23(1): 24-32.
Covington, Stephanie. 2003. “A Woman’s Journey Home: Challenges for Female Offenders
and Their Children.” In. Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on
Children, Families, and Communities. Edited by Jeremy Travis and Michel Waul, 67-103.
Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Cullen, Francis T. 2002. “Rehabilitation and Treatment Programs.” In Crime: Public Policies
for Crime Control, Edited by James Q. Wilson and Joan Petersilia, 253-91. Oakland, CA.: Institute for Contemporary Studies.
Cullen, Francis, Bonnie Fisher, and Brandon Applegate. 2000. “Public Opinion about Punishment and Corrections.” In Crime and Justice: A Review of Research. Edited by Michael Tonry,
1-79. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Dickey, Walter J., and Michael Smith. 2004. Promoting Public Safety: A Problem-Oriented Approach to Prisoner Reentry. Paper presented at the Urban Institute’s Reentry Roundtable
“Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety.” May 1213.
Dickey, Walter J., and Michael Smith. 1998. Rethinking Probation: Community Supervision,
Community Safety. Washington D.C.: US Department of Justice.
Dion, Robin, Michelle Der, Jacquelyn Anderson, and LaDonna Pavetti. 1999. Reaching All
Job-Seekers: Employment Programs for Hard-to-Employ Populations. Boston, MA.: Mathematica Policy Research.
Bibliography
405
Ditton, Paula, 1999. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and Probationers. Washington,
D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Eisenberg, Michael. 2001. Evaluation of the Performance of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice Rehabilitation Tier Programs. Austin, TX.: Criminal Justice Policy Council.
Enos, S. 2001. Mothering From the Inside: Parenting in a Women’s Prison. New York. SUNY
Press.
Fellner, Jamie, and Marc Mauer. 1998. Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.
Finn, Peter. 1998. Chicago’s Safer Foundation: A Road Back for Ex-Offenders. Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Finn, Peter. 1998. Texas’ Project Rio (Re-Integration of Offenders). Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Gabel, S. 1992. “Children of Incarcerated and Criminal Parents: Adjustment, Behavior and
Prognosis.” Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & the Law. 20:33-45.
Gaes, Gerald, Timothy J. Flanagan, Laurence L. Motiuk, and Lynn Stewart. 1999. “Adult Correctional Treatment.” In Prisons: A Review of Research. Edited by M. Tonry and J. Petersilia,
Gaes, Gerald, and Newton Kendig. 2003. “The Skill Sets and Health Care Needs of Released
Offenders.” Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children,
Families, and Communities. Edited by Jeremy Travis and Michel Waul, 105-153. Washington,
D.C.: Urban Institute.
Garland, David. 2001. The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Gendreau, Paul, and Robert Ross. 1987. “Revivification of Rehabilitation: Evidence from the
1980s.” Justice Quarterly. 4: 349-407.
Gendreau, Paul, Tracy Little, and Clair Goggin. 1996. “A Meta-Analysis of Adult Offender Recidivism: What Works?” Criminology. 34(4): 575-607.
Glaze, Lauren E. 2002. Probation and Parole in the United States, 2001. Washington, D.C.:
Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Godwin, Tracy, and Anne Seymour. 1999. Promising Victim-Related Practices and Strategies
in Probation and Parole. Washington, D.C.: Office of Victims of Crime.
406
Bibliography
Government Accounting Office. 2001. Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs. Washington, D.C.: Government Accounting Office.
Greene, Judith, and Vincent Schiraldi. 2001. Cutting Correctly: New Prison Policies for Times
of Fiscal Crisis. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute.
Hariston, Creasie F. 2003. “Prisoners and Families: Parenting Issues during Incarceration.” In
Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and
Communities. Edited by Jeremy Travis and Michel Waul, 259-282. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute.
Hallinan, Joseph. 2001. Going up the River: Travels in a Prison Nation. New York: Random
House.
Hammett, Theodore, Patricia Harmon, and William Rhodes. 2002. “The Burden of Infectious
Disease Among Inmates and Releasees From Correctional Facilities.” In The Health Status of
Soon-to-Be- Released Inmates, 15-28. Vol. 2. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Haney, Craig. 2003. “The Psychological Impact of Incarceration: Implications for Post-Prison
Adjustment.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. Edited by Jeremy Travis and Michel Waul, 33-66. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Harrison, Paige M., and Jennifer Karberg. 2004. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2003.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2003. Prisoners in 2002. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of
Justice Statistics.
Hart Research Associates. 2002. “Changing Public Attitudes toward the Criminal Justice System” from http://www.soros.org/initiatives/justice/articles_publications/publications/
hartpoll_20020201
Henderson, Martha. 2001. “Employment and Crime: What is the Problem and What Can Be
Done About It From the Inmate’s Perspective?” Corrections Management Quarterly 5(4): 4652. Aspen Publications.
Herman, Susan, and Cressida Waserman. 2001. “A Role for Victims in Offender Reentry.”
Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 428-55.
Hirsch, Amy E., Sharon Dietrich, Rue Landau, Peter Schneider, and Irv Ackelsberg. 2002.
Every Door Closed: Barriers Facing Parents with Criminal Records. Washington, D.C.: Center
for Law and Social Policy.
Bibliography
407
Hughes, Timothy, Doris James Wilson, and Allen J. Beck. 2001. Trends in State Parole, 19902000. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Klein, Stephen, and Michael Caggiano. 1986. The Prevalence, Predictability, and Policy Implications of Recidivism. Santa Monica, CA.: RAND.
Krienert, Jessie L. and Mark S. Fleisher. 2003. Editors. Crime and Employment: Critical Issues
in Crime Reduction for Corrections. Walnut Creek, CA.: Altamira Press.
Langan, Patrick, and David Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Laub, John, and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Pathways: Delinquent
Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press.
Laub, John, and Robert J. Sampson. 2001. “Understanding Desistance from Crime.” In Crime
and Justice, Edited by M. Tonry and Norval Morris, 1-70. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago
Press.
La Vigne, Nancy G., and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. Process Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Community Orientation and Reintegration Program. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Cynthia A. Mamalian, Jeremy Travis, and Christy Visher. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Vera Kachnowski, Jeremy Travis, Rebecca Naser, and Christy Visher.
2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., and Gillian L. Thomson. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Lawrence, Sarah, Daniel Mears, Gleen Dubin, and Jeremy Travis. 2002. The Practice and
Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Legal Action Center. 2004. After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry: A Report on State Legal Barriers Facing People With Criminal Records. New York: Legal Action Center.
Lipsey, Mark W. 1995. “What Do We Learn from 400 Research Studies on the Effectiveness of
Treatment with Juvenile Delinquency?” In What Works: Reducing Reoffending, Edited by
James McQuire, 63-78. West Sussex, U.K.: Wiley.
Lipsey, M.W., and J. H. Derzon. 1998. “Predictors of Violent or Serious Delinquency in Adolescence and Early Adulthood: A Synthesis of Longitudinal Research.” In Serious and Violent
Juvenile Offenders: Risk Factors and Successful Interventions, Edited by R. Loeber and David
P. Farrington, 86-105. Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.
408
Bibliography
Lurigio, Arthur J. 2001. “Effective Services for Parolees with Mental Illnesses.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 446-61.
Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2001. Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Washington,
McDonald, Douglas C. 1999. “Medical Care in Prisons.” In Prisons: A Review of Research. Edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia, 427-78. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
MacKenzie, Doris L., and Laura J. Hickman. 1998. What Works in Corrections? An Examination of the Effectiveness of the Type of Rehabilitation Programs Offered by Washington State
Department of Corrections. College Park, MD.: University of Maryland.
Maruna, Shadd and Russ Immarigeon. 2004. Editors. After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to
Offender Reintegration. London, England. Willan Publishing.
Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Maruschak. Laura M., 1999. HIV in Prisons and Jails. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice
Statistics.
Maruschak, Laura M., and Allen J. Beck. 2001. Medical Problems of Inmates, 1997. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Mauer, Marc. 1997. Losing the Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the
United States. Washington, D.C.: Sentencing Project.
Mauer, Marc, and Meda Chesney-Lind. 2002. Editors. The Collateral Consequences of Mass
Imprisonment. New York: New Press.
Mears, D.P., L. Winterfield, J. Hunsaker, G.E. Moore, and R.M. White. 2001. Strong Science
for Strong Practice: Linking Research to Drug Treatment in Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Mumola, Christopher J. 2000. Incarcerated Parents and Their Children. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.
Mumola, Christopher J. 1999. Substance Abuse and Treatment: State and Federal Prisoners,
1997. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Nagin, D., and J. Waldfogel. 1998. “The Effect of a Conviction on Income Through the Life
Cycle.” International Review of Law and Economics 18:25-40.
National Commission on Correctional Health Care. 2002. The Health Status of Soon-to-be Released Inmates. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Bibliography
409
Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: PostIncarceration Experiences in New York City. New York City, NY.: Vera Institute of Justice.
Office for Victims of Crime. 1998. New Directions from the Field: Victims, Rights and Services
for the 21st Century, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
Parent, Dale, and Brad Snyder. 1999. Police-Corrections Partnerships. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Parke, Ross, and Alison Clarke-Stewart. 2003. “Effects of Parental Incarceration on Young
Children.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children,
Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Chicago, Il:
Oxford University Press.
Petersilia, Joan. 2002. Reforming Probation and Parole. Lanham, MD.: American Correctional
Association.
Petersilia, Joan. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry: Public Safety and Reintegration Challenges.” The
Prison Journal. Vol. 81(3): 360-375.
Petersilia, Joan. 2001. “When Prisoners Return to the Community: Political, Economic, and Social Consequences.” Corrections Management Quarterly. (5) 3: 1-11. Aspen Publications.
Petersilia, Joan. 2000. Challenges of Prisoner Reentry and Parole in California. Berkeley, CA.:
California Policy Research Center.
Joan Petersilia. 1999. “Parole and Prisoner Reentry in the United States.” In Prisons: A Review
of Research. Edited by Michael Tonry and Joan Petersilia, 479-530. Chicago, IL.: University of
Chicago Press.
Rhine, Edward E. 2001. Special Issue Editor. “Revisiting Reentry Again for the First Time.”
Corrections Management Quarterly. 5(3):V-VIII. Aspen Publications.
Rhine, Edward E. 1996. “Parole Boards.” In The Encyclopedia of American Prisons, Edited by
Marilyn McShane and Frank Williams, 342-48. New York: Garland.
Rhunda, John, Edward Rhine, and Robert Wetter. 1994. The Practice of Parole Boards. Lexington, KY.: Association of Paroling Authorities, International.
Riveland, Chase. 1999. “Prison Management Trends, 1975-2025.” In Prisons, Edited by M.
Tonry and J. Petersilia, 163-203. Chicago, IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Rodriguez, Nino, and Brenner Brown. 2003. Preventing Homelessness Among People Leaving
Prison. New York City: Vera Institute.
410
Bibliography
Rollo, Ned. 2002. 99 Days and a Get Up: A Guide to Success Following Release for Inmates
and Their Loved Ones. 3rd Edition. Dallas, TX.: Open.
Rose, Dina R., and Todd R. Clear. 2003. “Incarceration, Reentry, and Social Capital: Social
Networks in the Balance.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. Edited by Jeremy Travis and Michel Waul, 313341. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Rossman, Shelli B. 2003. “Building Partnerships to Strengthen Offenders, Families, and Communities.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children,
Schriro, Dora. 2000. Correcting Corrections: Missouri’s Parallel Universe. Washington, D.C.:
National Institute of Justice.
Sechrest, Lee, Susan White, and Elizabeth Brown. 1979. The Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders: Problems and Prospects. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences.
Seiter, Richard, and Karen Kadela. 2003. “Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Doesn’t and
What’s Promising.” Crime and Delinquency 49(3): 360-388.
Seymour, Anne. 2001. The Victim’s Role in Offender Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Office for
Victims of Crime.
Shapiro, Carol. 2001. “Coming Home: Building on Family Connections.” Corrections Management Quarterly 5(3): 52-62. Aspen Publications.
Simon, Jonathan. 1993. Poor Discipline: Parole and the Social Control of the Underclass,
Smith, Michael, and Walter Dickey. 1998. “What If Corrections Were Serious about Public
Safety?” Corrections Management Quarterly (2)3:12-30. Aspen Publications.
