Coursehero >> New York >> Cornell >> PAM 2300

Course Hero has millions of student submitted documents similar to the one below including study guides, homework solutions, papers, exam answer keys and textbook solutions.

Attorney Background: General Janet Reno said in 2000 that prisoner reentry is one of the most pressing problems we face as a nation. Since the year 2000, however, the problem has not improved, a national study showed that in 2005, 3 years after 600,000 prisoners departed from state and federal prisons, almost 70% of these prisoners were rearrested and almost 50% reentered prison. These rates are a result of the prisoner's committing another crime or infringing the requirements of their release. iHowever, recidivism is not limited to adult offenders, Juveniles have recidivism rates as high as 55 percent across the country and in New York. ii Adult and juvenile recidivism is a problem for the communities in which the prisoners attempt to transition into as well as for the criminal justice system. SVORI (Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative) programs have been created in an attempt to lower recidivism rates, and increase the employment, housing, and health of released prisoners who participate. iii Reentry programs, which are three-phased initiatives begun in prison, are intended to assist offenders in acquiring the life skills needed to succeed in the community and become law-abiding citizens. The three phases consist of Institution-Based Programs which the Department of Justice calls Protect and Prepare These programs are supposed to prepare offenders for their reentry into society and include education, mental health and substance abuse treatment, job training, mentoring and risk assessment. The second phase consists of community-based transition programs which the Department of Justice refers to as Control and Restore These programs are supposed to work with offenders just prior to and immediately after their release into society. This phase includes more prisoner specific measures including education, monitoring, life-skills training, assessment, job-skills development, and mental health and substance abuse treatment. The third and final phase consists of Community-Based Long-Term Support Programs which the government refers to as Sustain and Support, these programs are supposed to connect the former prisoners to other social service agencies and make them completely independent of the justice system. iv It is worth noting however that these are the department of Justice's recommendations for Prisoner Reentry and that not all state departments of Correction adhere to these guidelines, this fact contributes to the lack of success for reentry programs in some states and for success in others. Policy Problem: Do offender re-entry programs decrease recidivism rates among violent offenders while aiding long term rehabilitation? Analysts Problem: To determine whether or not offender re-entry programs have an effect on recidivism rates for violent offenders. If reentry programs are effective, what is the best method of implementation. How effective have re-entry programs been in reducing recidivism rates among violent offenders in states where the programs has already been implemented? To evaluate the effectiveness of juvenile reentry programs. To determine the costs and benefits of Offender re-entry program To determine from the prisoner's perspective what effect re-entry programs have on their transition back into society. To determine what externalities and implementation problems may arise from the implementation of offender re-entry programs. To evaluate alternative programs to combat recidivism among violent offenders. Background Information Federal Legislation Federal legislation has encouraged the creation and reauthorization of offender reentry programs. The Second Chance Act, passed in 2005, provides released prisoners with education, job training, substance abuse treatment, employment, and housing assistance in order to assist their successful transition into society. In addition, the Fighting Gangs and Empowering Youth Act of 2006 calls for the reauthorization of both adult and juvenile offender reentry programs. Federal legislation on the topic of offender reentry also includes a hearing sourced from the Judiciary Committee. This hearing, Serial No. 109-65, took place before the Subcommittees on Crime, Homeland Security, and Terrorism. It analyzed sector programs and methods of reducing recidivism of criminal offenders by aiding their reentry into society. (Lexis Nexis Congressional Universe) (See Appendix for additional federal legislation) In addition, federal funding for offender reentry assistance is provided by many governmental departments, including: the US Dept of Justice, US Dept. of Labor, US Dept of Health and Human Services, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, US Dept of Education, US Dept of Agriculture, US Dept of Commerce, US Dept of the Interior, US Dept. of Veterans Affairs, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, White House Office of Faith Based and Community Initiatives(Federal and National Resources (Reentry), US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs). The individual contributions of these departments and groups have resulted in a substantial amount of federal funding used to assist newly released offenders. In 2002, approximately 100 million dollars was issued to provide for and assist in offender reentry programs throughout the nation v State Legislation While examining the various ways states approach offender reentry programs, it is essential to distinguish between states that mandate various types of offender reentry programs or provisions through legislation and those that simply appropriate money (usually through the Dept. of Corrections) for offender reentry assistance and programs. Fifteen of fifty states have legislation regarding the presence or nature of offender reentry programs. California, Connecticut, Florida, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, Alabama, Georgia, Hawaii, Washington and Illinois have all passed legislation regarding some aspect of offender reentry. The majority of this legislation is targeted at the establishment and regulation of offender rehabilitation and reintegration programs in a broad sense. States falling under this category include California (Adult Offender Accountability Act), Florida, Kansas (Recodfication, Rehabilitation and Reintegration Project), Massachusetts (Mandatory Reentry