TACKLING RECIDIVISM

This piece from The Economist of Britain describes several good programs in our country that offer help for ex-prison inmates. For those inmates released on parole, it must be noted that PROTECTION OF THE PULIC is the primary purpose of parole and any disposition in the supervision of parolees must take that factor into special consideration.

THEY ALL COME HOME
Effective re-entry programs can keep ex-prisoners out of jail

The Economist
April 20, 2011

JEN KWONG NG was released in June after serving 20 years in a prison in upstate New York. Desperate for work, he reconnected with the old “friends” who had got him into trouble in the first place. He had just met them in the park when his phone rang. It was Harlem’s Exodus Transitional Community offering him an internship. “I told my boyz”, remembers Mr Ng, “I gotta go. I gotta go to work.”

Exodus helps ex-prisoners to get back on their feet. The numbers needing help are staggering. One in every 100 American adults is in prison or jail, one in 31 is under correctional supervision—and after their release, most will find themselves back behind bars. According to a new Pew report, 43% of American offenders are returned to state prison within three years of their release. The recidivism rate varies from state to state: 45% in Alaska and just 4.7% in Montana. But of the 301 people who completed the Exodus program in 2010, only nine went back to prison.

Unless they are offered a good re-entry program, prospects are bleak for those returning home. Drug and alcohol abuse is the norm, and a quarter of prisoners have mental-health problems. Few have finished high school. Many have bad work histories. And a criminal record reduces the likelihood of employment, by as much as 57% for black applicants.

Most prisoners are released back to their neighborhoods, but these are often ill equipped to deal with them. East Harlem receives more than its fair share: some 2,200 people are released on parole in Upper Manhattan each year. Within one seven-block stretch—from East 126th Street to 119th Street, dubbed “corridor for re-entry”—one in 20 men have spent time in prison. Exodus lies in the heart of convict alley, says Julio Medina, its founder.

Newark, New Jersey is even bleaker. A quarter of Newark’s 280,000 residents have at some point been “involved” with the criminal-justice system. To reverse this, Cory Booker, the mayor, together with the Manhattan Institute, a think-tank, set up the Office of Re-entry, which focuses on work. Former inmates can walk into City Hall and ask for help in getting a job. Since the program began in 2008, 60% of those who took part in it have managed to find work. Only 10% have reoffended.

Charles Hynes, Brooklyn’s district attorney, also sees jobs as essential. Fed up with putting the same people away time after time, in 1999 he created ComAlert (Community and Law Enforcement Resources Together) to act as a bridge between prison and the community for parolees returning to Brooklyn. “We welcome people home,” he says. “And we want to keep them there.”

He joined forces with the Doe Fund’s “Ready, Willing and Able” program, which provides jobs, such as street cleaning, for a weekly stipend. Later on, ex-inmates can train in food preparation or pest control. According to a Harvard study, Com Alert parolees are 30% less likely to be re-arrested than parolees who have not been through the program.

ComAlert also offers drug treatment and counseling. This is crucial. Nearly a third of state and a quarter of federal prisoners commit crimes while under the influence. The Center for Court Innovation found that re-arrest rates dropped by 64% for those who had completed at least 90 days of court-ordered drug treatment.

In Hawaii, HOPE (Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement) also focuses on drug treatment. It deters drug use by insisting on regular drug screenings and threatening short stays in jail. Probationers taking part in HOPE are 55% less likely to be arrested for a new crime. Similar schemes are being piloted or considered in Alaska, California and Alabama.

Over the past 30 years, the emphasis in correction supervision has been on surveillance. As a result, the number of people sent back to prison for parole violations increased seven-fold from 1980 to 2000. In 2009 parole violators accounted for a third of all state prison admissions.

Arizona is one of the states trying to do something about this. People on probation there can earn up to 20 days off supervision for every 30 days they show progress and compliance. Since 2008, the number of probationers returning to prison has fallen by 28% and the number with a new felony conviction by 31%. Had the rate of reoffending remained at 2008 levels, Arizona would have had to spend $35.9m in 2010 and up to $3 billion would have been needed to build new prisons.

The cost to taxpayers is enormous. More than $60 billion each year is spent on prisons and jails. A year’s stay at a state prison costs about $45,000—Harvard would be cheaper. State correction spending in America has increased over the past 20 years from $10 billion to more than $50 billion. Almost 90% of voters favour reducing prison time and creating a stronger probation and parole system. The Pew report found that if states could reduce their reoffending rates by 10%, more than $635m could be saved in prison costs. One report estimated that New York would save $3.2m for every 100 people who do not return to prison.

In 2008 George Bush signed the Second Chance Act, which hoped to break the cycle of reoffending and, at the same time, increase public safety and rebuild families (more than half of prisoners are parents). But most of the innovation has been at state and local level. A recent report from the Council of State Governments Justice Center, which highlighted programs that were working well, argued that adhering to four principles would greatly help to lower costly recidivism rates.

First, the focus should be on the people most likely to re-offend, since early intervention is crucial. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 30% of all re-arrests occur within the first six months of freedom. Second, programs should be based on scientific evidence and measurable outcomes. With this in mind, the Urban Institute and John Jay College are working to develop a library to compare re-entry practices, programs and policies. Third, community supervision must improve. Fourth, ex-prisoners must get support in their own neighborhoods rather than looking to centrally-based institutions.

The principles are not radical. “But they do work,” says Frank Wolf, a Virginia congressman who held congressional hearings about re-entry. That is reassuring, since 95% of people in state prisons will one day return to their communities.