Sullivan, Eileen, Milton Mino, Katherine Nelson, and Jill Pope. 2002. Families as a Resource
in Recovery from Drug Abuse: An Evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. New York City,
NY.: Vera Institute.
Taxman, Faye S., D. Young, James M. Byrne. 2003. Offenders’ Views of Reentry: Implications
for Processes, Programs, and Services. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Taxman, Faye S., D. Young, James M. Byrne, A. Holsinger, and Donald Anspach. 2003. From
Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in Offender Reentry. Washington, D.C.: National
Institute of Justice.
Bibliography
411
Taxman, Faye S. 2001. “Unraveling ‘What Works’ for Offenders in Substance Abuse Treatment Services.” National Drug Court Institute Review II(2): 91-132.
Taxman, Faye S., Douglas Young, and James M. Byrne. 2004. “With Eyes Wide Open: Formalizing Community and Social Control Intervention in Offender Reintegration Programmes. In
After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Edited by Maruna, Shadd
and Russ Immarigeon, 233-260. London, England. Willan Publishing.
Taylor, G. 2001. “The Importance of Developing Correctional Plans for Offenders.” Forum on
Corrections Research 13(1): 14-17. Correctional Service of Canada.
Tonry, Michael and Joan Petersilia. 1999. Editors. Prisons: A Review of Research. Chicago,
IL.: University of Chicago Press.
Travis, Jeremy. 2002. “Invisible Punishment: An Instrument of Social Exclusion.” In Invisible
Punishment: The Collateral Consequences of Mass Imprisonment. Edited by Marc Mauer and
Meda Chesney-Lind, 15-36. Washington, D.C.: New Press.
Travis, Jeremy. 2000. But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry. Washington,
D.C.: National Institute of Justice.
Travis, Jeremy, and Michel Waul. 2003. Editors. Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute.
Travis, Jeremy, Sinead Keegan, and Eric Cadora. 2003. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in New
Jersey. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Travis, Jeremy, and Sara Lawrence. 2002. Beyond the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in
America. Washington, D.D.: Urban Institute.
Travis, Jeremy, Amy Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.
Uggen, Christopher. 2002. “Barriers to Democratic Participation.” Paper presented at the Urban
Institute’s Reentry Roundtable on “Prisoner Reentry and the Institutions of Civil Society:
Bridges and Barriers to Successful Reintegration.” Washington, D.C.: March 21-22.
U.S. Department of Labor. 2001. From Hard Time to Full Time: Strategies to Help Move ExOffenders from Welfare to Work. Washington, D.C.: Employment and Training Administration.
Watson, James, Amy L. Solomon, Nancy G. La Vigne, Jeremy Travis, Meagan Funches, and
Barbara Parthasarathy. 2004. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas. Washington, D.C., Urban
Institute.
412
Bibliography
Western, Bruce, Jeffrey Kling, and David Weiman. 2001. “The Labor Market Consequences of
Incarceration.” Crime & Delinquency 47(3): 410-28.
Wilkinson, Reginald. 2001. “Offender Reentry: A Storm Overdue.” Corrections Management
Quarterly 5(3): 46-51. Aspen Publications.
Wilkinson, Reginald. 2000. Correctional Best Practices: Directors’ Perspectives. Middletown,
CT.: Association of State Correctional Administrators.
Young, D., Faye S. Taxman, and Joel M. Byrne. 2003. Engaging the Community in Offender
Reentry. Report Submitted to the National Institute of Justice. College Park, MD: University of
Maryland.
Special Note: This bibliography cites numerous references included in Joan Petersilia’s publication entitled “When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry” (see above). It
also adds new reference material. Readers are encouraged to review Dr. Petersilia’s comprehensive bibliography on reentry.
Bibliography
413
REENTRY AND JUSTICE POLICY RESEARCH
ABT ASSOCIATES, INC.
Wendell Knox, President and CEO
55 Wheeler Street
Cambridge, MA 02138-1168
(617) 492-7100
www.abtassoc.com
Abt Associates is a social science research firm. Its Law and Public Policy Group studies a variety of law and justice issues, including sentencing and corrections policies and programs. Information on its Transition From Prison to Community (TPCI) Initiative can be found at
www.abtassociates.com/page.cfm?pageID=12580.
CEGA SERVICES, INC.
Gary Hill, President
P.O. Box 81826
Lincoln, NE 68401-1826
(402) 420-0602
www.CEGA.com
An information and referral agency, CEGA provides survey information for the American Correctional Association in publishing the Corrections Compendium, a monthly journal for corrections professionals that reports statistics on corrections topics on a state-by-state basis.
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTS - PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE GROUP
Daniel M. Sprague, Executive Director, CEO
2760 Research Park Drive
P.O. Box 11910
Lexington, KY 40578-1910
(859) 244-8000
www.csg.org
The Public Safety and Justice Group provides policy makers with research, information, and
policy options on today’s most salient public safety and justice issues. Information on the Reentry Policy Council under CSG can be found at www.csgeast.org/crimereentry.asp.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE INSTITUTE, INC.
George and Camille Camp and Robert May, Principals
213 Court Street Suite 606
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 704-6400
www.cji-inc.com
The Criminal Justice Institute conducts research, provides consulting services, publishes The
Corrections Yearbook and disseminates information to criminal justice practitioners around the
country.
417
DOBLE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES
John Doble, President
375 Sylvan Avenue
Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
(201) 568-7200
www.dobleresearch.com
Doble Research Associates conducts public opinion research on topics facing the country such
as crime, prison crowding, and intermediate sanctions.
JOHN F. KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT
Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management
Mark Moore, Francis Hartman, Executive Director and Senior Research Fellow
Harvard University
79 JFK Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
(617) 495-5188
www.ksg.harvard.edu/criminaljustice
The Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management aims to strengthen criminal justice
institutions and practitioners by challenging conventional wisdom through research and debate
on justice policy and management issues.
JUSTICE POLICY INSTITUTE
Vincent Schiraldi, Executive Director
4455 Connecticut Ave., NW
Suite B-500
Washington, D.C. 20008
(202) 363-7847
www.justicepolicy.org
JPI is a nonprofit research and public policy organization dedicated to ending society’s reliance
on incarceration and promoting effective and just solutions to social problems.
NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES
William Pound, Executive Director
444 N. Capitol St. NW, Suite 515
(202) 624-5400
www.ncsl.org
NCSL is a bipartisan organization providing research, technical assistance, and opportunities
for policymakers to exchange ideas on the most pressing state issues. Criminal justice issues
can be found at www.ncsl.org/programs/cj/crime.htm.
418
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY
Barry Krisberg, President
1970 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 208-0500
www.nccd-crc.org
The National Council on Crime and Delinquency conducts research on programs and policies
designed to reduce crime and delinquency. NCCD publishes papers on corrections issues, statistical updates, and a quarterly newsletter “NCCD Focus”.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Sarah V. Hart, Director
810 Seventh Street, NW
Washington, DC 20531
(202) 307-2942
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
A research and development agency of the United States Department of Justice, the National
Institute of Justice seeks to prevent and reduce crime and improve the criminal justice system.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE
Nora D. Volkow, Director
6001 Executive Boulevard, Room 5213
Bethesda, MD 20892-9561
(301) 443-1124
www.nida.nih.gov
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) is the lead federal agency conducting research on
the prevalence of drug abuse in the U.S. The Institute studies the causes and consequences of
drug abuse, as well as prevention and treatment techniques.
PUBLIC AGENDA
Daniel Yankelovich, Chairman, Co-Founder
6 East 39th Street
New York, NY 10016
(212) 686-6610
www.publicagenda.org
Public Agenda is a research and educational organization that explores public understanding of
complex policy issues. The group has conducted studies on public perceptions of crime, corrections, and the use of intermediate sanctions, and it has developed issue guides on crime and juvenile violence.
419
RAND
James Thomson, President
Criminal Justice Program
1700 Main Street
P.O. Box 2138
Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138
(310) 393-0411
www.rand.org
Through high quality objective research and broad dissemination, RAND’s Criminal Justice
Program assists policymakers and opinion leaders in understanding key trends relating to public
safety, the operation of the criminal justice system, and the costs and benefits of related public
policy options.
THE SAFER SOCIETY FOUNDATION, INC.
Brenda Burchard, Executive Director
P.O. Box 340
Brandon, VT 05733-0340
(802) 247-3132
www.safersociety.org
The Safer Society is a national research, advocacy and referral center focusing on the prevention and treatment of sexual abuse. Safer Society Press publishes research and training materials
on the nature of sex offenders and the needs of victims.
URBAN INSTITUTE - JUSTICE POLICY CENTER
Terence Dunworth, Center Director
2100 M. Street, NW
(202) 833-7200
www.urban.org
The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization established to examine the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The
Justice Policy Center under the Institute carries out nonpartisan research to inform the national
dialogue on crime, justice and community safety. Its many reentry publications can be found at
www.urban.org/content/PolicyCenters/Justice/Overview.htm.
VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Christopher Stone, Director
233 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10279
(212) 334-1300
www.vera.org
The Vera Institute works closely with leaders in government and civil society to improve the
services people rely on for justice and safety. Its research and demonstration projects have catalyzed changes throughout the United States, as well as a number of other countries, in policing
procedures, court administration, bail, prosecution and defense services, sentencing, community
supervision, employment services, and addiction treatment.
420
LAW CENTERS AND OFFENDERS’ RIGHTS
CENTER FOR LAW AND SOCIAL POLICY
Alan W. Houseman, Executive Director
1015 15th St. NW
Suite 400
(202) 906-8000
www.clasp.org
CLASP, a national, non-profit organization, conducts research, policy analysis, technical assistance and advocacy on issues related to economic security for low-income families with children.
JUVENILE LAW CENTER
Robert G. Schwartz, Executive Director
1315 Walnut Street, 4th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
(215) 625-0551
www.jlc.org
The Juvenile Law Center (JLC) monitors the use of Pennsylvania facilities that house juveniles
both before and after trial and works to improve in-home services. JLC uses litigation, case advocacy, and coalition building and training with the legislative and executive branches of government to improve the juvenile aftercare and probation systems.
LEGAL ACTION CENTER
Paul N. Samuels, Director & President
153 Waverly Place
New York, NY 10014
(212) 243-1313
www.lac.org
LAC is a non-profit law and policy organization whose mission is to fight discrimination
against people with histories of addiction, HIV/AIDS, or criminal records, and to advocate for
strong public policies in these areas.
NATIONAL LAW CENTER ON HOMELESSNESS AND POVERTY
Maria Foscarinis, Executive Director
1411 K St. NW Suite 1400
(202) 638-2535
http://www.nlchp.org/
The Law Center’s mission is to prevent and end homelessness through impact litigation, policy
advocacy, and public education.
421
NATIONAL PRISON RIGHTS PROJECT- AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
Elizabeth Alexander, Executive Director
733 15th Street NW
(202) 393-4930
http://www.aclu.org
Under the ACLU, the National Prison Rights Project at archive.aclu.org/issues/prison/nprmission.html seeks to reduce prison crowding, reduce reliance on incarceration as a criminal
justice sanction, create constitutional prison conditions, and strengthen prisoners’ rights through
a program of class action litigation, and public education. Contact the ACLU for further information or call the number above.
SOUTHER CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Stephen B. Bright, Director
83 Poplar Street, NW
Atlanta, GA 30303-2122
(404) 688-1202
www.schr.org
The Southern Center for Human Rights seeks to protect the civil and human rights of persons
facing criminal prosecution, and to improve the conditions in Southern prisons and jails through
advocacy, litigation, and public education.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
AMERICAN CORRECTIONAL ASSOCIATION
James A. Gondles, Jr., Executive Director
4380 Forbes Boulevard
Lanham, MD 20706-4322
(800) 222-5646
www.corrections.com/aca
Founded in 1870, the American Correctional Association seeks to shape the development of
corrections policy in this country, and to promote professional development in all areas of corrections. ACA accredits correctional agencies and publishes books, magazines and other documents.
AMERICAN PROBATION AND PAROLE ASSOCIATION
Carl Wicklund, Executive Director
2760 Research Park Drive
Lexington, KY 40511-8410
(859) 244-8203
www.appa-net.org
American Probation and Parole Association members are involved in the design, management
and delivery of probation, parole and community-based services for both adult and juvenile offenders. The association publishes reports and policy statements, and organizes educational programs.
