Has America Abandoned the Concept of Rehabilitation?

August 3, 2009

New Research Shows A Record Number of “Lifers” in Prisons

It seems that the U.S. has abandoned the concept of rehabilitating criminal offenders. Instead, states are throwing away the book by enacting tough mandatory minimum sentencing laws. To make matters worse, parole boards are apparently reluctant to grant parole even to those who are eligible.

A recent article in The New York Times highlights this situation by noting that there are more prisoners serving life sentences in the U.S. than ever before. There are reportedly 140,610 lifers amongst America’s 2.3 million prison inmates, according to the Sentencing Project, up from 34,000 in 1984.

That’s a 6,664.706 % increase in only 25 years!

The states with the most lifers are California, Alabama, Massachusetts, Nevada, and New York. California’s prison system, the largest in the nation with 170,000 inmates, has 34,164 lifers alone.

It seems that the goal of incarceration in this country is no longer rehabilitation but “lifetime isolation and incapacitation,” according to one person quoted in the article.

Although those who’ve received life terms are generally violent criminals, this is indicative of the way America now deals with all of its offenders. Even non-violent offenders can be hit with “three strikes” sentences that incarcerate them for decades.

There are ways to cope with offenders, particularly those convicted of non-violent and drug-related offenses, that will minimize the negative impact on communities while decreasing the massive expense of locking up everyone. Community supervision is an option that is too often overlooked.

New York State spends $44,000 annually to incarcerate each offender compared to a fraction of that to supervise an offender in the community on probation or parole. The cost is even higher in New York City – a whopping $59,900 to jail an offender for one year.

America Works believes that the best way to break the cycle of recidivism is to prepare ex-offenders for employment, then give them the tools they need to become self-sufficient.

Over the past nine years, we have placed approximately 20,000 ex-offenders in jobs in New York City. When newly released prisoners are referred to us, we provide them with targeted training as well as a resume, appropriate clothing, and car fare, then arrange for job interviews.

In Newark, N.J., where a similar program has been under way for just over 12 months, the recidivism rate for our participants is 2.5%. That’s a small fraction of the state-wide average of 51%, according to the “Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Final Report” by the Rutgers University School of Criminal Justice.

Job placement programs such as this one actually benefit the state, the county, and the city. Moving ex-offenders into employment decreases the burden on expensive state programs such as welfare and food stamps while simultaneously increasing income tax revenues. But it has social benefits that aren’t easily quantified such as keeping families together and providing better nutrition to children – benefits that are easy to believe in.

Advertisements

Work and Reducing Recidivism: What Do We Know?

April 14, 2009

Originally Posted On The California Progressive Report

Date: April 14, 2009, http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/04/work_and_reduci.html

When Dr. Lee Bowes, the CEO of America Works, and I asked that question nine years ago, we were surprised to find that we knew precious little. This question came about because we believe work is a powerful tool in rehabilitation and we were considering mounting a program for ex-offenders to test its impact.

We consulted experts and think tanks, but it was upon meeting with Professor John Diulio at the University of Pennsylvania that we decided to initiate a program. He said, ”Where welfare-to-work was when you started America Works in 1984, that’s where prison-to-work is now — practically nowhere.“ He encouraged us to start our program because of the success of our welfare-to-work programs.

Since then in New York, Oakland, Newark and Baltimore, we have placed over 25.000 ex-offenders into private-sector jobs. Take Oakland as an example: At the one year mark, the recidivism rate among our participants is 6% while the state’s is 38%.

Similar results are found in our other cities. In Newark, NJ, for instance, our recidivism rate is 2.5%. While this is very encouraging, it is by no means definitive. Self-selection of the candidates might well have skewed the results.

Therefore, America Works — with the initiation of The Manhattan Institute — has begun a control/experimental study in New York. Funded by The Smith Richardson Foundation and researched by Public Private Ventures, in two years a study determining the impact of work on recidivism will publish its findings.

The potential impact on parole reform and the rest of the criminal justice system could be staggering. As an example, if the study finds that for $5,000 we can keep someone from returning to an approximate $40,000 a year bed in a prison, the cost savings to states could be substantial. Moreover, the reduction in crime and fighting parole violations would also be significant.

In a report published in 2001, Work as a Turning Point for Criminal Offenders, Christopher Uggen and Jeremy Staff reviewed studies conducted on the role of employment in reducing recidivism. They found that “high-quality work can further reduce rates of recidivism for adult workers.” Furthermore, they summarized their research as follows: “We can reach the following provisional conclusion: Post-release employment and training programs, especially those providing jobs of moderate or high quality, are particularly promising for reducing recidivism among older and drug-involved offenders. We are hesitant to conclude, however, that work programs are as beneficial for younger offenders…We suggest further experimentation (perhaps involving pre-employment skills or work habits training) for younger offenders in the correctional population.” That is exactly what America Works is doing by participating in a study determining the impact of work on the recidivism rate.

