Social Justice Project

Abstract

Recidivism has been considered one of the most contentious topics in social-economic and political platforms. Previously, people believed that nothing works to rehabilitate ex-convicts and as such, keeping them behind bars is the best alternative to maintain public safety. However, over the recent past, there has been a seismic shift in the social paradigm and mindset of individuals regarding re-entry into society. This research paper explores the programs and approaches adopted and implemented over the past two decades, as well as the acts passed to reduce recidivism and strengthen public safety across the country. An examination of evidence-based rehabilitation strategies will be covered by shedding light on various aspects of the prison system from the start of an inmate’s sentence to re-entry back to the community. From a federal and state perspective, the paper also seeks to address the core behavioral issues that lead to criminality and what can be done to reduce the likelihood of re-offending after release. 

National Perspective: Recidivism Rates and Prisoner Re-entry

Recidivism is defined as the reconviction, rearrest, or re-incarceration of an individual after release from jail or prison ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). Any technical violation that an ex-offender commits during parole or probation is still considered an act that would get them rearrested. A majority of citizens have the prejudiced notion that offenders will always be lawbreakers no matter how stringent the criminal justice system punishes them. In the past decades, this was the notion in a majority of societies. It was assumed that convict behavior could not be changed, and as such, the only punishment would be to retain them in the penal system for the longest time possible. 

The increasing rates of prison population over the recent past have warranted action from the federal system because the cycle of re-incarceration is very costly. The U.S., for instance, accounts for 25% of the world's prison population ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). Despite a decline in the rate of crime in the country in the past years, the U.S. still imprisons more offenders than any other nation. According to James & Library of Congress (2015) , an estimated 800 people are incarcerated for every 100,000 citizens are imprisoned, translating to one in every 100 individuals ( Hunter at al., 2016 ). The burden of imprisoning offenders and sustaining them in the facilities throughout their sentences falls on taxpayers. It was reported that in 2010, the average annual cumulative cost of penitentiaries in 40 states was $31,286 per convict, a figure exceedingly higher than the annual cost per public school student, $11,184 ( In Gideon & In Sung, 2011 ). 

Over the same year, the federal government budgeted $80 billion for the state and federal penitentiary systems ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). The toll on inmates and their families is also an important factor to consider because some may suffer from economic strain, social stigma, emotional and psychological distress. Contrary to what people believe, whenever prisoners have to endure isolation from their loved ones and the community, they tend to experience depression and anxiety. Surviving in an overcrowded facility with a dangerous environment turns inmates into animals who leave in far worse states than they arrived in. 

During Clinton's administration, tertiary education in American prisons had come to an end after the President decided to cut funding in the sector. Consequently, penal teachers were forced to unite and lobby for a renewed commitment towards prison education programs. Their plight was finally heard when President Bush was elected to office and signed the Second Act, granting funding to prisons for various reentry initiatives ( Mears, & Cochran, 2014 ). He envisioned America as the land of second chances, and as such, prison doors should be opened for inmates to obtain better lives after successful rehabilitation. Through the act, it was expected that lives would be transformed and better communities built through the reformation of inmates for a successful transition back to society. They would get an opportunity to start new lives and break the cycle of crime and incarceration that had worsened in the nation over the past decades. Formal regulations were made to authorize key foundations for the Prisoner Reentry Initiative launched in 2004 for effective prisoner reintegration into society ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). It also enhanced mentoring, drug treatment, and transitional services for former prisoners through partnerships and collaborations with community organizations, faith-based institutions, and local corrections agencies. Through this coordination, ex-offenders can connect with mentors, find work and avoid reversion to crime. 

The Prisoner Reentry Initiative was established to provide funding to federal and state units to develop and implement institutional and community rehabilitation-based inmate reentry programs ( In Gideon & In Sung, 2011 ). It functions as a strengthening tool for communities that have large populations of ex-offenders. The overall aim is to reduce recidivism by assisting returning inmates to find employment and assessing other important services that need to be available at individual, societal, and family levels. Operations are based on support strategies that provide pre-and post-release evaluations of services by developing transitional campaigns in collaboration with the justice system and community-based providers and agencies for monitored supervised and non-supervised lawbreakers. The program also networks hand in hand with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) to ensure targets are achieved. 

During the first two years after the program's launch, it was reported that more than 12,000 offenders had enrolled in the reentry initiative. By 2015, more than 7,900 ex-offenders had secured job opportunities through the platform, with only 18% reported to have been rearrested again over a year's duration ( Hunter at al., 2016 ). Coordinated supervision is also conducted once inmates are released from prison to provide appropriate housing, physical and mental health care. Programs have also been developed n various states all over the nation to help convicts develop safe and healthy relationships with their families as they learn to be responsible parents. The paper will explore programs and policy reforms adopted and implemented to alter inmates' behavior and provide them with an opportunity to transition back to the community successfully without engaging in crime, thus reducing recidivism rates.