422
ASSOCIATION OF STATE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
George and Camille Camp, Executive Directors
213 Court Street 6th Floor
Middletown, CT 06457
(860) 704-6410
www.asca.net
ASCA is a not-for-profit corporation dedicated to the improvement of correctional services and
practices across the United States.
COUNCIL OF JUVENILE CORRECTIONAL ADMINISTRATORS
Edward J. Loughran, Executive Director
170 Forbes Road, Suite 106
Braintree, MA 02184
(781) 843-2663
www.cjca.net
The Council of Juvenile Correctional Administrators provides a forum for juvenile justice leaders. The Council is dedicated to the improvement of juvenile correctional services and practices.
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ON REENTRY
Reginald A. Wilkinson, President, and Executive Director
P.O. Box 14125
Columbus, Ohio 43214
www.reentry.cc
The International Association on Reentry is a professional association dedicated to the dissemination and promotion of reentry best practices, policies, and programs in countries throughout
the world.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS ASSOCIATION
Peter Kinziger, Executive Director
P.O. Box 1987
LaCrosse, WI 54602-1987
(608) 785-0200
www.iccaweb.org
Representing residential and other community-based correctional programs, the International
Community Corrections Association (ICCA) provides information, training and other services,
and promotes the development and use of intermediate community sanctions.
INTERNATIONAL CORRECTIONS AND PRISONS ASSOCIATION
Lynn Cuddington, Executive Director
159 Gilmour Street
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K2P ON8
(613) 233-0720
www.icpa.ca
The International Corrections and Prisons Association provides a forum for criminal justice
professionals to join in a dialogue, and to share ideas and practices aimed at advancing professional corrections.
423
TRAINING, TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, EDUCATION, AND FUNDING
ANNIE E. CASEY FOUNDATION
Doug Nelson, President
701 St. Paul St.
Baltimore, MD 21202
(410) 547-6600
www.aecf.org
The Foundation fosters public policies, human service reforms and community supports that
more effectively meet the needs of today’s vulnerable children and families.
BROWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL SCHOOL
OFFICE OF CONTINUING MEDICAL EDUCATION
Julia Noguchi, Managing Editor
Brown University
Box G-B4
Providence, RI 02912
(401) 277-3651
www.hivcorrections.org
Through the HIV and Hepatitus Education Prison Project, the HEPP Report on Infectious Diseases in Corrections is published eleven times per year.
BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
Domingo S. Herraiz, Director
810 Seventh St. NW
(202) 514-6638
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/index.html
The mission of BJA, a component of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, is to provide leadership and technical assistance in support of local criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities.
CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND EMPLOYMENT
Joel Copperman, CEO/President
346 Broadway, 3rd floor
New York, NY 10013
(212) 732-0076
www.cases.org
The mission of CASES is to increase the understanding and use of community sanctions that
are fair, affordable and consistent with public safety.
424
CENTER FOR EFFECTIVE PUBLIC POLICY
Peggy B. Burke, Principal
Madeline M. Carter, Principal
Peggy McGarry, Principal
8403 Colesville Road Suite 720
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 589-9383
www.cepp.com
The Center for Effective Public Policy provides training and technical assistance to state and
local policymakers on effective, collaborative decision-making that incorporates sound information, and promotes more rational criminal justice policies.
CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES
Mindy S. Tarlow, Executive Director
32 Broadway
New York, NY 10004
(212) 422-4430
www.ceoworks.org
The Center provides immediate and comprehensive employment services to ex-offenders under
community supervision in New York City, and surrounding communities.
CENTER FOR SEX OFFENDER MANAGEMENT
Madeline M. Carter, Project Director
CSOM
c/o Center for Effective Public Policy
8403 Colesville Road, Suite 720
Silver Spring, MD 20910
(301) 589- 9383
www.csom.org
CSOM is administered through a cooperative agreement between the Office of Justice Programs and the Center for Effective Public Policy to enhance public safety by preventing further
victimization through improved management of adult and juvenile sex offenders in the community.
CHILD WELFARE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN, INC.
Shay Bilchik, President & CEO
440 First St. NW, Third Floor
Washington, D.C. 20001-2085
(202)638-4004
www.cwla.org
CWLA is an association of 1,200 public and private non-profit services that assist over 3.5 million abused and neglected children and their families each year. The Federal Resource Center
for Children of Prisoners can be found at www.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/default.hmt.
425
DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE
Ethan Nadelmann, Executive Director
70 West 36th Street, 16th Floor
New York, NY 10018
(212) 613-8020
http://www.dpf.org
The Drug Policy Alliance is an independent, non-profit organization that researches and publicizes alternatives to current drug strategies. Through a variety of programs, the Drug Policy
Foundation helps educate political leaders and the public about alternative drug control policies
including harm reduction, decriminalization, medicalization and legalization.
EDNA McCONNELL CLARK FOUNDATION – JUSTICE PROGRAM
Michael A. Bailin, President
250 Park Avenue, Suite 900
New York, NY 10177-0026
(212) 551-9100
www.emcf.org
The Justice Program encourages the development of a safe, affordable and fair system of criminal sanctions for adult offenders. The Program works with officials in selected states to develop
their capacity to formulate and implement sound sentencing and corrections policies. The Program also supports a variety of educational initiatives and litigation to improve conditions in
prisons and jails throughout the country.
INSTITUTE FOR COURT MANAGEMENT
National Center for State Courts
Chuck Ericksen, Executive Director
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185-4147
(800) 616-6160
www.ncsconline.org
The Institute for Court Management is the education and information division of the National
Center for State Courts, and supports the administration and leadership of state courts.
JEHT FOUNDATION
Robert Crane, President
120 Wooster Street
New York, NY 10012
(212) 965-0400
www.jehtfoundation.org
JEHT Foundation provides grant money to support activities promoting human rights, social
justice, and community building.
426
NATIONAL CENTER ON INSTITUTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES
Jerome Miller, President
7222 Ambassador Road
Baltimore, MD 21244
(410) 265-1490
www.ncianet.org
The National Center on Institutions and Alternatives provides client-specific planning services,
manages sanctions, conducts research, and provides technical assistance to justice practitioners
and policymakers.
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON CORRECTIONAL HEALTH CARE
Edward Harrison, President
1145 W. Diversey Parkway
Chicago, IL 60614
(773) 880-1460
www.ncchc.org
NCCHC is a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to improve the quality of health care
in jails, prisons, and juvenile confinement facilities.
NATIONAL GAINS CENTER
Henry J. Steadman, Director
Policy Research Associates, Inc.
345 Delaware Avenue
Delmar, NY 12054
(800) 311-GAIN
www.gainsctr.com
The National Gains Center provides consultation and technical assistance to help communities
achieve integrated systems of mental health and substance abuse services for individuals in contact with the justice system. The Center’s publications include a focus on reentry.
NATIONAL GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION - CENTER FOR BEST PRACTICES
John Thomasian, Director
Hall of States
444 N. Capitol St. Suite 267
(202) 624-5300
www.nga.org/center
The NGA Center for Best Practices assists governors and key policy staff in developing and
implementing innovative solutions to challenges facing their states. Use the search option for
reentry information.
427
NATIONAL H.I.R.E. NETWORK
Debbie A. Mukamal, Director
Legal Action Center
153 Waverly Place 8th Floor
New York, NY 10014
(212) 243-1313
www.hirenetwork.org
The National Helping Individuals with Criminal Records Reenter Through Employment Network seeks to increase the number and quality of job opportunities available to people with
criminal records by advocating for changes in public policy, employment practices, and public
opinion.
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS
Morris L. Thigpen, Sr., Director
320 First St., NW
(800) 995-6423
(202) 307-3106
www.nicic.org/inst/default.htm
The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) is an agency within the U.S. Department of Justice,
Federal Bureau of Prisons. NIC provides training, technical assistance, information services,
and policy/program development assistance to federal, state, and local corrections agencies.
Through cooperative agreements, it awards funds to support numerous program initiatives. Its
Transition from Prison to Community Initiative can be found at www.nicic.org/resources/
topics/TransitionFromPrison.aspx.
NATIONAL YOUTH EMPLOYMENT COALITION
Steve Trippe, National Director
1836 Jefferson Place, NW
(202) 659-1064
www.nyec.org
NYEC is a non-partisan organization dedicated to promoting policies and initiatives that help
youth succeed in becoming life-long learners, productive workers, and self-sufficient citizens.
OFFICE OF JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION
Robert Flores, Administrator
810 Seventh St. NW
(202) 307-5911
www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org
Under the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, OJJDP provides funding and
supports programs emphasizing delinquency prevention, treatment and rehabilitative services
and public safety.
428
THE OSBORNE ASSOCIATION
Elizabeth Gaynes, Executive Director
36-31 38th street
Long Island, NY 11101
(718) 707-2600
www.osborneny.org
The Association pursues correctional reform and rehabilitation through public education, advocacy, and proposing alternatives to incarceration for individuals who have been in conflict with
the law.
OPEN SOCIETY INSTITUTE
George Soros, Chairman
400 West 59th Street
New York, NY 10019
(212) 548-0600
www.soros.org
OSI is a private operating and grant making foundation implementing initiatives that aim to
promote open societies by shaping government policy, and supporting education, media, public
health, and human and women’s rights, as well as social, legal, and economic reform. The foundation currently supports several reentry initiatives.
THE SAFER FOUNDATION
B. Diane Williams, President
571 W. Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Il 60661
(312) 922-2200
www.safer-fnd.org
The Safer Foundation is a not-for-profit organization dedicated to reducing recidivism by supporting, through a full spectrum of services, the efforts of former offenders to become productive, law-abiding members of the community.
THE SENTENCING PROJECT
Malcolm Young, Executive Director
514 Tenth Street, NW
Suite 1000
(202) 628-0871
www.sentencingproject.org
The Sentencing Project provides training and technical assistance on sentencing alternatives,
and engages in research and advocacy on criminal justice policy issues.
429
STATE JUSTICE INSTITUTE
David I. Trevelin, Executive Director
1650 King Street, Suite 600
Alexandria, VA 22314
(703) 684-6100
www.statejustice.org
The State Justice Institute provides funds to state courts, universities and organizations that provide judicial education, and promotes refinement of sentencing practices.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives
John Porter, Director
555 New Jersey Avenue NW
Suite 410
(202) 219-1741
www.ed.gov/about/inits/list/fbci/index.html
The Center seeks to break down existing barriers and empower faith-based and community organizations through awarding federal grants, enlisting such organizations to support the Department of Education’s mission of promoting equal access to education, and educational excellence for all Americans.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
Tommy Thompson, Secretary
370 L’Enfant Promenade, SW
www.acf.hhs.gov
ACF oversees federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families,
children, individuals, and communities. The Mentoring Children of Prisoners program can be
found at www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/progs/fbci_mcp.html/.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS – REENTRY INITIATIVE
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.
(202) 353-1555
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/
The OJP Reentry Initiative supports projects targeted at reintegrating ex-offenders into society,
including the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) (www.svorievaluation.org)
430
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Elaine Chao, Secretary
Frances Perkins Building
200 Constitution Avenue, NW
(866) 487-2365
www.dol.gov
Information on the Incarcerated Veterans’ Transition Program, a reentry initiative, can be
found at http://www.dol.gov/vets/grants/incarcerated_vets_sga.htm.
ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS FOR OFFENDERS AND VICTIMS
AMERICAN FRIENDS SERVICE COMMITTEE
Criminal Justice Project
420 ½ Gifford Street
Syracuse, NY 13204
(315) 475-4822
www.afsc.org/
The AFSC is committed to working on new visions of justice, and to reducing the destructive
impact of incarceration on people’s supporting families, friendships and communities. See
web.syr.edu/~establer/afsc.htm/.
CENTER ON JUVENILE AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE
Daniel Macllair, Executive Director
1234 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Suite C1009
(202) 737-7270
www.cjcj.org
The Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice seeks to reduce the use of incarceration as a solution to social problems through the provision of direct services, policy advocacy, public education, and technical assistance to clients and agencies around the country.
FAMILY AND CORRECTIONS NETWORK
Jim Mustin, Executive Director
32 Oak Grove Road
Palmyra, VA 22963
(434) 589-3036
www.fcnetwork.org
FCN is an organization for and about families of prisoners offering information, training, and
technical assistance.