Plan), Oklahoma, Virginia and Washington (Offender Accountability Act). Other states however target specific groups or aspects of offender reentry programs through legislation. For instance, both Alabama and Hawaii have laws requiring the development of gender specific reentry programs for female offenders. Other states, however, attempt to use legislation to improve the release environment for prisoners in order to increase chances for successful reintegration. For example, Illinois offers income tax credits for all wages paid to exoffenders, and New York offers full Medicaid benefits to newly released prisoners. Finally, other states (ex: Tennessee) have used legislation to initiate pilot reentry studies and evaluations to see which rehabilitation and reentry programs are most successful and where changes still need to be made. States that do not have specific legislation regarding reentry programs still appropriate a significant amount of state funding (usually through the Dept. of Corrections) toward offender reentry programs. All states provide at least one million dollars in funding for rehabilitation and reentry programs, with some states (such as California) providing up to three million dollars. The way in which these funds are directed varies broadly between states. The majority of states use funding to target high-risk offenders age 16-35. Others choose only to focus on juvenile rehabilitation and reentry programs. For a full outline and description of state funding and legislation please see Appendix Table 2. . Political Environment Expanders: Arguments in favor of Offender Re-entry Programs include a) that these programs help prepare released prisoners for their return to communities b) these programs can help ensure the communities' safety and reduce violent crime. vi c)reentry programs provide a way to decrease high recidivism rates and d) that reentry programs might cut state and federal expenditures in the criminal and judicial realms. Supporters include... The Christian Restorative Justice Mentors Association- The Christian Restorative Justice Mentors Association is an association made up of chaplains, churches, ministries, and coordinators who have volunteered to help prisoners transition into society after their release. The association supports offender reentry on the basis of providing ex offenders with a Biblically-based and faith-centered program of mentoring. vii The Re-entry Management Organization (RMO )- The RMO works toward the goals of reducing recidivism and giving former prisoners the opportunity for success in society. The organization has implemented task forces that include focus on medical issues, mentoring spiritual issues, education, career training, and community relations. viii The Prisoner Information Network- The Prisoner Information Network (PIN) works with prisoners while incarcerated and after their release in order to guide and support their re-entry into communities. The network works alongside the Department of Corrections and Workforce Services as well as other human services organizations in order to ease the prisoners' transition into society. PIN members address the concerns of prisoners and their families in order aid successful offender re-entry.ix Living in Truth- Living in Truth is a non-profit organization in the state of Arkansas whose primary long term goals are to establish a functional working community, and to effect a transition into society through resident farm programs. x President George W. Bush- In President George W. Bush's 2004 State of the Union Address, he explained that the problem of high recidivism rates is a result of the ex offenders' difficult transition into society after being released from prison. He proposed a four-year, $300 million initiative for prisoner reentry. This initiative would assist the released offenders in obtaining career training, housing, and mentoring.xi Congressional Supporters of the Second Chance Act- Proponents of prisoner reentry programs also include the sponsors of the Second Chance Act. These sponsors in the Senate include by Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Additional supports include former Rep. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones (D-Ohio) and Representative Danny Davis (D-Ill.), all who introduced the bill in the House. (http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/072506_oped1.html), The Department of Justice- Further support derives from the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice argues that, of the 650,000 people released from prison each year, nearly 32,5000 will be in some sort of legal trouble within the next three years. In order to combat this problem, the department has received and distributed numerous grants to states to devote towards reentry programs. xii Released ex-offenders- Supporters of offender reentry programs also include the released prisoners. Released prisoners believe that reentry programs are essential in preparing inmates for their transition into society by assisting them in practicalities of daily life outside of prison. They particularly express the need for programs that help ex offenders find new jobs, since workplaces are often uninterested in hiring released offenders. xiii Victims of violent crime. - Victims of violent crime often partake in victim/offender programs and work to strengthen the community into which the offenders will return. xiv Detractors: The primary group of detractors, or opponents, of rehabilitative reentry programs are those who hold a more authoritarian and paternalistic view on offender reentry. Rather than viewing the prisoner as an individual with rights and needs that warrant protection, proponents of this philosophy feel the necessary method of reentry is a corrections model that employs discipline and compliance with orders. This method aims to produce subdued, obedient prisoners, and does not give consideration to the needs or desires of the prisoner. Prisoners are released after essentially enduring a brainwashing period during incarceration, with their only tool for successful reentry being the looming threat of reincarceration. Proponents feel this is the optimal way to eliminate the negative effect of the prisoner on society and promote community safety. Oftentimes, those falling within this group of thought feel that rehabilitative programs are liberal, soft on crime initiatives. Corrections professionals have historically backed this line of thought, though recently this has been changing. Another argument against rehabilitative