Oregon

Oregon's PRI was developed to reduce recidivism rates by focusing on offenders released from correctional facilities every year. Through funding provided by the DOJ, the program has supported and strengthened coordination between the Oregon Department of Corrections (DOC) and the community for successful re-entry programs ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). Finding employment and housing in the state can prove challenging for ex-offenders because most property owners and employers rely on background checks before making a decision. A majority will rule a person out if they discover they have past criminal records. Through coordination with the Prison Reentry Initiative, resources have been availed to ex-inmates to increase their chances of successfully transitioning back to society. 

Work Source Oregon Program for Ex-Offenders

The SE Works One-Stop Career Center offers a variety of programs for ex-offenders in the state of Oregon. 

Prisoner Re-Entry Employment Program (PREP). It organizes workshops 364 days a year for individuals who have a past criminal record ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). Participants of the program are allowed to use computers at the facility to search for job postings online and send resumes to potential employers. They can also network with other ex-offenders and discuss their challenges or successes because they share the same circumstances. New members are screened to assess whether they need training for additional technical skills.

Training to Work. The program has proved to lower recidivism rates in Oregon by working with inmates before and after prison release. The maximum capacity for the program is 180 participants per period ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). In case an inmate is accepted into the program while in prison, they get to receive individualized career mapping, counseling, and short-term training. The process is essential because it provides work credentials to ex-offenders and increases their chances of landing a trained field job. After release from prison, they are eligible for either short- or long-term training and on-the-job training to add more experience to their knowledge and skill set. 

Re-entry Enhancement Coordination Program. In this initiative, case management services are provided to former inmates to aid them in finding employment. It is imperative to note that the training includes one-to-one mentoring, on-the-job training services, and job-seeking skills, thus addressing the employment barrier experienced by ex-offenders. Participants are helped to overcome the criminal mindset by a team of qualified program counselors. Moreover, drug and alcohol treatment groups are also available for those who want to overcome addiction problems. Sundt et al. (2015) note that the current success rate is at 74%, with the average participant who graduates from the program earning an average of $10.25 per hour. 

Re-Connect Program. The program has been developed exclusively for inmates who have been identified as high-risk property crime and drug offenders ( Cronin, 2011 ). Referrals are made from their probation officers to the program from the Washington County Community Corrections. The initiative's objective is to positively address the addiction to alcohol and drugs problem and lack of social support for lifestyle change as potential barriers to re-entry and employment. Participants are also provided with subsidized training and one-on-one employment coaching services to increase their employment eligibility. 

The Oregon Women's Prison Ministry is devoted to restoring direction and hope to female ex-offenders' lives by sharing the love of Jesus Christ through discipleship, one-to-one counseling, and evangelism ( Sundt et al., 2015 ). They get to see life from a different perspective and get to understand the importance of refraining from crime and loving one another. 

MCNW's Reentry Transition Center

Multnomah county houses a population of more than 13,000 parolees because the crime rate is high, and as such, the impact of incarceration is heavily felt ( Mears, & Cochran, 2014 ). Consequently, RTCs have been developed to facilitate successful re-entry into society by coordinating non-profit organizations, the community, and government agencies. The program has recorded success over the recent past because those who steer it have felony backgrounds and experience coordinating effective re-entry practices. Public safety has improved through the initiative, and recidivism rates reduced, thus decreasing the demand on judicial systems and law enforcement departments. The incarceration costs have also dropped, thus allowing the state to budget for other critical sectors of its economy. 

To date, RTC has served more than 9,000 prisoners ( Hunter at al., 2016 ). The achievements have been made possible through partnerships with community organizations and agencies. The program has been able to meet the unique needs of inmates by offering education, vocational training, housing support, soft skills training, alcohol, and drug treatment, immediate survival care, disability systems navigation, employment support, interview clothing, parental and family reconciliation programs, health and dental treatment, self-employment mentorship, and community engagement programs ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). 

Michigan

The Michigan Prisoner Re-entry Initiative was established in 2003 to prepare inmates for life outside prison ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). The aim, in the long run, was to reduce crime and recidivism rates in the state. Its development sought to address the increasing incarceration rate, which was in 2006, at 240% of the prison population in 1980. Pilot implementations were launched in select counties in 2005, and by 3008, they had expanded statewide. From the time they were initiated, Michigan recorded a 37% reduction in crime rates and a 35% decrease in parolees getting rearrested. Consequently, this led to the closure of 26 prison facilities and correctional centers, saving an estimated prison operation cost of $392 million ( James & Library of Congress, 2015 ). 