431
HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director
350 Fifth Avenue 34th Floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
(212) 290-4700
www.hrw.org
HRW is an independent, nongovernmental organization supported by contributions from private
individuals and foundations worldwide dedicated to protecting human rights of people around
the globe.
JUSTICE FELLOWSHIP
Pat Nolan, President
1856 Old Reston Avenue
Reston, VA 20190
(703) 904-7312
www.justicefellowship.org
Justice Fellowship promotes biblically based principles of restorative justice that hold offenders
accountable for their crimes and seek to restore victims through restitution and reconciliation.
JUSTICE SOLUTIONS, INC.
David Beatty, Executive Director
720 7TH Street, N.W., Suite 300
(202) 448-1710
www.justicesolutions.org
Justice Solutions is a national nonprofit organization advocating for the rights, resources, and
respect for victims and community affected by crime.
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF VICTIMS ASSISTANCE
Dr. Marlene Young, Executive Director
1730 Park Road, NW
(202) 232-6682
www.try-nova.org
The National Organization of Victims Assistance (NOVA) is a nonprofit, national organization
that provides direct support to victims of violent crime, and offers referrals to those who need
additional services.
REENTRY NATIONAL MEDIA OUTREACH CAMPAIGN
Denise Blake, Reentry Project Director
7039 Dume Dr,
Malibu, CA 90265
(770) 964-5045
www.reentrymediaoutreach.org
The Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign seeks to expand public awareness of reentry
issues and initiatives through the dissemination of videos and other materials.
432
INFORMATION CLEARINGHOUSES
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CORRECTIONS - INFORMATION CENTER
Larry Linke, Program Manager
1860 Industrial Circle, Suite A
Longmont, Colorado 80501
(800) 877-1461
(303) 682-0213
www.nicic.org/services/InformationCenter.aspx
The NIC Information Center provides research assistance and document delivery for correctional policy makers, practitioners, elected officials, and others interested in corrections issues.
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY - DRUG POLICY INFORMATION CLEARNINGHOUSE
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 666-3332
www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov
Through a contract with the U.S. Department of Justice, the Drug Policy Information Clearinghouse makes available information on drug crimes. The clearinghouse publishes reports and
bibliographies, and provides current data on drug policy, drug violations, drug-using offenders
in the criminal justice system, and the impact of drugs on the administration of the justice system.
NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFERENCE SERVICE
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
(800) 851-3420
www.ncjrs.org
The National Criminal Justice Reference Service, under contract with the U.S. Department of
Justice, provides justice information. The service also publishes materials on prisons, corrections, law enforcement, resources for victims, juvenile justice and AIDS among offenders.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS
Lawrence Greenfeld, Director
810 Seventh St. NW
(202) 307-0765
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs
BJS offers statistical information on criminal offenders, crime, courts and sentencing, corrections, law enforcement, and the federal justice system. Reentry information can be found at
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm.
433
Addenda
ADDENDUM
439
ASCA Regional Map
445
ASCA Map of DOC’s with Parole/Probation Responsibility
447
ASCA Michael Francke Award Recipients
449
ASCA Corrections Directions - Select President’s Corner
451
Reentry from the Washington Beltway
455
ACA Support Letter to Members of Congress
457
White House Press Release
459
The Second Chance Act of 2004 Overview
461
465
Addendum
437
Executive Committee
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio - President
Richard Stalder, Louisiana - Vice-President
Stan Taylor, Delaware - Treasurer
Joe Lehman, Washington - Past President
A.T. Wall, Rhode Island - Member
Gary Kempker, Missouri - Member
Theodis Beck, North Carolina - Member
Mike Chabries, Utah – Member
Correctional Research Committee
Jeff Beard, Pennsylvania - Chairperson
Tom Beauclair, Idaho
Roger Werholtz, Kansas
Mary Livers, Maryland
Bill Slaughter, Montana
Devon Brown, New Jersey
Elaine Little, North Dakota
Joe Lehman, Washington
Robert Lampert, Wyoming
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio, Ex Officio
External Relations Committee
Theodis Beck, North Carolina - Chairperson
Stan Taylor, Delaware - Vice Chairperson
Harley Lappin, FBOP
Patricia Caruso, Michigan
Martin Horn, New York City
Tim Reisch, South Dakota
Quenton White, Tennessee
A.T. Wall, Rhode Island
Francke Award Committee
Morris Thigpen, Associate - Chairperson
Harold Clarke, Nebraska - Vice Chairperson
Dora Schriro, Arizona
Odie Washington, District of Columbia
Richard Stalder, Louisiana
Glenn Goord, New York
Reggie Wilkinson, Ohio
Ron Angelone, Associate
Chase Riveland, Associate
Addendum
439
Legislative and Legal Issues Committee
Evelyn Ridley Turner, Indiana – Chairperson
Gary Maynard, Iowa
John Rees, Kentucky
Harold Clarke, Nebraska
Leon King, Philadelphia
Jon Ozmint, South Carolina
Mike Chabries, Utah
Allen Breed, Associate
Gary Deland, Associate
Hal Farrier, Associate
Richard Stalder, Louisiana, Ex Officio
Managing Disruptive Inmates Committee
Donal Campbell, Alabama - Chairperson
Mike Chabries, Utah - Vice Chairperson
Christopher Epps, Mississippi
Joe Williams, New Mexico
Ron Ward, Oklahoma
Gary Johnson, Texas
Gene Johnson, Virginia
Jim Rubenstein, West Virginia
Allen Ault, Associate
Larry Fields, Associate
Stan Taylor, Delaware, Ex Officio Member
Nominating Committee
Elaine Little, North Dakota - Chairperson
440
Addendum
Past Presidents Committee
Ron Angelone, Associate - Chairperson
Allen Ault, Associate - Vice Chairperson
David Evans, Associate
Don Hutto, Associate
Walter Ridley, Maryland
Morris Thigpen, Associate
Louie Wainwright, Associate
Don Yeomans, Associate
Performance Measures Committee
Joe Lehman, Washington - Chairperson
Theresa Lantz, Connecticut
Odie Washington, DC
Harley Lappin, FBOP
John Rees, Kentucky
Jeff Beard, Pennsylvania
Steven Gold, Vermont
Policy and Resolutions Committee
Gary Kempker, Missouri - Chairperson
Jackie Crawford, Nevada - Vice Chairperson
Mike Chabries, Utah
John Rabeau, Ontario
Robert Brown, Associate
Larry Fields, Associate
Addendum
441
Program and Training Committee
A.T. Wall, Rhode Island - Chairperson
Richard Stalder, Louisiana - Vice Chairperson
Odie Washington, DC
Theodis Beck, North Carolina
Jeff Beard, Pennsylvania
Reentry Committee
Gary Johnson, Texas - Chairperson
Evelyn Ridley Turner, Indiana - Vice Chairperson
Gary Kempker, Missouri
Theodis Beck, North Carolina
Ron Ward, Oklahoma
Mike Chabries, Utah
Nick Hun, Associate
442
Addendum
Staff Safety Committee
Gary Maynard, Iowa – Chairperson
Gary Johnson, Texas – Vice Chairperson
Donal Campbell, Alabama
Marc Antrim, Alaska
John Rees, Kentucky
Gary Kempker, Missouri
Jackie Crawford, Nevada
Ron Ward, Oklahoma
Gary Deland, Associate
Michael Fair, Associate
Stan Taylor, Delaware, Ex Officio
Technology Committee
Gary Kempker, Missouri - Chairperson
Marc Antrim, Alaska
John Rees, Kentucky
Bill Slaughter, Montana
Allen Breed, Associate
Michael Fair, Associate
Victims Committee
Theodis Beck, North Carolina - Chairperson
Evelyn Ridley Turner, Indiana
Jackie Crawford, Nevada
Ron Ward, Oklahoma
Nick Hun, Associate
Addendum
443
Regional Map
Alaska
Midwest also includes
Northeast also includes District of Columbia,
Federal Bureau of Prisons, Correctional
Services of Canada and Ontario Ministry
of Public Safety/Security
VA
West also includes Alaska,
Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Hawaii, Guam, and Saipan
West
Hawaii
Midwest
South
Northeast
South also includes
Federal Bureau of
Prisons, Puerto Rico
and Virgin Islands
DOC's with Probabtion/Parole Responsibilities
Alaska
Washington, DC
Federal Bureau
of Prisons
Probation
Hawaii
Parole
Probation and Parole
ASCA Michael Francke Award
In memory of Michael Francke, who was Director of the Oregon Department of Corrections at the
time he was killed in 1989, the Association established an annual award for a member who has
demonstrated outstanding leadership, contribution to corrections, accomplishment, and service
to the Association, his or her state, and to the field of corrections. Members are nominated by
other corrections administrators, a supervising authority, or senior staff person. Past recipients
of the Michael Francke Award are listed below with the jurisdiction they represented at the time
of the award.
2003
Odie Washington
Director, District of Columbia Department of Corrections
2002
Richard Stalder
Secretary, Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections
2001
Glenn Goord
Commissioner, New York State Department of Correctional Services
2000
Ron Angelone
Director, Virginia Department of Corrections
1999
Dora Schriro
Director, Missouri Department of Corrections
1998
Kathy Hawk Sawyer
Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons
1997
Harold Clarke
Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services
1996
Reggie Wilkinson
Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction
1995
Elaine Little
Director, North Dakota Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Addendum
449
1994
Joe Lehman
Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
1993
Chase Riveland
Secretary, Washington Department of Corrections
1992
Morris Thigpen
Commissioner, Alabama Department of Corrections
450
Addendum
ASCA
“Offender Reentry”
May 2003
Offender Reentry: Is it the "flavor of the day" or is it the real deal? Anytime something new in
our business surfaces there is a tendency to label it a fad. I don't think labels are always bad,
and it's permissible to be skeptical about that which we have doubts about. But until an idea is
disproved I conjure that we should not embrace a cynical point of view.
Of course there is the argument that offender reentry is not new at all. Some debate that reentry
is parole reinvented. I don't agree because reentry includes parole, but it is certainly not limited
to a supervision model. Others state that we have been involved in discharge planning, prerelease training, and reintegration activities for decades. I agree, but again reentry is, or at least
should be, inclusive of these notions.
In my mind, reentry is more of a correctional philosophy rather than a program. I liken reentry
to being the Microsoft Windows 2000 operating system rather than Microsoft Word, Excel, or
Access. So what does this mean exactly? It suggests that nearly all that we do relative to offender programming, rehabilitation, and treatment should be related to the successful reentry of
convicted felons.
To explain further, reentry planning, unlike prerelease readiness, must be set forth for the incarcerated individual soon after being admitted to a reception center. There, a calculated process of
designing a case management approach to developing a treatment/reentry plan should be implemented: i.e., medical concerns, employment preparedness, supervision, education, vocational
training, etc.
During these challenging times reentry becomes an even more important notion. If the residual
benefits of having a successful reentry philosophy are saving taxpayer dollars, then so be it.
We all have the duty to be good stewards of the funds appropriated to our agencies. In addition
to good fiscal management, I believe preventing recidivism should be a part of the budget management menu. I am well aware that certain programs such as sex offender treatment and academic education have been targets of budget cuts. I would implore you to suppress the impulse
to minimize the importance of these programs.
We have learned over the years that treatment does work. Post release employment prevents
return to prison. And so does mental health treatment. And so does substance abuse treatment.
And so does a multitude of other carefully thought out and evaluated activities. Yes, some
criminals will return to prison despite our best efforts. Nevertheless, our focus should be to
have a balanced approach to corrections management. Operating at one end of the continuum
or the other isn't good enough. The idea of offender reentry is not a cure-all, but it makes good
penological sense.
For many years we have been subjects of criticism because of the "nothing works" syndrome.
Now it is our duty to certify that some things do work. Offender reentry has all the possibilities
Addendum
451
of being the silver bullet that this profession needs. Let's not discount it.
ASCA has just completed a record three New Directors training programs this year! In some
respects this is rather remarkable. Remarkable because we have never conducted three ND
training programs within a timeframe of only a few months. The third session ended on Sunday, June 29th in Chicago. There was a May meeting in Reno. The first training this year began
on April 3rd in Miami. It’s remarkable that that nearly half of all ASCA members were not
ASCA members a little more than ago. It’s additionally remarkable because we may need to
conduct yet a forth session this fall.