reentry programs is the view that this rehabilitative treatment actually works against offender rights. By possibly providing justice for longer incarceration periods and more intensive, mandatory institutional treatments, some believe that rehabilitative programs might actually mask a loss of justice and liberty for the offender. This claim, however, is not often backed by evidence of longer incarceration periods or harder treatment. xv Research Design a) Objectives: 1. How effective have Prisoner Reentry programs been in other states? (Will be evaluated using data from an article from Criminology and Public Policy entitled Good Intentions Meet Hard Realities: An Evaluation of Project Greenlight as well as charts from this article which evaluate the subjects. Furthermore an article entitled Prisoner Reentry: What Works and What Doesn't? will demonstrate the effectiveness of the various parts of prisoner reentry on recidivism rates.) http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1072403641&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4 &VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1163023034&clientId=842 4#fulltext Greenlight evaluation http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFO RMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid= 1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=49&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCI T Prisoner reentry 2. What are alternative programs to three phase reentry programs? (Will be evaluated using data from the article entitled A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Moreover, information and empirical data will be used from an article entitled Good Intentions Meet Hard Realities: An Evaluation of Project Greenlight. 3. What are the costs and benefits of reentry programs? (Will be evaluated using costbenefit data from a report done by Steve Aos, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoski, and Roxanne Lieb of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy entitled The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime 4. What effect do prisoner reentry programs have on the prisoner? (Will be evaluated using a study conducted by the Bureau of Govermental Research entitled Offender's Views of Reentry: Implications for Processes, Programs, and Services. As well as an article from Corrections today entitled Reentry Surveys: A Reality Check 5. What effect do juvenile reentry programs have on juvenile recidivism rates (Will be evaluated using information and empirical data from an article entitled Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents? from the Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 6. What are the implementation problems associated with prisoner reentry (Will be evaluated using an article from The Prison Journal entitled Prisoner Reentry: Public Safety and Reintegration Challenges. Also an article from Criminology and Public Policy, entitled Evidence based Policy for effective Prisoner Reentry. 7. What externalities can arise from the implementation of Prisoner Reentry programs? (will be evaluated using an article from The Prison Journal entitled Prisoner Reentry: Public Safety and Reintegration Challenges B) Methods Objective question 1 will be evaluated using Data from a study which looked at a variety of reentry programs including vocational work programs, drug rehabilitation programs, education programs, halfway house programs and prisoner prerelease programs, all of which are included in the Department of Justice's plan for prisoner reentry. These studies will help evaluate how effective reentry programs are at readying an ex-criminal for life in civil society and at preventing future arrests and or convictions. Objective Question 2 will be evaluated using data from James Bonta, Suzanne WallaceCapretta and Jennifer Rooney's A Quasi-Experimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program, to compare the recidivism rates for individuals who undergo reentry rehabilitation and those who do not. Further, the article Good Intentions Meet Hard Reatlities: An Evaluation of the Project Greenlight Reentry Program will be consulted to evaluate this unique program's effectiveness on offender reentry. Objective Question 3 will be evaluated using cost benefit data from a study conducted by the Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Data includes tables which outline the costs and benefits of individual prisoner reentry programs. From this data it is possible to conclude the costs and benefits of Prisoner reentry programs as well as the costs and benefits of individual alternative programs. Objective Question 4 will be evaluated using individual prisoner testimonies as to their feelings on prisoner reentry. Questions asked include overall feeling of reentry programs as well as what prisoner's feel are most important when being reintroduced into civil society. Furthermore a survey will demonstrate what prisoner's had the most difficulty with when being reintegrated into society. These difficulties illustrate the prisoner's views on what works and what does not work with offender reentry programs. Objective question 5 will be evaluated using meta-analysis techniques to synthesize the large body of empirical research on the effects of rehabilitative programs in community and institutional settings. This meta-analysis includes compared treatment and control conditions for delinquency outcome measures as well as a variety of studies that focus on serious and violent juvenile offenders. These studies will show what impace juvenile reentry programs have on juvenile recidivism rates. Objective Question 6 will be evaluated using studies which observed the implementation of reentry programs and evaluated the problems associated with their implementation, and the effect these implementation problems had on the individual prisoner and the community. Objective Question 7 will be evaluated using studies which observed the implementation of reentry programs and the externalities associated with the implementation of the programs. As well as using information derived from the impact that reentry programs have on the prisoner and the community at large. Research Results and Analysis: Reporting Results 1: There is a general consensus among those in the corrections department that rehabilitation and reentry programs have a positive impact in decreasing recidivism rates among convicted offenders. The dissention arises when it comes to what is the best way to implement a reentry program, and what