Unfortunately, the report by Uggen and staff was not one advocates could take to the policy bank and use as a catalyst to reform our parole policies. Currently, there is just not enough hard evidence to support massive new public expenditures for parolee-to-work programs. On the other side, many argue that studies showed little or no impact of work on the recidivism rate. Further, as with our data to date at America Works, there were few control/experimental studies to fully justify a finding that work alone reduces the recidivism rate. Lastly, not one of the studies instituted a control for either the design of the treatment, or the quality of the programs that delivered the training and work.

In my 45 years in this field, the major drawback of the research by organizations like MDRC or Mathmatica, (the premiere research outfits in the social sciences on work) was their failure to study the capacities of the deliverers of the programs. It would be as if two cars, a Porche and a Volkswagen, were pitted against each other in a race with no attention to their relative capacities.

I have been mystified at the consideration given to the socioeconomic and psychic variables of the parolees, but so little to the quality of those supposedly offering the training and work. In a forthcoming article, I will address the fact that many vendors are paid to run a program, not paid for their results; thus, that is the main reason why so many fail in reducing the recidivism rate. If you pay for performance, you get results and accountability with those results. If you pay for a program without demanding a performance contract, you get a wide range of results from failure to success.

We know from empirical evidence that putting a parolee to work is a major factor in preventing recurring crime. Soon we will have the hard research evidence that proves this is the case. Finally, I predict the research will publish results stating that the way to reduce recidivism is to establish a program based on a performance contract in which the program is only paid when the offenders get jobs and remain employed.

Peter Cove is the Founder of America Works, a national company securing work for offenders, veterans and other hard to place workers.


What Welfare Reform Teaches Us About Reforming Parole

April 6, 2009

peter_cove.jpgPeter Cove
Founder, America Works

Originally Posted On:  The California Progressive Report 4/6/09

Link: http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/04/what_welfare_re.html

Does anyone dispute the fact that welfare caseloads fell by 60% over the last 12 years in large part because work requirements became mandatory?

Prior to the reform of welfare by Congress in 1996, entitlement to cash assistance was a right for single mothers and little was expected in return. With the passage of the welfare reform bill, equal participation in the workforce from the recipients of welfare was required. Work was introduced as the reciprocal responsibility for welfare benefits. This established a quid pro quo in welfare, which changed the game from a handout to a workout.

This change resulted in many unintended consequences having residual benefits for the children, the mothers, and the private sector. Studies have shown that the benefits far outnumbered the costs for the children whose mothers went to work. Furthermore, when working, mothers also suffered from less mental illness and depression with their self-esteem, as well, as their family income increasing.

The private sector experienced an influx of previously discarded workers willing to take vacant jobs and move up in companies that were ready to accept them. More importantly, previously dependent receivers of government assistance were now paying taxes.

As the requirement for work reshaped welfare, might it do the same for parole? The question is this: might parole be improved by mandating the same type of work requirements introduced into welfare? Few would argue that parole works well. With over 70% of prisoners released returning to prison in 3 years in California, there clearly is something amiss in the parole system. Revamping parole from its losing game, to one where work becomes the central policy for re-entry may well be the ticket to successful reform.

Such a proposal was made last year in a groundbreaking paper for The Brookings Institute written By Professor Larry Mead of NYU. In it, Professor Mead argues that to reduce recidivism the correction system must become more accountable for how its turns out its clients. The notion is for parole to become work centered, with participation in the workforce determinate of continued freedom for the parolee. Surprisingly, of those returning to prison, 67% are due to technical violations of their parole. A technical violation means, they have in some way run afoul of their parole requirements. They might have gone to another state for a day. They might have forgotten or purposely missed a meeting with their parole officer. Nonetheless, these people have not committed any new crimes. In other words, they have in the plain interpretation of the law violated their parole conditions. But, only in rare instances have they become enough of a risk to the public to warrant re-incarceration.

By requiring parolees enter the workforce as a condition of freedom the role of the parole officer would change as did that of the case manager in welfare. Prior to welfare reform, the case manager was primarily responsible for enforcing rules as to who was eligible for grants. Often, they would encourage welfare mothers to have more children in order to increase their take-home income. Sadly, case managers seldom encouraged welfare recipients to work. Their responsibilities were, in a way prior to welfare reform, no different from those of parole officers today.

They both monitor conformity to regulations. But what if parole officers saw their job as helping returning felons enter the workforce? What if showing up to work was the measure of good compliance rather than arriving at the parole officer’s office on time; a time, by the way, that almost always conflicts with keeping a full time job?

Studies have shown, the therapeutic value of work, as well as, the income earned is enormous. By reforming parolee, there would be re-incarceration for criminal offenses, but technical violations would be reduced to work violations. The benefit to society would be a precipitously drop in recidivism. In an article to come, I will look at the connection between the drop in recidivism to employment.

Peter Cove is the Founder of America Works, a national company securing work for offenders, veterans and other hard to place workers.