Nevertheless, ASCA is poised and ready to do whatever we can to assist our membership. We
appreciate the assistance of the National Institute of Corrections as well. I have said time and
time again that ND training is probably the most important activity that ASCA offers. For directors, secretaries, and commissioners who participate in this concentrated training institute,
ND training programs are not easily forgotten. In fact, I think they are easily remembered.
I certainly remember my participation in ND in 1991. Morris Thigpen, current Director of the
National Institute of Corrections, and then Commissioner of the Mississippi Department of Corrections, was the moderator. We had an exceptionally large class at our session in Hollywood,
Florida. Harold Clarke (NE) and I are the only current survivors of this ND class. Heavyweight boxing champ, Larry Holmes, was working out at our hotel.
What’s important about these meetings is not just the instruction, which I believe is excellent,
but also the personal interaction you have with all in attendance. In essence, you become
friends in addition to colleagues as a result of these sessions. Relationships established at ND
training programs become life long. Certainly, this can happen in other venues, but “living”
with each other for several days straight is an added dimension that creates value and trust that
is irreplaceable.
Even the National Governors Association conducts training for newly installed governors. The
value of providing a tool chest of ideas and strategies at ND is also irreplaceable. Much of the
value added to these meetings is derived from the wonderful input from members of the ASCA
Program and Training Committee. We certainly appreciate not just the NIC federal dollars to
support the training, but wisdom and contributions of the NIC staff as well. The ASCA executive directors, George and Camille Camp, serve us well. Other CJI staff, Marla Clayton in particular, is top notch. The people and processes described above are what motivate me to help
make a difference.
452
Addendum
Restorative Justice Week
November 2003
Some of you may be familiar that on November 17-21 there was something called Restorative
Justice Week. RJ Week has been celebrated internationally for about a decade. Ohio first
started recognizing this event five years ago. The purpose of RJ Week is obviously to bring
attention to the benefits of adopting a RJ philosophy. Thus, I’d like to share with you a few
thoughts about restorative justice.
The concept of “restoring” justice has been referred to as community justice, integrative justice,
reparative justice and, I’m sure, other creative phrases. Except for some RJ purists, the notions
are similar: First, it recognizes victims and survivors of crime as important partners in the justice and corrections business. The idea here is that victims are more that just people who are
used to provide evidence for a criminal conviction. In fact, their participation in our work has
been recognized as a way to impact corrections policy-making. Through victim impact panels
and victim/offender dialogues victims are impacting rehabilitative efforts. There are many
other imaginative ways victims have made a difference in our practices.
Another staple activity that is restorative is community service work. CSW is a win, win, win
for everybody involved. Communities and service organizations are served by the work performed. Prison managers find meaningful work for inmates, which help to reduce idleness.
The prisoners are aided by developing a since of responsibility by helping someone else. The
PR value is, moreover, image building for an occupation that is good publicity deprived. In my
state we have adopted a “service learning” curriculum for inmates who participate in CSW activities. This training is designed to help the offender understand the value of helping others.
Community and citizens participation is, additionally, a significant component to ensuring a
holistic approach to restorative justice programming. Citizen participation is more than just
hosting volunteers in our prisons. With a RJ model, community representatives can actually
impact correctional practices. Citizen-based advisory groups, for instance, can pay big dividends. Prisons can benefits by having advisory groups that can assist with the aforementioned
image building. You may also consider advisory councils for specific functions such as: inmate
employment, vocational education, mental health services, substance abuse counseling, victims
participation, community corrections, and the list continues.
Perhaps the most important aspect of RJ is personal responsibility. Restorative activities are not
exercises in “soft on crime” rhetoric. The offender is required, throughout any level of participation in RJ, to remain crime and drug free. Accountability is not just requested, but demanded.
RJ is not a silver bullet, but it is another tool to impact public safety. An internet search of RJ
will yield an unending amount of information on this topic.
Addendum
453
Thank You
It has been a pleasure serving as ASCA president for the last two years. My how time flies.
Having been in the shoes of a past president (ACA), one departs this position with mixed emotions. You leave knowing that there is always more to accomplish. The tendency is to say, “If I
only had one more year.” On the other hand, you know the association is in good hands with its
future leadership. Plus, the past president’s role is probably the best one in the organization.
I feel as if we have achieved quite a bit since 2002. I’d like to recapitulate some of what we’ve
done. One of the first things I thought important was to expand the roles of associate members
by permitting their participation on selected ASCA committees. New committees were also
added: Past Presidents and Reentry. The Michael Francke Awards Committee is now comprised of all Francke recipients.
I am pleased that through the work of the Past Presidents Committee two tasks were achieved.
First, the committee created the Criminal Justice Student Scholarship Program. Funds for the
scholarship are received through donations from both companies and individuals. I’d like to
thank each of you who have contributed to this college access fund. This committee, furthermore, recommended the ASCA Past Presidents Award. As members of ASCA you are eligible
to nominate a former director for this award.
I am elated at the justice partnerships that have been enhanced. The Corrections Technology
Association is a wonderful group. They are playing an integral part with the PerformanceBased Measures Systems project as well as the Acute Dynamic Risk Assessment initiative.
Our relationship with the Council of State Governments has been very fruitful, too. We’ve
worked with the CSG Reentry Policy Council, the Criminal Justice/Mental Health Consensus
Project, the Prison Rape Elimination Act, and other activities. Both, A. T. Wall and I have
given Congressional testimony on the PREA and the mental health legislation, respectively.
Joe Lehman, A. T., and I provided testimony to the ABA Justice Kennedy Commission.
The efforts of the Program and Training and the PBMS committees have been outstanding.
There has been record number of New Directors training sessions as well as two informative
Special Issues Seminars. And, of course, the All Directors institutes have been critical. Moreover, we’ve moved well into the second phase of the PBMS initiative. We will be soon piloting
the combined work of the ATG group and the PBMS subcommittee.
The new ASCA publication, Reentry Best Practices: Director’s Perspectives, will be available
at ACA in Chicago. I want to thank all of you for your submissions.
Congratulations to Secretary Richard Stalder, your new ASCA president, Stan Taylor, vice
president, and to Glen Goord, treasurer.
454
Addendum
Reentry from the Washington Beltway
By: Reginald A. Wilkinson, Ed.D.
The week of June 21, 2004 was a hot month nationally for prisoner reentry issues. I had the
pleasure of joining President George W. Bush at the Talbert House organization hosted by CEO
Neil Tilow in Cincinnati. This visit was a follow-up to his remarks made in the 2004 State of
the Union Address. You might recall that he exclaimed:
“We know from long experience that if they can’t find work, or a home,
or help, they are much more likely to commit crime and return to prison.”
“America is the land of second chances-and when the gates of the prison
open, the path ahead should lead to a better life.”
During a brief discussion with President Bush he expressed to me his appreciation for supporting this initiative. I committed to assist in any way I could.
The Talbert House event, entitled “Strengthening America’s Families,” focused on several subjects: strengthening families, job preparedness, faith-based initiatives, welfare to work, substance abuse, and similar topics. It was also a continuation of his campaign “compassionate
conservatism” theme.
Throughout the President’s “soul” conscious discussion, Bush recited phrases such as:
“The strength of America is not in its military, but in the hearts and souls
of its citizens.”
“Government can hand out money, but it cannot put a purpose in a person’s soul.”
“Talbert House was such a great example of compassionate love, changing society one soul, one conscience at a time.”
“If you really want to become a super patriot, join the army of compassion.”
“We are in the land of plenty, but in the midst of plenty there are
people who hurt.”
It was Bush’s mission, as well, to give a boost to The Second Chance Act of 2004 introduced
by Cincinnati Congressman Rob Portman.
A couple of days later, two other memorable events took place in Washington D.C. The first
was a meeting with a senior White House staff person at the beautiful Executive Office Building, Neil Tilow and Teri Nau of Talbert House, and I discussed a number of initiatives that the
Addendum
455
White House has pledged to support. For instance, bringing together federal agencies that can
help facilitate success with reentry.
We, furthermore, discussed issues such as the importance of community corrections and prisons
operations working in tandem, and health care themes such as mental health treatment, alcohol
and other drug abuse, and communicable diseases. Some discussion took place regarding children of incarcerated parents as well. We explained that there are some significant culprits in the
profiles of newly received inmates such as substance abuse histories, a lack of educational attainment, and poor work habits.
In all, the conversation dealt with that of offender reentry. However, I explained that, heretofore, justice or correctional agencies have been left to manage, often alone, the multitude of
problems that we face daily. In essence, I proposed that the so-called “criminal justice” system
should be redefined as a “social justice” system. By this, I mean that with the proper partnerships we can accomplish much more.
Following this meeting, we made our way back to the Canon House of Representatives building
in preparation for the short walk to the U.S. Capitol. There, Congressman Rob Portman introduced The Second Chance Act of 2004. Portman, and a bi-partisan representation of other Congressional members, gave the details of the bill to a packed room of interested parties. I was
fortunate to have been asked to comment on the proposed federal legislation.
My brief remarks acknowledged the ongoing support of groups who have made reentry an important mission for their organizations such as the Council of State Government’s Reentry Policy Council, and a number of projects by the Urban Institute such as the Reentry Roundtables
and their evaluation of the Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. Many other groups
were represented, a few of which included the American Correctional Association, Prison Fellowship, Treatment Alternatives to Street Crimes, National Association of Blacks in Criminal
Justice, Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants, Open Society Institute, and a number
of faith-based groups.
I also spoke about the need to continually back the legislation. The introductory press conference is just one of the first steps. Now, I explained, the real work and support must begin. I
thanked Congressman Portman, and the other Representatives present for taking this bold step.
I reassured attendees that this legislation would save money, save lives, reduce victimization,
and improve the qualities of our communities.
456
Addendum
June 23, 2004
Dear Member of Congress:
The American Correctional Association urges you to support passage of the bipartisan Public Safety Offender Reentry Act of 2004. This legislation begins to address the reentry of more than 650,000 men and
women who return to society each year from federal and state prisons and the more than 10 million individuals who cycle out of our nation’s local jails each year. As President Bush said in his 2004 State of
the Union Address, “[w]e know from long experience that if they can’t find work, or a home or help,
they are much more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison.”
Many of those leaving jail and prison require substance and mental health services, require treatment for
chronic health issues, lack adequate housing, possess few educational or job skills, and generally lack
resources to allow them to successfully reintegrate into society. Yet, few of those who return to our
communities every day are adequately prepared for their release or receive adequate support services
immediately following their release.
Research shows that supportive services are critical to an individual’s safe and successful reentry; however, barriers are in place that make it difficult, if not impossible, for people with criminal records to
access needed government services. As a result, according to a 2002 study by the Justice Department,
sixty-seven percent of persons released from state prisons were arrested for a new crime within the first
three years after release. The economic and social costs of failing to provide services to these individuals are simply too high, and the benefits of effective reintegration are too great, for Congress to fail to
act.
The Public Safety and Reentry Act of 2004 is an important first step toward reducing today’s unacceptably high recidivism rates and their accompanying costs. Reducing recidivism rates will protect the public by reducing crime, strengthen families, save money, and redeem lives. The legislation authorizes assistance to states and localities to develop and implement strategic plans for providing and coordinating
comprehensive efforts to enable ex-offenders to successfully reenter their communities. Such efforts
include access to supports and services such as family reunification, job training, education, housing,
substance abuse and mental health services. The bill also establishes a federal inter-agency task force on
offender reentry, and provides for research on reentry, and a national resource center to collect and disseminate information on best practices in offender reentry.
The “Second Chance Act of 2004” will help states and localities more effectively address offender reentry making our communities safer. Because time is short for congressional action this year, we urge
Congress to act promptly to pass this important legislation. Please let us know if we can provide you
with additional information on reentry.
Sincerely,
Addendum
457
Statement on the Second Chance Act 2004
Page 1 of 1
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
June 23, 2004
Statement on the Second Chance Act 2004
This year, some 600,000 inmates will be released from prison back into society. We know from experience that if
they can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much more likely to commit a crime and return to prison.