sort of programs should be included in a comprehenisive reentry program initiative. xvi Multiple studies, including one control study conducted by Saylor and Gaes involving 7,000 federal prisoners, have shown that vocational and work programs are an effective method for reducing recidivism rates. Appendix 3 demonstrates the results of this study, those prisoners involved in UNICOR or VT Apprenticeships, which are both vocational programs, were much less likely to be rearrested or fail than those who had not been involved in such a program. Studies have also shown that Drug-Rehabilitation programs in the form of in-prison therapeutic communities (TCs) combined with after release care were also very effective at reducing recidivism. One such study by Wexler et al. evaluated New York City's TC Stay N Out, and found that high risk offenders who completed the program from in-prison therapeutic community to post-prison thereaputic community had only a 36 percent recidivism rate compared to the 86 percent recidivism rate of those who did not complete the program (See Appendix 4).xvii Similarly, Prisoner Pre-Release programs, which include in house education proved to be successful at reducing recidivism rates. An evaluation of Illinois Pre-start program demonstrated an 8 percent decrease among those who completed the program as compared to those who did not.xviii Furthermore, an evaluation done by LeClair and Guarino-Ghezzi, on Massachusetts's department of Corrections Furlough prerelease program showed a decrease in recidivism between 14.8 and 11.1 among those who completed the program when compared to those prisoners who did not participate in the program (See Appendix 5).xix Halfway houses also proved as an effective measure against recidivism. A study conducted by Seiter evaluated the Ohio halfway house program demonstrated that halfway houses were successful at reducing recidivism rates among the test population. xx Despite these individual successes, when New York attempted to implement its own comprehensive reentry program titled Project Greenlight, (GL) results were not so encouraging. Project Greenlight attempted to provide intensive transitional services in the eight week period immediately before they [prisoners] were released. It involved intensive multimodal treatment during incarceration and linked prisoners with families, community based service providers, and parole officers after their release. However, Project Greenlight did not employ any community follow up. The results demonstrated that GL was not as effective as other reentry programs such as New York State's Transitional Services Program (TSP). The evaluation demonstrated that GL's survival time was much less than that of TSP. (See Appendix 6). Reporting Results 2: Throughout the twentieth century, two primary philosophies have emerged as methods to reduce recidivism rates among released offenders. Essentially the two sides of this debate are a) that focus should be put upon deterrence and severe controls of offenders' liberties and rights and attention should be taken away from the needs of the offender and; b) that the answer to reduction in recidivism is offender rehabilitation and reentry programs (the focus of this paper). In a study by Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, and Rooney, the post-release recidivism rates for two groups of rehabilitated male offenders, and two groups of non-treated male offenders, were compared. The only method employed to prevent the non-treatment group from recidivism was deterrence through punishment and denial of liberties. Comparison of recidivism rates showed that, for high risk offenders, there was a 20% decrease in recidivism for the treatment group. However, for low-risk offenders, the intensive treatment actually increased recidivism rates for the treatment group by 17%. The two groups of offenders were alike in all relevant demographics and characteristics that could have affected recidivism rates. xxi Outside of simply abandoning reentry programs altogether, there exist various alternatives to the traditional three-phase program evaluated in this paper, that modify the program in some way either by omitting a phase, placing emphasis on different components of the program, or employing a sped-up version of the program. One such modified initiative was executed in New York City, called Project Greenlight. Project Greenlight attempted to provide intensive transitional services in the small amount of time prior to the offender's release. It involved intensive multimodal treatment during incarceration and linked prisoners with families, community based service providers and parole officers after their release. However, Project Greenlight did not employ any community follow up. The results demonstrated that GL was not as effective as other reentry programs such as New York State's Transitional Services Program (TSP) a three phase program. The evaluation demonstrated that GL's survival time was much less than that of TSP. (See Appendix 6). xxii Research Results 3: A report executed by Aos, Barowski and Lieb was utilized to assess the benefits of various forms of reentry programs in light of their projected costs. In this report, entitled The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, the benefit of a specific treatment program is defined as the effect size of reduction in criminality for a given treatment group compared to groups with no treatment. In addition to looking at the benefit of these treatments to crime victims (past and future), the benefit to tax-payers is also assessed to see how much benefit (crime reduction) tax payers receive for each dollar of taxes allocated to various crime reduction programs. The quantitative measure of benefit is calculated using known information about the process and costs of the juvenile and adult justice systems to calculate the benefit gained, to both taxpayers and crime victims, from the reduction of one unit of crime. So, to calculate the benefit of a particular program, the effect size of that program is first determined and then translated into a quantitative value using the above technique. The benefit is then compared to the costs of the program. The report by Aos et. al provided data on the cost and benefits of both juvenile and adult offender reentry programs. Overall, juvenile programs were far more cost beneficial than adult oriented programs. Some juvenile programs produced a cost benefit ratio of near $20 benefit in produced for every dollar in cost. The most effective juvenile