Therefore, the Michigan Prisoner Reentry program was established to target inmates who were at the greatest risk of failure once released on parole. They operate by standardizing risks and conducting needs assessments to increase accountability and reduce the chances of reoffending. Cronin (2011) reports that since its launch, the state has seen a 38% decline in recidivism rates than the previous years. $50 million is allocated annually by the prisoner Re-entry program to provide community-based housing for ex-offenders, subsidize employers hiring them and maintain funding for programs that provide a successful transition to societies ( James & Library of Congress, 2015 ). The funding was made possible by the considerable savings of the closure of the 21 correctional facilities, thus providing room for the generation of extra funds. 

The Saginaw Correctional Facility (SRF) was established as a re-entry prison and is tasked with providing and facilitating cognitive-behavioral programs that are essential for installing core elements to inmates. The Genesee County PRI Plan is made up of four main components: a) Inmate assessment and planning, b) Pre-release services for inmates, c) inmate in-reach and transition planning, d) post-release services, and supervision for ex-convicts ( Mears, & Cochran, 2014 ). The initial phase is conducted by the SRF and involves a careful assessment of prisoner needs and systematic planning. This stage aims to develop an individualized Collaborative Case Management and Supervision Plan for purposes of determining the type of programing needed depending on prisoner needs. It is done using the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Index (SASSI) and Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions (COMPAS) ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). Employment Readiness Specialists also develop program schedules and strategies in conjunction with prison staff. Their objective is to address employment-related needs and issues for each inmate as they are prepped for release. 

According to Jonson, & Cullen (2015) , evidence-based cognitive restructuring is launched as a part of pre-release procedures to improve an inmate's ability to adopt appropriate behavioral and social skills. During the second phase of the program, transition teams will work with faith-based community organizations to offer counseling and mentorship services to the convicts. After release, arrangements are made to gain access to suitable housing and abstain from substance abuse. Mental health treatment services are also addressed through assessment needs evaluation. 

MPRI Program Stages

Phase One: Getting Ready. This is an institutional phase that entails assessing the responsibilities and events during incarceration, from an inmate's admission to the committee's parole decision ( James & Library of Congress, 2015 ). Here, an offender's risks, needs, and capabilities are assessed and classified. After this, assignments are made to reduce risk and address individual needs as strengths are developed. During their first day of admission, a comprehensive assessment is conducted on each prisoner by evaluating their crime, risk factors, and the likelihood of receiving parole. The process is a part of an Initial Transition Accountability Plan designed to prepare inmates for life after prison through a game plan that facilitates the effective provision of services for the plan to be successful ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). Prisoners are made aware of expectations and informed that the Parole and Commutation Board's decision would depend on their behavior and progress in the program. During incarceration, the programming initiatives include substance abuse training, GED/Basic literacy, Violence prevention, sex offender programs, thinking for a change, and mental health initiatives. 

Phase Two: Gong Home. The stage occurs during the last six months of a prisoner's sentence. During this phase, strategic re-entry plans are developed and organized to address issues such as employment, housing, and mental health ( Cronin, 2011 ). Involves prisoner release preparation and review of parole release guidelines to ensure public safety is maintained. Inmates at this stage need extensive support and advice as they move a step closer home. Individuals are linked with the services that are most critical based on the need's assessment. These include sex-offender therapy and substance abuse counseling. Community-based organizations are identified and assigned to parolees after which, parole officers provide their decision on the graduation series of the inmates who have fared well throughout the program. 

Phase Three: Staying Home. The third stage involves coordinating the parolee, parole officer and support network, and human service providers to optimize the ex-offender's probability of successful transition to community living ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). Supervision resources are concentrated on the parolee following release through constant interaction with the parole officer in the community where the ex-offender lives and works. 

Programs

Various pilot programs have seen a successful re-entry of inmates back to society. 

The Walk with me Program in Detroit: The Detroit-based re-entry program was developed and funded by the Federal Serious and Violent Offender Re-entry Initiative Fund to remodel convicted felons and change their view of crime so that they can be responsible citizens upon release to society ( Mears, & Cochran, 2014 ). 

The Nine County Rural Northern Michigan Goodwill, in conjunction with the Field Operations Administration (FOA) and the Michigan State Housing Development Authority (MSHDA), work together to facilitate housing through the federal rent subsidy fund ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). The program incorporates inmate programming through assessment, classification, release preparation, discharge, supervision, and aftercare. 