In January, the President proposed a new prisoner re-entry initiative based on expanding job training and
placement services, providing transitional housing, and helping newly released prisoners get mentoring, including
from faith-based groups. America is the land of second chances, and when the prison gates open, the President
believes that the path ahead should be an opportunity for a better life.
Today, Representatives Rob Portman (R-OH) and Danny Davis (D-IL) introduced the Second Chance Act 2004,
which includes key elements of the President's prisoner re-entry initiative. The President strongly supports their
efforts, and commends the Congressmen for their leadership. We urge the House and Senate to work in a
bipartisan way to get legislation passed this year that is consistent with what the President outlined.
###
Return to this article at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/20040623-13.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/06/print/20040623-13.html
6/17/2005
The purpose of the Second Chance Act is to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and
help states and communities to better address the growing population of ex-offenders returning to communities. The bill will focus on four areas: jobs, housing, mental health and
substance abuse treatment, and strengthening families.
Stopping Recidivism -- The Case for Action
Reducing Crime:
•
Nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are expected to be re-arrested for a felony or serious
misdemeanor within three years of release.
•
Such high recidivism rates translate into thousands of new crimes each year, at least half of
which can be averted through improved prisoner reentry efforts.
•
In 2002, two million people were incarcerated in federal or state prisons.
•
Nearly 650,000 people are released from prison to communities nationwide each year.
Treating Substance Abuse and Mental Health Problems:
• 70-80% of offenders re-entering the community have histories of drug or alcohol abuse.
• It is estimated that as many as 84% of criminals were under the influence of drugs/alcohol
around the time of their offense.
• An increasing number of offenders have mental health problems.
• If treatment is not sought or available upon release, relapse is likely.
Saving Taxpayer Dollars:
•
Significant portions of state budgets are now invested in the criminal justice system.
•
The average cost of incarcerating a prisoner is $22,650 per inmate, per year, with some
states spending as much as $44,000 per inmate, per year.
•
According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, expenditures on corrections alone increased
from $9 billion in 1982 to $44 billion in 1997.
•
These figures do not include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take into account
the cost to victims.
Strengthening Families and Communities:
•
One of the most significant costs of prisoner reentry is the impact on children and communities.
•
Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a parent in a federal or state correc-
Addendum
461
tional facility increased by more than 100%, from approximately 900,000 to approximately
2,000,000.
Reducing Recidivism Through Common Sense Solutions
•
National Offender Reentry Resource Center. Establishes a national resource center for
states, local governments, service providers, faith-based organization, corrections and community organizations to collect and disseminate best practices and provide training and support around reentry.
•
Federal Taskforce. Creates a federal interagency taskforce to identify programs and resources on reentry, identify ways to better collaborate, develops interagency initiatives and
a national reentry research agenda. Review and report to Congress on the federal barriers
that exist to successful reentry with recommendations.
•
National Family Caregiver Support Program. Removes the age limitation of at least 60
years of age for grandparents to receive support and services while caring for their grandchildren due to parental incarceration.
•
Technical Amendment to Drug-Free Student Loan Provision. Ensures that the Drug-Free
Student Loans provision only applies to offenses committed while receiving federal aid and encourages treatment.
•
Protection Against Dangerous Felons. Provides grants to states and local governments
that may be used to develop or adopt procedures to ensure that dangerous felons are not released from prison prematurely.
•
Assessment Tools. Provides grants to states and local governments that may be used to
utilize established assessment tools to assess the risk factors of returning inmates and prioritizing services based on risk.
•
Mentoring Grants. Provides grants to community-based organizations that may be used for
mentoring of adult offenders or providing transitional services for re-integration into the
community.
•
Demonstration Grants. Provides grants to states and local governments that may be used to
provide mental health services, substance abuse treatment and aftercare, and treatment for
contagious diseases to offenders in custody and after reentry into the community.
•
Collaboration with Community Colleges. Provides grants to states and local governments
that may be used to facilitate collaboration among corrections and community corrections,
technical schools, community colleges, and workforce development employment services.
•
Post-release Housing. Provides grants to states and local governments that may be used to
provide structured post-release housing and transitional housing, including group homes for
recovering substance abusers, through which offenders are provided supervision and services immediately following reentry into the community;
462
Addendum
•
Family-Based Treatment. Provides grants to states and local governments that may be
used to expand family-based treatment centers that offer family-based comprehensive treatment services for parents and their children as a complete family unit.
Addendum
463
464
Addendum
Page 1 of 18
HR 4676 IH
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 4676
To reauthorize the grant program of the Department of Justice for reentry of offenders into the
community, to establish a task force on Federal programs and activities relating to the reentry of
offenders into the community, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
June 23, 2004
Mr. PORTMAN (for himself, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. SOUDER, Mrs. JONES of Ohio, Mr.
CHABOT, and Mr. CANNON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Education and the Workforce, for a period to be
subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within
the jurisdiction of the committee concerned
A BILL
To reauthorize the grant program of the Department of Justice for reentry of offenders into the
community, to establish a task force on Federal programs and activities relating to the reentry of
offenders into the community, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Second Chance Act of 2004: Community Safety Through
Recidivism Prevention' or the `Second Chance Act of 2004'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) In 2002, 2,000,000 people were incarcerated in Federal or State prisons or in local jails.
Nearly 650,000 people are released from incarceration to communities nationwide each
year.
(2) There are over 3,200 jails throughout the United States, the vast majority of which are
operated by county governments. Each year, these jails will release in excess of 10,000,000
people back into the community.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?c108:./temp/~c108j5bXNr
6/17/2005
Page 2 of 18
(3) Nearly two-thirds of released State prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or
serious misdemeanor within three years after release.
(4) In his 2004 State of the Union address, President Bush correctly stated: `We know from
long experience that if [former prisoners] can't find work, or a home, or help, they are much
more likely to commit more crimes and return to prison. . . . America is the land of the
second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better
life.'
(5) In recent years, a number of States and local governments have begun to establish
improved systems for reintegrating former prisoners. Under such systems, corrections
officials begin to plan for a prisoner's release while the prisoner is incarcerated and provide
a transition to needed services in the community.
(6) Faith leaders and parishioners have a long history helping ex-offenders transform their
lives. Through prison ministries and outreach in communities, churches and faith-based
organizations have pioneered re-entry services to prisoners and their families.
(7) Successful reentry protects those who might otherwise be crime victims. It also
improves the likelihood that individuals released from prison or juvenile detention facilities
can pay fines, fees, restitution, and family support.
(8) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, expenditures on corrections alone
increased from $9,000,000,000 in 1982 to $44,000,000,000 in 1997. These figures do not
include the cost of arrest and prosecution, nor do they take into account the cost to victims.
(9) Increased recidivism results in profound collateral consequences, including public health
risks, homelessness, unemployment, and disenfranchisement.
(10) The high prevalence of infectious disease, substance abuse, and mental health disorders
that has been found in incarcerated populations demands that a recovery model of treatment
should be used for handling the more than two-thirds of all offenders with such needs.
(11) One of the most significant costs of prisoner reentry is the impact on children, the
weakened ties among family members, and destabilized communities. The long-term
generational effects of a social structure in which imprisonment is the norm and law-abiding
role models are absent are difficult to measure but undoubtedly exist.
(12) According to the 2001 national data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 3,500,000
parents were supervised by the correctional system. Prior to incarceration, 64 percent of
female prisoners and 44 percent of male prisoners in State facilities lived with their
children.
(13) Between 1991 and 1999, the number of children with a parent in a Federal or State
correctional facility increased by more than 100 percent, from approximately 900,000 to
approximately 2,000,000. According to the Bureau of Prisons, there is evidence to suggest
that inmates who are connected to their children and families are more likely to avoid
negative incidents and have reduced sentences.
(14) Approximately 100,000 juveniles (ages 17 and under) leave juvenile correctional
6/17/2005
Page 3 of 18
facilities, State prison, or Federal prison each year. Juveniles released from confinement
still have their likely prime crime years ahead of them. Juveniles released from secure
confinement have a recidivism rate ranging from 55 to 75 percent. The chances that young
people will successfully transition into society improve with effective reentry and aftercare
programs.
(15) Studies have shown that from 15 percent to 27 percent of prisoners expect to go to
homeless shelters upon release from prison.
(16) The National Institute of Justice has found that after one year of release, up to 60
percent of former inmates are not employed.
(17) Fifty-seven percent of Federal and 70 percent of State inmates used drugs regularly
before prison, with some estimates of involvement with drugs or alcohol around the time of
the offense as high as 84 percent (BJS Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000).
(18) According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 60 to 83 percent of the Nation's
correctional population have used drugs at some point in their lives. This is twice the
estimated drug use of the total United States population of 40 percent.
(19) Family-based treatment programs have proven results for serving the special
population of female offenders and substance abusers with children. An evaluation by the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of family-based treatment for
substance abusing mothers and children found that at six months post treatment, 60 percent
of the mothers remain alcohol and drug free, and drug related offenses declined from 28 to
7 percent. Additionally, a 2003 evaluation of residential family based treatment programs
revealed that 60 percent of mothers remained clean and sober six months after treatment,
criminal arrests declined by 43 percent, and 88 percent of the children treated in the
program with their mothers remain stabilized.
(20) A Bureau of Justice Statistics analysis indicated that only 33 percent of Federal and 36
percent of State inmates had participated in residential inpatient treatment programs for
alcohol and drug abuse 12 months before their release. Further, over one-third of all jail
inmates have some physical or mental disability and 25 percent of jail inmates have been
treated at some time for a mental or emotional problem.
(21) According to the National Institute of Literacy, 70 percent of all prisoners function at
the two lowest literacy levels.
(22) The Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that 27 percent of Federal inmates, 40
percent of State inmates, and 47 percent of local jail inmates have never completed high
school or its equivalent. Furthermore, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has found that less
educated inmates are more likely to be recidivists. Only 1 in 4 local jails offer basic adult
education programs.
(23) Participation in State correctional education programs lowers the likelihood of
reincarceration by 29 percent, according to a recent United States Department of Education
study. A Federal Bureau of Prisons study found a 33 percent drop in recidivism among
federal prisoners who participated in vocational and apprenticeship training.
6/17/2005
Page 4 of 18
SEC. 3. REAUTHORIZATION OF ADULT AND JUVENILE OFFENDER STATE
AND LOCAL REENTRY DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS.