programs were Multi-Systemic Therapy (net benefit benefits minus costs- between $31,661 and $131,918), Functional Family Therapy (net benefit between $14,149 and $59, 145), and MultiDimensional Family Care (net benefit between $21, 836 and $87, 622). The least cost effective methods of juvenile crime prevention were methods similar to Scared Straight programs (with a net benefit between $-6,572 and $-24,531). Adult rehabilitation and prevention techniques showed a general decrease in cost effectiveness from juvenile programs, but there were still some adult offender programs that produced good results. The most cost efficient treatments were non-prison therapeutic community programs (net benefit between $4,110 and $15,836), adult boot camps (net benefit between $9,822 and $10, 011), in-prison vocational education (net benefit between $2,835 and $12,017), correctional industries programs (net benefit between $1,147 and $9,413), and in-prison adult basic education (net benefit between $1,852 and $9,176). While these programs, when examined through cost-benefit analysis, generally seemed to be relatively effective programs, there were a few highly ineffective adult oriented programs. The most cost ineffective treatment for adults was surveillance-oriented intensive supervision, with net-benefits between -$2,250 and -$384. For a description of these treatments and programs please see Appendix Table 9. Reporting Results 4: In Taxman, Young and Byrne's survey of ex-offenders, many of the prisoners' views on what is necessary for reentry programs to be effective are brought to light. Of utmost importance in reentry is the return to family, friends and society at large. Prisoners report feeling intense pressure from the anticipation of how they will be received by the outside world and where their support system will come from. Associated with this is the challenge of finding a place to live after release. Many prisoners cannot depend on family or friends for help. Thus, support systems, such as transitional halfway housing (which is offered for up to 90 days free of charge), and social workers are reported as beneficial by the prisoners. Halfway houses are especially effective because they allow prisoners time to establish themselves while maintaining some space from family and friends while doing so. Equally essential for the offender is the availability of jobs that pay livable wages. Offenders report desire for decent wages and benefits, primarily health insurance. Beyond these tangible needs, prisoners expressed a desire for a clean slate. Due to the restrictions imposed on the civil liberties of offenders, prisoners found that their debt to society was, in fact, not paid by the time of their release. This inability to move-on was cited as one of the strongest barriers to successful reentry. Moreover, prisoners found it difficult to return to a society or neighborhood that had undergone significant changes while the offender was behind bars, causing them to feel even more distant and vulnerable upon return, and cited briefings on the changes in their communities as a positive element of their reentry program. Above all however, the prisoners expressed the need for basic elements of survival (a house, a job, food on the table and people to love) upon release. They need people to tell them how to attain and retain these needs upon release. Reporting Results 5: In the study Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents, Mark Lipsey integrates 200 studies evaluating the success rates of various types of rehabilitation and reentry initiatives for juvenile offenders. The study involved a control group (those receiving no reentry support) and various treatment groups (with the magnitude and type of treatment varying), and looked at how the treatment groups varied from the control group in recidivism rates. The comparative tool used in the study was a meta-analytical tool of effect size (the mean difference between the treatment group and the control group on the selected recidivism measure divided by the pooled standard deviation) (1). The effect size of a given treatment is essentially a measure of how much better success rates were for those in the treatment group than for those in the control group, measured in standard deviation units. Overall, Lipsey found that the mean recidivism value for individuals in treatment groups was .12 standard deviations below those receiving no rehabilitative or reentry treatment (1). This said, effect size varied widely across different studies. While the methods and procedure of the individual studies may have accounted for some of this variation, it is likely that the differences in the setting of the study (institutionalized versus non-institutionalized), and in the intensity and nature of the specific treatment, were the main source of variation (1). Lipsey found that the treatments with the most consistent, positive effects in non-institutionalized settings (effect size .42-.46) were individual counseling, interpersonal skills and behavioral programs (details of results in Appendix Table 7). And the treatments most effective for institutionalized juveniles were interpersonal skills, teaching family home, behavioral programs and community residential programs, (effect size ranging from .39 to .28) (1). In both settings, the least effective treatments were milieu therapy, wilderness or challenge, and early release (1). Please refer to Appendix Table 8 for a description of the primary types of intervention. xxiii Research Results 6: Implementation problems begin with finding what help the offender needs and encouraging him or her to partake in that program. According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy between 70 and 85 percent of inmates need drug rehabilitation, however, according to a study conducted by McCaffery only 13 percent receive any such treatment. xxiv Furthermore, a study conducted by Lynch and Sabol found that between 1991 and 1997 there was a five percent drop in vocational training participation among prisoners and an eight percent drop in educational program participation. (see appendix 10) Implementation problems associated with prisoner reentry also include obtaining jobs for prisoners once they enter society. This problem is caused by the concerns of employers about hiring ex-offenders. According to a study conducted by Holzer sixty five percent of employers said they would not knowingly hire an ex-offender. xxv The employers who do elect to hire an exoffender are taking a risk when