The Community Corrections Advisory Board steers the MACOMB project to oversee prison re-entry in Macomb Correctional facility ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). Human service providers from the locality and state work hand in hand with community leaders and prison staff to oversee release preparation and successful integration back to society. 

The Genesee Prisoner re-entry program was also launched as a follow-up agency for the inmates who have graduated from MDOC's Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program ( Mears, & Cochran, 2014 ). The Kent County Re-entry Council has also demonstrated positive results by gearing efforts towards providing employment opportunities to ex-offenders through close supervision of inmate behavior and follow-up with the parole board on the progress of the person. 

The Ingram County Work Preparation and Employment Program has also made efforts with the Capital Area Michigan Works program to deliver smart employment opportunities with faith-based organizations' by linking ex-offenders with mentors ( In Gideon & In Sung, 2011 ). 

The Kalamazoo County Re-entry Project builds on the Kalamazoo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council's efforts to reduce recidivism rates in the county by mentoring offenders and engaging them in effective recidivism reduction programs ( Hunter at al., 2016 ). It is imperative to understand that for each of the projects mentioned above, the MPRI is modified according to the results that are provided by the state council regarding parole assessment and the varying needs of prison populations. 

Missouri

Over the past decades, the rate of recidivism in Missouri was relatively high, and as such, some programs were implemented as a means of facilitating successful reentry for ex-offenders back to society. The Missouri Department of Corrections reported that educational programs significantly impact post-inmate employment and reduce recidivism ( Cronin, 2011 ). It has been established that prisoners who go through the programs are more likely to gain employment opportunities and less likely to return to prison than those who do not. 

One of the key barriers to successful reentry into society by inmates is the lack of education and skills to secure employment. In many prisons, a significant proportion of the population is less educated. In Missouri, 42% of the inmates had not completed high school education in 2017 ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017) ). The highest level most had attained is tenth-grade schooling. Consequently, this lack of skills and education, coupled with a criminal record, made it very difficult for ex-convicts to get a job and stay out of prison. Based on this information, Missouri combatted the problem by implementing programs that would prepare inmates for successful reentry into communities. They established that educational services are an effective means of rehabilitation because they prepare convicts for life after incarceration. Almost half of the Missouri penitentiary facilities participate in the programs, which have yielded positive results over the recent past ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). 

The table below analyzes Missouri Department of Corrections data on the education program, recidivism, and employment rates for ex-inmates. 

Table 1.1	No. of Inmates	Recidivism rate	Employment rate
1st Cohort : These are inmates who were incarcerated without GED and were not enrolled in the program	7,569	54.9%	44.3%
2nd Cohort : Convicts who were incarcerated without GED and enrolled in the program but not to completion	2,213	51.21%	47.13%
3rd Cohort : Incarcerated Convicts who earned their GED.	2,934	38.32%	61.73%
4th Cohort : Convicts who were incarcerated with a GED or higher education.	12,608	41.46%	64.95%

As shown from the table above, inmates who were incarcerated without education and attained GED while in prison had higher employment rates and lower recidivism rates. Those who were enrolled but did not complete the course also recorded lower recidivism rates and higher employment rates than those who did not enroll in the program. The fourth cohort of inmates who were incarcerated with GED of higher education had the highest employment rate. Therefore, it can be concluded that the programs are very effective because they increase probability of getting a full-time job, thus reducing the likelihood of engaging in crime and returning to prison. The actual skills and knowledge gained motivate inmates to succeed and make them more employable. They also act as job market signals making them more attractive to potential employers.

Missouri was among the first states in the U.S. to implement the Transition from Prison to Community Initiative (TPCI) that had been created by the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) in 2002 ( Hunt & Dumville, 2016 ). It was renamed the Missouri Reentry Process (MRP), and its purpose was to develop and integrate successful reentry practices through partnerships with state agencies and communities. The MRP model reworks the philosophy of corrections by ensuring inmates are more likely to succeed when released from the penal system, thus reducing recidivism and improving public safety ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). 

Two of the agency's most significant reforms include the Transition Accountability Plan (TAP) and Transitional Housing Units. The latter refers to special units located inside a correctional facility where inmates are housed during the last 180 days of their sentence. They incorporate programs such as life and cognitive skills training, employability training, parenting skills, substance abuse education, long-distance dads’ program, and the need to refrain from crime. Moreover, the initiatives also involve mental health assistance programs, faith-based community partnerships, and personal identification assistance. TAP, on its side, operates by identifying individual challenges and opportunities for an individual and setting goals and boundaries to help them succeed after incarceration ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). 