(a) Adult and Juvenile Offender Demonstration Projects Authorized- Section 2976 of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w) is amended in
subsection (b) by striking paragraphs (1) through (4) and inserting the following new paragraphs:
`(1) establishing or improving the system or systems under which-`(A) the correctional agency of the State or local government develops and carries out
plans to facilitate the reentry into the community of each offender in State or local
custody;
`(B) the supervision and services provided to offenders in State or local custody are
coordinated with the supervision and services provided to offenders after reentry into
the community;
`(C) the efforts of various public and private entities to provide supervision and
services to offenders after reentry into the community, and to family members of such
offenders, are coordinated; and
`(D) offenders awaiting reentry into the community are provided with documents
(such as identification papers, referrals to services, medical prescriptions, job training
certificates, apprenticeship papers, and information on obtaining public assistance)
useful in achieving a successful transition from prison;
`(2) carrying out programs and initiatives by units of local government to strengthen reentry
services for individuals released from local jails;
`(3) enabling prison mentors of offenders to remain in contact with those offenders,
including through the use of such technology as videoconferencing, during incarceration
and after reentry into the community and encouraging the involvement of prison mentors in
the reentry process;
`(4) providing structured post-release housing and transitional housing, including group
homes for recovering substance abusers, through which offenders are provided supervision
and services immediately following reentry into the community;
`(5) assisting offenders in securing permanent housing upon release or following a stay in
transitional housing;
`(6) providing continuity of health services (including mental health services, substance
abuse treatment and aftercare, and treatment for contagious diseases) to offenders in
custody and after reentry into the community;
`(7) providing offenders with education, job training, English as a second language
programs, work experience programs, self-respect and life skills training, and other skills
useful in achieving a successful transition from prison;
`(8) facilitating collaboration among corrections and community corrections, technical
6/17/2005
Page 5 of 18
schools, community colleges, and the workforce development and employment service
sectors to-`(A) promote, where appropriate, the employment of people released from prison and
jail, through efforts such as educating employers about existing financial incentives
and facilitate the creation of job opportunities, including transitional jobs, for this
population that will benefit communities;
`(B) connect inmates to employment, including supportive employment and
employment services, before their release to the community; and
`(C) addressing barriers to employment;
`(9) assessing the literacy and educational needs of offenders in custody and identifying and
providing services appropriate to meet those needs, including follow-up assessments and
long-term services;
`(10) systems under which family members of offenders are involved in facilitating the
successful reentry of those offenders into the community, including removing obstacles to
the maintenance of family relationships while the offender is in custody, strengthening the
family's capacity as a stable living situation during re-entry where appropriate, and
involving family members in the planning and implementation of the re-entry process;
`(11) programs under which victims are included, on a voluntary basis, in the reentry
process;
`(12) programs that facilitate visitation and maintenance of family relationships with respect
to offenders in custody by addressing obstacles such as travel, telephone costs, mail
restrictions, and restrictive visitation policies;
`(13) identifying and addressing barriers to collaborating with child welfare agencies in the
provision of services jointly to offenders in custody and to the children of such offenders;
`(14) implementing programs in correctional agencies to include the collection of
information regarding any dependent children of an incarcerated person as part of intake
procedures, including the number of children, age, and location or jurisdiction, and connect
identified children with appropriate services;
`(15) addressing barriers to the visitation of children with an incarcerated parent, and
maintenance of the parent-child relationship, such as the location of facilities in remote
areas, telephone costs, mail restrictions, and visitation policies;
`(16) creating, developing, or enhancing prisoner and family assessments curricula, policies,
procedures, or programs (including mentoring programs) to help prisoners with a history or
identified risk of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking reconnect
with their families and communities as appropriate (or when it is safe to do so) and become
mutually respectful, nonabusive parents or partners, under which particular attention is paid
to the safety of children affected and the confidentiality concerns of victims, and efforts are
coordinated with existing victim service providers;
6/17/2005
Page 6 of 18
`(17) developing programs and activities that support parent-child relationships, such as-`(A) using telephone conferencing to permit incarcerated parents to participate in
parent-teacher conferences;
`(B) using videoconferencing to allow virtual visitation when incarcerated persons are
more than 100 miles from their families;
`(C) the development of books on tape programs, through which incarcerated parents
read a book into a tape to be sent to their children;
`(D) the establishment of family days, which provide for longer visitation hours or
family activities; or
`(E) the creation of children's areas in visitation rooms with parent-child activities;
`(18) expanding family-based treatment centers that offer family-based comprehensive
treatment services for parents and their children as a complete family unit;
`(19) conducting studies to determine who is returning to prison or jail and which of those
returning prisoners represent the greatest risk to community safety;
`(20) developing or adopting procedures to ensure that dangerous felons are not released
from prison prematurely;
`(21) developing and implementing procedures to assist relevant authorities in determining
when release is appropriate and in the use of data to inform the release decision;
`(22) developing and implementing procedures to identify efficiently and effectively those
violators of probation or parole who should be returned to prison;
`(23) utilizing established assessment tools to assess the risk factors of returning inmates
and prioritizing services based on risk;
`(24) conducting studies to determine who is returning to prison or jail and which of those
returning prisoners represent the greatest risk to community safety;
`(25) facilitating and encouraging timely and complete payment of restitution and fines by
ex-offenders to victims and the community;
`(26) developing or adopting procedures to ensure that dangerous felons are not released
from prison prematurely;
`(27) establishing or expanding the use of reentry courts to-`(A) monitor offenders returning to the community;
`(B) provide returning offenders with-`(i) drug and alcohol testing and treatment; and
6/17/2005
Page 7 of 18
`(ii) mental and medical health assessment and services;
`(C) facilitate restorative justice practices and convene family or community impact
panels, family impact educational classes, victim impact panels, or victim impact
educational classes;
`(D) provide and coordinate the delivery of other community services to offenders,
including-`(i) housing assistance;
`(ii) education;
`(iii) employment training;
`(iv) children and family support;
`(v) conflict resolution skills training;
`(vi) family violence intervention programs; and
`(vii) other appropriate social services; and
`(E) establish and implement graduated sanctions and incentives; and
`(28) providing technology to advance post release supervision.'.
(b) Juvenile Offender Demonstration Projects Reauthorized- Such section is further amended in
subsection (c) by striking `may be expended for' and all that follows through the period at the end
and inserting `may be expended for any activity referred to in subsection (b).'.
(c) Applications; Priorities; Performance Measurements- Such section is further amended-(1) by redesignating subsection (h) as subsection (o); and
(2) by striking subsections (d) through (g) and inserting the following new subsections:
`(d) Applications- A State, unit of local government, territory, or Indian tribe desiring a grant
under this section shall submit an application to the Attorney General that-`(1) contains a reentry strategic plan, which describes the long-term strategy, and a detailed
implementation schedule, including the jurisdiction's plans to pay for the program after the
Federal funding is discontinued;
`(2) identifies the governmental agencies and community and faith-based organizations that
will be coordinated by, and collaborate on, the applicant's prisoner reentry strategy and
certifies their involvement; and
`(3) describes the methodology and outcome measures that will be used in evaluating the
program.
6/17/2005
Page 8 of 18
`(e) Priority Consideration- The Attorney General shall give priority to grant applications that
best-`(1) focus initiative on geographic areas with a substantiated high population of exoffenders;
`(2) include partnerships with community-based organizations, including faith-based
organizations;
`(3) provide consultations with crime victims and former incarcerated prisoners and their
families;
`(4) review the process by which the State adjudicates violations of parole or supervised
release and consider reforms to maximize the use of graduated, community-based sanctions
for minor and technical violations of parole or supervised release;
`(5) establish pre-release planning procedures for prisoners to ensure that a prisoner's
eligibility for Federal or State benefits (including Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and
Veterans benefits) upon release is established prior to release, subject to any limitations in
law, and to ensure that prisoners are provided with referrals to appropriate social and health
services or are linked to appropriate community-based organizations; and
`(6) target high-risk offenders for reentry programs through validated assessment tools.
`(f) Requirements- The Attorney General may make a grant to an applicant only if the application`(1) reflects explicit support of the chief executive officer of the State or unit of local
government, territory, or Indian tribe applying for a grant under this section;
`(2) provides extensive discussion of the role of State corrections departments, community
corrections agencies, juvenile justice systems, or local jail systems in ensuring successful
reentry of ex-offenders into their communities;
`(3) provides extensive evidence of collaboration with State and local government agencies
overseeing health, housing, child welfare, education, and employment services, and local
law enforcement;
`(4) provides a plan for analysis of existing State statutory, regulatory, rules-based, and
practice-based hurdles to a prisoner's reintegration into the community that-`(A) takes particular note of laws, regulations, rules, and practices that: disqualify
former prisoners from obtaining professional licenses or other requirements necessary
for certain types of employment; and that hinder full civic participation; and
`(B) identifies those laws, regulations, rules, or practices that are not directly
connected to the crime committed and the risk that the ex-offender presents to the
community; and
`(5) includes the use of a State or local task force to carry out the activities funded under the
6/17/2005
Page 9 of 18
grant.
`(g) Uses of Grant Funds`(1) FEDERAL SHARE- The Federal share of a grant received under this section may not
exceed 75 percent of the project funded under the grant, unless the Attorney General-`(A) waives, in whole or in part, the requirement of this paragraph; and
`(B) publicly delineates the rationale for the waiver.
`(2) SUPPLEMENT NOT SUPPLANT- Federal funds received under this section shall be
used to supplement, not supplant, non-Federal funds that would otherwise be available for
the activities funded under this section.
`(h) Reentry Strategic Plan`(1) As a condition of receiving financial assistance under this section, each applicant shall
develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan that contains measurable annual and 5- to
10-year performance outcomes. The plan shall have as a goal to reduce the rate of
recidivism of incarcerated persons served with funds from this section within the State by
50 percent over a period of 10 years.
`(2) In developing reentry plans under this subsection, applicants shall coordinate with
communities and stakeholders, including experts in the fields of public safety, corrections,
housing, health, education, employment, and members of community and faith-based
organizations that provide reentry services.
`(3) Each reentry plan developed under this subsection shall measure the applicant's
progress toward increasing public safety by reducing rates of recidivism and enabling
released offenders to transition successfully back into their communities.
`(i) Reentry Task Force- As a condition of receiving financial assistance under this section, each
State or local government receiving a grant shall establish a Reentry Task Force or other relevant
convening authority to examine ways to pool existing resources and funding streams to promote
lower recidivism rates for returning prisoners and to minimize the harmful effects of incarceration
on families and communities by collecting data and best practices in offender re-entry from
demonstration grantees and other agencies and organizations. The task force or other authority
shall be comprised of relevant State or local leaders, agencies, service providers, communitybased organizations, or stakeholders.
`(j) Strategic Performance Outcomes`(1) Each applicant shall identify specific performance outcomes related to the long-term
goals of increasing public safety and reducing recidivism.
`(2) The performance outcomes identified under paragraph (1) shall include, with respect to
offenders released back into the community-`(A) recommitment rates;
6/17/2005
Page 10 of 18
`(B) reduction in crime;
`(C) employment and education;
`(D) violations of conditions of supervised release;
`(E) child support;
`(F) housing;
`(G) drug and alcohol abuse; and
`(H) participation in mental health services.
`(3) States may also report on other activities that increase the success rates of offenders
who transition from prison, such as programs that foster effective risk management and
treatment programming, offender accountability, and community and victim participation.
`(4) Applicants should coordinate with communities and stakeholders about the selection of
performance outcomes identified by the applicants and with the Department of Justice for
assistance with data collection and measurement activities.
`(5) Each grantee shall submit an annual report to the Department of Justice that-`(A) identifies the grantee's progress toward achieving its strategic performance
outcomes; and
`(B) describes other activities conducted by the grantee to increase the success rates
of the reentry population.
`(k) Performance Measurement`(1) The Department of Justice shall, in consultation with the States-`(A) identify primary and secondary sources of information to support the
measurement of the performance indicators identified under this section;
`(B) identify sources and methods of data collection in support of performance
measurement required under this section;
`(C) provide to all grantees technical assistance and training on performance
measures and data collection for purposes of this section; and
`(D) coordinate with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
on strategic performance outcome measures and data collection for purposes of this
section relating to substance abuse and mental health.
`(2) The Department of Justice shall coordinate with other Federal agencies to identify
national sources of information to support State performance measurement.
6/17/2005
Page 11 of 18
`(l) Future Eligibility- To be eligible to receive a grant under this section for fiscal years after the
first receipt of such a grant, a State shall submit to the Attorney General such information as is
necessary to demonstrate that-`(1) the State has adopted a re-entry plan that reflects input from community-based and
faith-based organizations;
`(2) the State's re-entry plan includes performance measures to assess the State's progress
toward increasing public safety by reducing by 10 percent over the 2-year period the rate at
which individuals released from prison who participate in the re-entry system supported by
Federal funds are recommitted to prison; and
`(3) the State will coordinate with the Department of Justice, community-based and faithbased organizations, and other experts regarding the selection and implementation of the
performance measures described in subsection (k).
`(m) National Adult and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center`(1) The Attorney General may, using amounts made available to carry out this subsection,
make a grant to an eligible organization to provide for the establishment of a National Adult
and Juvenile Offender Reentry Resource Center.
`(2) An organization eligible for the grant under paragraph (1) is any national nonprofit
organization approved by the Federal task force established under the Second Chance Act
of 2004 that represents, provides technical assistance and training to, and has special
expertise and broad, national-level experience in offender re-entry programs, training, and
research.
`(3) The organization receiving the grant shall establish a National Adult and Juvenile
Offender Reentry Resource Center to-`(A) provide education, training, and technical assistance for States, local
governments, service providers, faith based organizations, and corrections
institutions;
`(B) collect data and best practices in offender re-entry from demonstration grantees
and others agencies and organizations;
`(C) develop and disseminate evaluation tools, mechanisms, and measures to better
assess and document coalition performance measures and outcomes;
`(D) disseminate knowledge to States and other relevant entities about best practices,
policy standards, and research findings;
`(E) develop and implement procedures to assist relevant authorities in determining
when release is appropriate and in the use of data to inform the release decision;
`(F) develop and implement procedures to identify efficiently and effectively those
violators of probation or parole who should be returned to prison and those who
should receive other penalties based on defined, graduated sanctions;
6/17/2005
Page 12 of 18
`(G) collaborate with the Federal task force established under the Second Chance Act
of 2004 and the Federal Resource Center for Children of Prisoners;
`(H) develop a national research agenda; and
`(I) bridge the gap between research and practice by translating knowledge from
research into practical information.
`(4) Of amounts made available to carry out this section, not more than 4 percent shall be
available to carry out this subsection.
`(n) Administration- Of amounts made available to carry out this section, not more than 2 percent
shall be available for administrative expenses in carrying out this section.'.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations- Such section is further amended in paragraph (1) of
subsection (o) (as redesignated by subsection (c)) by striking ànd $16,000,000 for fiscal year
2005' and inserting `$40,000,000 for fiscal year 2005, and $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2006'.
SEC. 4. TASK FORCE ON FEDERAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES RELATING
TO REENTRY OF OFFENDERS.
(a) Task Force Required- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Housing and
Urban Development, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health
and Human Services, and the heads of such other elements of the Federal Government as the
Attorney General considers appropriate, and in collaboration with stakeholders, service providers,
community-based organizations, States, and local governments, shall establish an interagency task
force on Federal programs and activities relating to the reentry of offenders into the community.
(b) Duties- The task force required by subsection (a) shall-(1) identify such programs and activities that may be resulting in overlapping or duplication
of services, the scope of such overlapping or duplication, and the relationship of such
overlapping and duplication to public safety, public health, and effectiveness and efficiency;
(2) identify methods to improve collaboration and coordination of such programs and
activities;
(3) identify areas of responsibility in which improved collaboration and coordination of
such programs and activities would result in increased effectiveness or efficiency;
(4) develop innovative interagency or intergovernmental programs, activities, or procedures
that would improve outcomes of reentering offenders and children of offenders;
(5) develop methods for increasing regular communication that would increase interagency
program effectiveness;
(6) identify areas of research that can be coordinated across agencies with an emphasis on
applying science-based practices to support, treatment, and intervention programs for
reentering offenders;
6/17/2005
Page 13 of 18
(7) identify funding areas that should be coordinated across agencies and any gaps in
funding; and
(8) identify successful programs currently operating and collect best practices in offender
reentry from demonstration grantees and other agencies and organizations, determine the
extent to which such programs and practices can be replicated, and make information on
such programs and practices available to States, localities, community-based organizations,
and others.
(c) Report- Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, the task force required
by subsection (a) shall submit a report, including recommendations, to Congress on barriers to
reentry. The report shall identify Federal barriers to successful reentry of offenders into the
community and analyze the effects of such barriers on offenders and on children and other family
members of offenders, including-(1) parental incarceration as a consideration for purposes of family reunification under the
Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997;
(2) admissions in Federal housing programs;
(3) child support obligations and procedures;
(4) Social Security benefits, Veterans benefits, food stamps, and other forms of Federal
public assistance;
(5) Medicaid and Medicare procedures, requirements, regulations, and guidelines;
(6) education programs, financial assistance, and civic participation;
(7) TANF program funding criteria and other welfare benefits;
(8) employment;
(9) re-entry procedures, case planning, and transitions of persons from the custody of the
Federal Bureau of Prisons to a Federal parole or probation program or community
corrections;
(10) laws, regulations, rules, and practices that may require a parolee to return to the same
county that they were living in before their arrest so that parolees can change their setting
upon release and not go back to the same neighborhood full of people who may be negative
influences; and
(11) trying to establish pre-release planning procedures for prisoners to ensure that a
prisoner's eligibility for federal or state benefits (including Medicaid, Medicare, Social
Security and Veterans benefits) upon release is established prior to release, subject to any
limitations in law; and to ensure that prisoners are provided with referrals to appropriate
social and health services or are linked to appropriate community-based organizations.
(d) Annual Reports- On an annual basis, the task force required by subsection (a) shall submit to
Congress a report on the activities of the task force, including specific recommendations of the
6/17/2005
Page 14 of 18
task force on matters referred to in subsection (b).
SEC. 5. OFFENDER RE-ENTRY RESEARCH.
(a) National Institute of Justice- From amounts made available to carry out this Act, the National
Institute of Justice may conduct research on offender re-entry, including-(1) a study identifying the number and characteristics of children who have had a parent
incarcerated and the likelihood of these minors becoming involved in the criminal justice
system some time in their lifetime;
(2) a study identifying a mechanism to compare rates of recidivism (including re-arrest,
violations of parole and probation, and re-incarceration) among States; and
(3) a study on the population of individuals released from custody who do not engage in
recidivism and the characteristics (housing, employment, treatment, family connection) of
that population.
(b) Bureau of Justice Statistics- From amounts made available to carry out this Act, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics may conduct research on offender re-entry, including-(1) an analysis of special populations, including prisoners with mental illness or substance
abuse disorders, female offenders, juvenile offenders, and the elderly, that present unique
re-entry challenges;
(2) studies to determine who is returning to prison or jail and which of those returning
prisoners represent the greatest risk to community safety;
(3) annual reports on the profile of the population coming out of prisons, jails, and juvenile
justice facilities;
(4) a national recidivism study every three years; and
(5) a study of parole violations and revocations.
SEC. 6. CHILDREN OF INCARCERATED PARENTS AND FAMILIES.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall-(1) review, and make available to States a report on any recommendations regarding, the
role of State child protective services at the time of the arrest of a person; and
(2) by regulation, establish such services as the Secretary determines necessary for the
preservation of families that have been impacted by the incarceration of a family member.
SEC. 7. ENCOURAGEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OF FORMER PRISONERS.
The Secretary of Labor shall take such steps as are necessary to implement a program, including
but not limited to the Employment and Training Administration, to educate employers about
6/17/2005
Page 15 of 18
existing incentives, including bonding, to the hiring of former Federal, State, or county prisoners.
SEC. 8. FEDERAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR CHILDREN OF PRISONERS.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the National Institute of Corrections for each of fiscal
years 2005 and 2006, such sums as may be necessary for the continuing activities of the Federal
Resource Center for Children of Prisoners, including review of policies and practices of State and
Federal corrections to support parent-child relationships.
SEC. 9. ELIMINATION OF AGE REQUIREMENT FOR RELATIVE CAREGIVER
UNDER NATIONAL FAMILY CAREGIVER SUPPORT PROGRAM.
Section 372 of the National Family Caregiver Support Act (part E of title III of the Older
Americans Act of 1965; 42 U.S.C. 3030s) is amended in paragraph (3) by striking `who is 60
years of age or older and--' and inserting `who--'.
SEC. 10. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO PLACE PRISONER IN
COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS.
(a) Place of Imprisonment- Section 3621 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-(1) by redesignating subsections (c) through (e) as subsections (d) through (f), respectively;
and
(2) by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection (c):
`(c) Community Correction Facilities- For purposes of designations made under this section, the
terms `place of the prisoner's imprisonment' and àvailable penal or correctional facility' do not
include a community corrections center, community treatment center, `halfway house,' or similar
facility that does not confine residents in the manner of a prison or jail.'.
(b) Pre-Release Custody- Section 3624(c) of title 18, United States Code, is amended-(1) by striking à reasonable part, not to exceed 6 months, of the last 10 per centum of the
term to be served' and inserting à reasonable part of the last 20 percent of the term to be
served, not to exceed 6 months'; and
(2) by inserting after `home confinement' the following: `for the last 20 percent of the term
to be served, not to exceed 6 months'.
SEC. 11. USE OF VIOLENT OFFENDER TRUTH-IN-SENTENCING GRANT
FUNDING FOR DEMONSTRATION PROJECT ACTIVITIES.
Section 20102(a) of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (42 U.S.C.
13702(a)) is amended-(1) in paragraph (2) by striking ànd' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3) by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
6/17/2005
Page 16 of 18
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(4) to carry out any activity referred to in section 2976(b) of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. 3797w(b)).'.
SEC. 12. GRANTS TO STUDY PAROLE VIOLATIONS AND REVOCATIONS.
(a) Grants Authorized- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney
General may award grants to States to study, and to improve the collection of data with respect to,
individuals whose parole is revoked and which such individuals represent the greatest risk to
community safety.
(b) Application- As a condition of receiving a grant under this section, a State shall-(1) certify that the State has, or intends to establish, a program that collects comprehensive
and reliable data with respect to individuals described in subsection (a), including data on-(A) the number and type of parole violations that occur within the State;
(B) the reasons for parole revocation;
(C) the underlying behavior that led to the revocation; and
(D) the term of imprisonment or other penalty that is imposed for the violation; and
(2) provide the data described in paragraph (1) to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in a form
prescribed by the Bureau.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $1,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
SEC. 13. IMPROVEMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBSTANCE ABUSE
TREATMENT FOR STATE PRISONERS PROGRAM.
(a) Definition- Section 1902 of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (42
U.S.C. 3796ff-1) is amended by redesignating subsections (c) through (f) as subsections (d)
through (g), respectively, and by inserting after subsection (b) the following new subsection:
`(c) Residential Substance Abuse Treatment- The term `residential substance abuse treatment'
means a course of individual and group activities and treatment, lasting at least 6 months, in
residential treatment facilities set apart from the general prison population. This can include the
use of pharmacotherapies, where appropriate, that may extend beyond the 6-month period.'.
(b) Requirement for After Care Component- Section 1902 of such Act is further amended in
subsection (d) (as redesignated by subsection (a)) is amended-(1) in the subsection heading, by striking Èligibility for Preference With After Care
Component' and inserting `Requirement for After Care Component';
6/17/2005
Page 17 of 18
(2) by amending paragraph (1) to read as follows:
`(1) To be eligible for funding under this part, a State must ensure that individuals who
participate in the substance abuse treatment program established or implemented with
assistance provided under this part will be provided with aftercare services.'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(4) Aftercare services required by this subsection shall be funded by the funding provided
in this part.'.
SEC. 14. RESIDENTIAL DRUG ABUSE PROGRAM IN FEDERAL PRISONS.
Section 3621(e)(5)(A) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by striking `means a course of'
and all that follows through the semicolon at the end and inserting the following: `means a course
of individual and group activities and treatment, lasting at least 6 months, in residential treatment
facilities set apart from the general prison population, which may include the use of
pharmacotherapies, where appropriate, that may extend beyond the 6-month period;'.
SEC. 15. TECHNICAL AMENDMENT TO DRUG-FREE STUDENT LOANS
PROVISION TO ENSURE THAT IT APPLIES ONLY TO OFFENSES
COMMITTED WHILE RECEIVING FEDERAL AID.
Section 484(r)(1) of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1091(r)(1)) is amended by
striking À student' and all that follows through `table:' and inserting the following: À student
who is convicted of any offense under any Federal or State law involving the possession or sale of
a controlled substance for conduct that occurred during a period of enrollment for which the
student was receiving any grant, loan, or work assistance under this title shall not be eligible to
receive any grant, loan, or work assistance under this title from the date of that conviction for the
period of time specified in the following table:'.
SEC. 16. MENTORING GRANTS TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Authority to Make Grants- From amounts made available to carry out this section, the
Secretary of Labor shall make grants to community-based organizations for the purpose of
providing mentoring and other transitional services essential to reintegrating ex-offenders.
(b) Use of Funds- Funds for the mentoring grants may be expended for-(1) mentoring of adult and juvenile offenders; and
(2) transitional services to assist in the reintegration of ex-offenders into the community.
(c) Application- To apply for a grant under this section, a community-based organization shall
submit an application to the Secretary of Labor based on criteria developed by the Secretary in
consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.
(d) Strategic Performance Outcomes- The Secretary of Labor may require each applicant to
identify specific performance outcomes related to the long-term goal of stabilizing communities
6/17/2005
Page 18 of 18
by reducing recidivism and re-integrating ex-offenders into society.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this
section $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
END
6/17/2005

Reentry Best Practices

Transcription

Similar documents

Rehabilitation Programs Division

Megans Law - Kern County Sheriff`s Office

Megan`s Law Brochure

Broadcasting Without Boundaries: Ohio`s Reentry Television

PAROLE DIVISION OVERVIEW

learn - NOLA to Angola

Innovations 2014 Conference Presentation FINAL

annual report - BRSI — Belgian Road Safety Institute

to view the PowerPoint Presentation from that meeting.

MO - Moberly Correctional Center Receiving and Orientation