hiring them; the employers can be held legally responsible for any violent acts of property loss caused by employees. Although offender reentry programs emphasize the significance of reducing recidivism by helping ex-offenders to obtain jobs, employers are unhappy that few actions have been taken to safeguard them. This fact may result in employers who try to avoid hiring released prisoners altogether. xxvi Reporting results 7: There is a wide array of positive and negative externalities associated with offender reentry programs. Negative Externalities include increased unemployment among the general population, and among those in the general population who are trying to get off welfare. As well as the potential for increased crime in the communities where prisoners are released. Positive externalities include the potential for a long term reduction in crime in the neighborhood where the prisoner returns. Prisoner reentry programs increase unemployment within the community where the offenders are released. According to a study conducted by the National Institute for Literacy 70 percent of prisoners released function in the bottom two levels in prose and numeric literacy. This fact makes it very difficult for released prisoners to obtain jobs. According to a study by the California department of corrections, one year after being released almost 60 percent of former inmates were not yet part of the normal work force, despite the aid of offender reentry programs.xxvii Reentry Programs could also lead to an increase in crime in the community if unsuccessful, and employer who elect to hire prior offenders are taking a risk by allowing a former criminal into their establishment risking theft. Furthermore, it is likely that recently released offenders and members of the population on welfare would be competing for similar jobs. Thus, the release of prisoners back into society with job finding assistance could give the ex-prisoners and edge in obtaining jobs, making it harder for those on welfare to get off it. Also, it is possible for reentry programs to be inefficient in distributing rehabilitative efforts. For example, if the state pays for a drug rehabilitation program for all soon to be realeased prisoners, and some prisoners do not have a drug problem, that would be a waste of tax payer money and state resources. However, it is also possible for prisoner reentry programs, if successful, to reduce crime in the neighborhood where the prisoner resides, through both lowering recidivism rates and having one or two ex-prisoners educating the community's youth about prison and the hardships and horrors that go along with imprisonment. It is possible for prisoners who are truly changed by the reentry process to not only avoid commiting another crime, but to also have a positive impact on the community's youth and reduce crime for future generations. Prisoner reentry programs also provide the community with an influx in labor force for lower wage jobs which a majority of Americans would not want to perform. Analysis: The research shows that when implemented correctly offender reentry programs are effective at reducing recidivism rates among both juvenile and adult offenders. Results have shown that effective programs are ones that are comprehensive, begin prisoner rehabilitation during incarceration, follow the prisoner through his release, and keep track of the prisoner for a period of time during his or her transition back into society. Specific component programs that have been shown to be empirically successful in reduction of recidivism rates include vocational work programs, drug rehabilitation programs, pre-release education programs, halfway house programs, and interpersonal skills training. Each of these programs has demonstrated success in reducing recidivism among offenders and easing the transition from prison to civil society. The research on prisoner's views of reentry shows that in order for offender reentry programs to be both successful and efficient they should be tailored to the prisoner's needs, and should target the areas where prisoners feel most vulnerable. Specifically, programs need contain strategies for dealing with the top concerns of prisoners: reentry into society and reunion with family and friends, job security, and a sense of moving-on. Consideration of offender needs enhances offender's faith in the program while allowing the program to be run efficiently and reduces costs for both the tax payers and the state. The research also showed that juvenile recidivism rates are also greatly affected by reentry programs. However, like adult offender reentry programs, the success of juvenile reentry programs is sensitive to the particular components of the program. Interpersonal skills, behavioral programs, community residential programs and individual counseling all produced positive results and should be considered for inclusion in successful reentry programs. However, some program types should be avoided all together as they were shown to lead to an increase in recidivism rates, most notably: early release programs. If executed correctly the research demonstrated that the benefits of introducing juvenile offender reentry legislation far exceeded the costs. The research shows that alternative programs include programs which focus on the denial of liberties and strict restrictions to deter future offenses, as well as accelerated less costly reentry programs such as New York's Project Greenlight. However, when the success of reentry for high-risk offenders was compared between groups of individuals who received rehabilitative reentry treatment, and those who did not, a huge reduction in recidivism was seen for the treatment group, implying its success. Effective reentry programs also hinge on the patience of the state and tax payers being patient with the process. The research shows that reentry programs which are rushed, and leave out important elements (like extended support after release), such as New York's Project Greenlight, are far less effective than programs which take an extended, comprehensive approach to prisoner rehabilitation. Costs and Benefits: One of the most important findings from Aos, et.al's report on the respective costs and benefits of various programs directed toward crime reduction was that, on the whole, juvenile offender rehabilitation programs are far more cost beneficial than adult rehabilitation programs. This suggests that intensive rehabilitation of juveniles may be a cost effective strategy for crime reduction. Moreover, increasing