MRP community teams also work across the state to assist local communities with reintegration and re-entry of ex-offenders into society. These teams consist of probation and parole staff, faith-based organizations, local and state agencies, local businesses, Division of Adult Institutions staff, judiciary representatives, treatment providers, local law enforcement, ex-convicts, and offender family members. Through collaboration, they have tackled issues such as housing, substance abuse, employment, medical health needs, and transportation. James & Library of Congress (2015) note that as of 2014, the agency had completed more than 28 community resource fairs and reentry conferences across Missouri targeting ex-offenders. These continue to be done as a means of promoting a collaborative environment for a successful transition. 

The Department of Corrections also partnered with the U.S. Department of Labor Apprenticeship Program to form the Missouri Vocational Enterprises (MVE) ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). The establishment provides apprenticeship positions to ex-convicts from different correctional facilities across the state. According to Cronin (2011) , 50 positions are created every year are created by the program. To date, more than 2,500 certificates recognized by the U.S. Department of Labor have been issued to offenders. 

A partnership was also forged between the Department of Corrections and the State Technical College of Missouri to secure industry accredited employment credentials ( James & Library of Congress, 2015 ). The Missouri Science Technology Engineering and Mathematics (MOSTEM) program trains offenders to become labor targets in fields that the Division of Workforce Development has selected. The agency also goes the extra mile to serve ex-offenders across the state by helping them successfully reenter society. 

Family Support 

The Department of Corrections has partnered with the Family Support Division (FSD) under the Department of Social Services to implement a personalized case management system that addresses child support issues ( In Gideon & In Sung, 2011 ). Four pilot projects have been launched in Missouri correctional facilities. Representatives from the agency to make monthly presentations to inmates at various stages of their sentence. Those who require personalized assistance with child support issues can meet the agents before they are released so that plans can be made for reentry. These can be done either via video teleconferencing or in person. The initial plan started in 2015 in Algoa Correctional Center. In 2016, the program was also initiated at the Boonville Correctional Center and Women’s Eastern Reception, Diagnostic and Correctional Center, and Kansas City Reentry Center ( D’Amico, Geckeler, & Kim, 2017 ). FSD also launched a pilot project in partnership with Powerhouse Community Development Corporation (PCDC) to enlighten inmates on the best child support services and practices. The firm provides consulting services for more than 160 ex-convicts every year, as stated in their arrangement with the Department of Corrections ( Jonson, & Cullen, 2015 ). 

Conclusion

From the discussion provided above, it is evident that recidivism is a multi-faceted issue critical issue that must be assessed from socio-economic and legal-political perspectives. The programs rolled out over the years due to the second chance act have shown that with proper coordination, successful reentry initiatives can be implemented and achieved throughout the nation. Some of the factors that directly impact recidivism rates include employment training programs, housing plans, drug abuse, addiction recovery sessions, health treatment programs, and family reconnection programs. Studies have shown that these initiatives have yielded positive outcomes by reducing recidivism rates in Oregon, Michigan, and Missouri. There has been a significant decrease in crime rates on the streets and improved public safety over the past decades due to an increase in re-entry rates among ex-offenders. Consequently, the states have saved a considerable amount from these projects because they have changed the presumption that incarceration is an effective way to reduce recidivism when it is not. 

References

Cronin, J. (2011). The path to successful reentry: The relationship between correctional education, employment and recidivism.  University of Missouri, Institute of Public Policy .

D’Amico, R., Geckeler, C., & Kim, H. (2017). An Evaluation of Seven Second Chance Act Adult Demonstration Programs: Impact Findings at 18 Months.  Final report to the National Institute of Justice, grant , (2010-RY).

Hunt, K. S., & Dumville, R. (2016).  Recidivism among federal offenders: A comprehensive overview . United States Sentencing Commission.

Hunter, B. A., Lanza, A. S., Lawlor, M., Dyson, W., & Gordon, D. M. (2016). A strengths-based approach to prisoner reentry: The fresh start prisoner reentry program.  International journal of offender therapy and comparative criminology ,  60 (11), 1298-1314.

In Gideon, L., & In Sung, H.-E. (2011).  Rethinking corrections: Rehabilitation, reentry, and reintegration . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

James, N., & Library of Congress. (2015).  Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community, and recidivism . Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress.

Jonson, C. L., & Cullen, F. T. (2015). Prisoner reentry programs.  Crime and justice ,  44 (1), 517-575.

Mears, D. P., & Cochran, J. C. (2014).  Prisoner Reentry in the Era of Mass Incarceration . Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications.

Sundt, J., Cullen, F. T., Thielo, A. J., & Jonson, C. L. (2015). Public willingness to downsize prisons: Implications from Oregon.  Victims & Offenders ,  10 (4), 365-378.