the intensity of juvenile rehabilitation may reduce the need for adult offender reentry programs, which are less cost effective. Moreover, based on cost-benefit results alone, the most effective strategies for rehabilitation of juveniles were multi-systemic therapy, functional family therapy and multidimensional therapy. These findings suggest that developers would be well served financially to structure their treatments around these successful strategies. However, not all juvenile reentry/rehabilitation strategies proved to be cost beneficial. Scared straight programs produced significant losses in benefit return. Steering programs away from these types of punishment or deterrent-model strategies would be financially advisable. While juvenile programs had higher cost benefit returns on the whole, there were some adult reentry strategies and programs that were significantly effective, viewed through a cost benefit lens. Non-therapeutic community programs, in-prison vocational education, correctional industries programs and in-prison adult basic education programs were all seen to produce high benefit to cost returns. Focusing on the inclusion of these programs in adult offender reentry should produce maximum results, and should also ensure that all money being put into offender reentry is being used as effectively as possible. Also of interest was the fact that surveillanceoriented intensive supervision produced net benefits between up to -$2,250, suggesting this method should be avoided on a cost-benefit basis. The cost benefit evaluation for the alternative of offering no reentry program is viewed by acknowledging the fact that the cost of incarceration for an individual is immensely larger than the cost of providing an individual with a reentry program. Moreover, because, as determined by our reported research results, the likelihood of recidivism and reincarceration is much higher for prisoners who were not entered into a rehabilitative reentry program, it is likely that large costs will be expended and few benefits will be received by institutions that fail to offer rehabilitative reentry programs. While no information was available for the costs and benefits of Project Greenlight, it can be inferred that costs were likely less than those for full three-phase programs, being that Greenlight was abbreviated and also omitted an entire phase. However, Greenlight also was not a successful project so it can not be inferred that this project was more cost beneficial than other offender reentry initiatives that may have been more expensive, but also more successful. Externalities and Implementation Problems of Three phase Prisoner Reentry Programs: There is a wide array of externalities and implementation problems that could accompany the implementation of a three phrase prisoner reentry program. Externalities include prisoners who have just been reentered into the community taking the jobs of those citizens living in poverty who are trying to come off welfare. This is a very distinct possibility since recently released prisoners and welfare recipients would be competing for similar level jobs in the job market. These reentry programs through encouraging the prisoners to obtain jobs could in turn increase the amount of unemployed people on welfare. Also, those employers who do employ ex-prisoners are taking on a risk by hiring former prisoners. Theft could result from such hirings, and thus local businesses could be adversely affected by the reentry of prisoners into the community. Implementation problems include obtaining and evaluating each prisoners needs and getting him the treatment he or she needs. Also, sometimes prisoners are resistant to to treatment, and implementation problems can arise in forcing the prisoners to undergo the necessary treatement and not onlt getting the prisoners to endure the treatment, but to embrace the ideals that the treatment sets forth. Externalities of the alternative policy of not creating a reentry program include increased prison costs and an increase in violence in prison with continued increase in recidivism rates once the prisoners are released. Externalities and Implementation problems of Alternative Programs As with Three phased reentry programs, there are many externalities and implementation problems associated with both deterrence method rehabilitation and modified reentry programs such as project greenlight. Deterrent based rehabilitation risks creating resentment among prisoners both against the system and against the free public. This can lead to an increase in crime once the prisoners enter society as a way for the prisoners to get back at the institution they feel wronged them. Also, this program while not necessarily difficult to implement could potentially violate the prisoners constitutional rights and could be very difficult to monitor. Modified reentry programs also pose the risk of increasing recidivism among offenders as project greenlight demonstrated, due to a lack of attention and care while reintroducing the prisoner into society. The implementation problems associated with modified or shortened reentry programs are that it is hard to successfully rehabilitate a prisoner in such a short time frame, and often these programs risk failure. Conclusions Conclusions regarding proposed policy: The research has demonstrated that when implemented correctly three phase reentry programs are an effective measure against recidivism in both juvenile and adult offenders. An effective three phase program is one that begins rehabilitating the prisoner while incarcerated through prerelease education programs, vocational work programs, and drug programs, and continues monitoring and aiding the prisoner throughout his release and during his first few months in society, while helping the prisoner obtain a job, and assisting with continued rehabilitation efforts. This particular structure of reentry program is comprised of component programs (i.e. vocational programs) that experience high cost benefit returns. Conclusions regarding alternative policies Alternative policies such as rehabilitation through deterrence and modified three phase programs appear to be ineffective at reducing recidivism rates among offenders. Though sometimes less costly (Project Greenlight), these programs appear to have far less social benefit than comprehensive three phase offender reentry initiatives. Reccomendations Based on the previous research and analysis, the following recommendation is offered. The most effective reentry program Senator Paige could adopt would be composed of a drug rehabilitation program (for those who need it), a pre-release education program, vocational training, and halfway house programs, and would follow and support prisoners for the few months after release. Moreover, special consideration and effort should be given to the implementation of comprehensive juvenile reentry programs that offer counseling, behavior programs and community programs as these are the absolute most cost effective ways of reducing overall crime (more cost effective than adult programs). Introduction of strong juvenile programs will reduce future recidivism rates, decrease crime and will likely eliminate some of the costs associated with increasing rates of incarceration. Implementing a program with these provisions would be very effective at reducing recidivism rates among offenders. Their cost-effective nature would allow maximized benefit and impact for every dollar of state spending dedicated to the reentry program. Various types of offender reentry and effectiveness Prisoner reentry: what works what does not, and what is promising by seiter and kadela One we're using is the three phase step from department of justice/RPI Voacational work programs Drug rehabilitation Education programs Halfway house programs In house programs Cognative behavior therapy for violent offenders Project Greenlight (NY) http://www.nicic.org/Library/018036 National institute of corrections site http://www.nicic.org/Library/018036 Offender's perspectives on offender reentry http://www.bgr.umd.edu/pdf/may_2003_offenderviews.pdf http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORM AT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIR STINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=49&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT For question 6!!!!!!!!!!! http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/81/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFO RMAT=1&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid= 1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&volume=81&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCI T Prison Journal Article What effect does prisoner reentry have on those employing the former prisoners? http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1127981541&SrchMode=1&sid=2&Fmt=3 &VInst=PROD&VType=PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1162421631&clientId=842 4 Evidence based Policy for effective Prisoner Reentry. What are the other factors that affect reintegration and rehabhilitation into society? i (Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways) Snyder, Howard N., and Sickmund, Melissa. 2006. Juvenile Offenders and Victims: 2006 National Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. ii iii iv http://www.svori-evaluation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_initiative_background http://www.reentry.gov/learn.html v http://www.epinet.org/workingpapers/wp125.pdf). vi http://www.crjma.org/index.cfm/MenuItemID/133.htm) vii http://www.crjma.org/index.cfm/MenuItemID/133.htm viii http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:0o6YyH9bmIUJ:www.co.lancaster.pa.us/lanco/cwp/view.asp%3FA%3D554% 26Q%3D575970+%22re-entry+management+organization%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 ix http://www.prisonernetwork.com/ x xi http://www.livingintruth.org/our_purpose.htm http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:d5vbceQp5WQJ:www.uscourts.gov/fedprob/September_2004/bookshelf.html+ 2004+presidential+state+of+the+union+prison+offender+reentry&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=2 xii http://www.reentry.gov/ xiii (from Testament of Former Felon on Reentry System--South Bend Tribune Corporation) xiv http://www.appa-net.org/manual.pdf xv Rotman, Edgardo. Do Criminal Justice Offenders Have a Constitutional Right to Rehabilitation? (1986). The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology. Vol.77, No.4. 10231068. xvi http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1072403641&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType =PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1163023034&clientId=8424#fulltext xvii http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/84/1/106 xviii http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexactt itle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&vol ume=49&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT xix http://www.heinonline.org/HOL/Page?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jquart8&id=34 &size=2&isize=L&rot=0&type=image xx http://cad.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/49/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexactt itle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&vol ume=49&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT page 19 xxi Bonta, James, Wallace-Capretta, Suzanne and Rooney, Jennifer. (2000). A QuasiExperimental Evaluation of an Intensive Rehabilitation Supervision Program. Criminal Justice and Behavior. Vol.27, No. 3. 312-329. xxii http://proquest.umi.com/pqdweb?index=0&did=1072403641&SrchMode=1&sid=3&Fmt=4&VInst=PROD&VType =PQD&RQT=309&VName=PQD&TS=1163023034&clientId=8424#fulltext xxiii 1) Lipsey, Mark W., (1999) Can Intervention Rehabilitate Serious Delinquents? Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 564. p. 150 157. xxiv http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/81/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexactti tle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&vol ume=81&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT page 4 xxv http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/81/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexactti tle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&vol ume=81&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT page 8 xxvi article from Criminology and Public Policy, entitled Evidence based Policy for effective Prisoner Reentry. ) xxvii http://tpj.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/81/3/360?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&andorexactti tle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&vol ume=81&firstpage=360&resourcetype=HWCIT

Find millions of documents here - Study Guides, Homework Solutions, Papers, Exam Answer Keys and more. Course Hero has millions of course related materials that will enable you to learn better, faster and get an A in all your courses.
Below is a small sample set of documents: