Prepared by: Dr. Rudy J. Cypser, CURE-NY,
The New York Chapter of: Citizens United for the Rehabilitation of Errants,
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report focuses on only two of these six benefit areas: less crime (and hence less crime costs) and less prison operational expenses.
This report shows that the potential net savings in these two areas, from the broader use of rehabilitation programs, amount to
This report examines the potential savings from four types of rehabilitation programs:
1. Diversions from prison to community-based Intermediate Sanctions. Including alcohol/drug treatment and education.
net savings projected to be over $1.8 billion per year nationally
and over $135 million per year in NY State
2. Post-Secondary Correctional Education.
net savings projected at over $0.6 billion per year nationally
and over $45 million per year in NY State
3. 3-Stage Rehabilitation Programs, involving (1) prison-based alcohol/drug treatment and education, (2) reintegration in community-based intermediate sanctions, and (3) out-patient parole-based aftercare.
net savings projected to be over $1.3 billion per year nationally
and over $100 million per year in NY State
4. Earned Rehabilitation Incentive Programs, with somewhat earlier release after successful, extensive, rehabilitation programs.
net savings projected to be over $1.1 billion per year nationally
and over $88 million per year in NY State
i) Only 10% of those headed for prison each year were assumed to be allocated to diversion programs for alcohol/substance abuse treatment, even though 70-80% of entrants are estimated to have alcohol or drug problems.1
ii) Only 5% of those being released from prison each year were assumed to be allocated to post secondary correctional education, since about 75% currently are released without even a high school diploma or a GED .2
iii) Only 15% of those released from prison each year were assumed to have been allocated to 3 Stage rehabilitation programs even though 70-80% reportedly have this need. With modest earlier release incentives, it is assumed that the participation rate could be increased by another 5%. The 3 Stage programs involve both alcohol or drug treatment and education, followed by reintegration in community-based, intermediate sanctions, and then out-patient aftercare.
When relatively conservative assumptions are used, large potential savings, approaching $5 billion per year, directly due to rehabilitation programs, result. Greater savings projections would result from less conservative assumptions.
CONTENTS
1. Diversion to Intermediate Sanctions:
This alternative to incarceration yields net savings of more than $45 million per 1000 offenders completing the program, and an estimated potential net savings of at least $1.8 billion per year nationally, and at least $135 million per year in NY State. Each dollar spent on these programs yields at least 2.6 dollars in gross savings, in operating costs and crime costs alone.
i-1) Lower Operational Costs of Alternatives to Prison
The DTAP program, for example, costs $18,000/inmate/year (vs. $28,000/year for prison), providing a 36% saving in costs over incarceration. Operational net savings for an average 18 month program are thus: ($28m-$18m)(1.5) = $15 million 3 per 1000 offenders completing the program.
i-2) Value of Reduced Recidivism and hence Less Post Release Incarceration
NYS DTAP reports a 27% difference in recidivismb from that of the control group. To be very conservative, assume a recidivism-difference of only 15%, and an average of a 2 year new sentence for those recidivating,
For every 1000 offenders completing the Alternative to Prison program:
Savings from lower operational costs of the alternative
plus
Savings from lower recidivism and less post-release incarceration
= $15m + $9.5m = $24.5 million
per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) Assuming 400,000 persons enter state and federal prisons each year, and that only 10% of those entering prison (or 40,000) would benefit from DTAP-like programs, the potential operational net savings from nationwide DTAP-like diversionary programs is in the neighborhood of: (40)($24.5m) = $980 million per year
iii) With 10%, of the 30,000 entering NYS prisons each year, in DTAP-like programs, the corresponding NY State net savings in operational costs are: (3)($24.5m) = $73.5 million per year
i) The savings in crime costs per 1000 completing DTAP-like programs amount to: > ($46,000)(1000)(.15)(3) = $20.7 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) The potential national savings in crime costs due to completion of DTAP-like programs, by 10% of the 400,000 entering prisons nationally each year, amount to: > (40)(20.7m) = $828 million per year
iii) The corresponding NY State savings in crime costs, due to completion of DTAP like programs by 10% of the 30,000 entering New York State prisons per year, is: > (3)(20.7m) = $62.1 million per year
The combination of NY State operational net savings and NY State lower-crime savings ($73.5 million per year plus $62.1 million per year) yields a NY State net savings, from 15% participation in Diversion and Rehabilitation Programs, of $135.6 million per year.
2. Post Secondary Correctional Education (PSCE)
PSCE yields net savings of more than $30 million per 1000 offenders completing the program, and estimated potential net savings of at least $606 million per year nationally, and at least $45 million per year in NY State. Every dollar spent on these programs yields at least 4 dollars in gross savings from lower operating costs and lower crime-costs alone.
Factoring in a $2,500 cost for each year of PSCE, per inmate25, yields a 4 year cost of: ($2,500)(4)(1000) = $10.0 million per year, which reduces the net savings per 1000 inmates produced by PSCE to: $12.7m - $10.0m = $2.7 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) Assuming 400,000 offenders7 released nationally each year, of which only 5% (or 20,000) could participate in PSCE, the reduction in national operational costs due to lower recidivism with PSCE is: (20)($2.7m) = $54 million per year.
iii) The corresponding reduction in NY State operating costs with PSCE for 5% of the 30,000 offenders (or 1,500) released in NY State each year, is: (1.5)($2.7m) = $4.05 million per year.
i) The PSCE program reduces crime costs by: > ($46,000)(1000)(.20)(3) = $27.6 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) The 5% participation (i.e. 20,000 of those released nationally each year) in the PSCE program potentially reduces the national crime-costs by: > (20)($27.6m) = $552 million per year.
iii) With 5% (or 1,500) participating, of the 30,000 released in NY State each year, the corresponding NY State crime-cost net savings from the lower recidivism with PSCE are: > (1.5)$27.6m) = $41.4 million per year.
Factoring in a $2,500 cost for each year of PSCE, per inmate, yields a 2 year cost of:
($2,500)(2)(1000) = $5.0 million per year,
which reduces the net savings per 1000 inmates
produced by PSCE to:
$9.525m - $5.0m = $4.525 million
per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) Assuming 400,000 offenders released nationally each year, of which only 5% (or 20,000) could participate in PSCE, the reduction in national operational costs due to lower recidivism with PSCE is: (20)($4.525m) = $90.5 million per year.
iii) The corresponding reduction in NY State operating costs with PSCE for 5% of the 30,000 offenders (or 1,500) released in NY State each year, is: (1.5)($4.525m) = $6.78 million per year.
I) The PSCE program reduces crime costs by: > ($46,000)(1000)(.15)(3) = $20.7 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) The 5% participation (i.e. 20,000 of those released nationally each year) in the PSCE program potentially reduces the national crime-costs by: > (20)($20.7m) = $414 million per year.
iii) With 5% (or 1,500) participating, of the 30,000 released in NY State each year, the corresponding NY State crime-cost net savings from the lower recidivism with PSCE are: > (1.5)($20.7m) = $31.0 million per year.
3. Three Stage Graduation from Prison
These multi-stage rehabilitation programs cost more, but are applicable to a larger percentage of prisoners. They yield net savings of at least $22 million per 1000 offenders completing the program, and estimated potential net savings of at least $ 1.3 billion per year nationally, and at least $ 100 million per year in NY State. Each dollar spent for these programs yields at least 1.9 dollars in gross savings from less operational costs and crime costs alone.
to Intermediate Sanctions and Aftercare
3-stage rehabilitative programs have been successful. The New York Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment (CASAT)8 program, for example, has:
1st Stage: 6 months prison-based drug treatment
2nd Stage: 6-9 months contractual community reintegration,
under Intermediate Sanctions, or DOCS work release e
3rd Stage: 6-12 months parole aftercare
The Delaware Treatment Continuum program9 has a longer (12-15 months) drug treatment in its 1st stage.
Though more expensive, these 3 stage programs also more than pay for themselves.
Experience shows that, with adequate, holistic drug treatment, good quality of diverse education programs, and appropriate incentives, a difference in recidivism of 15-45% can often be expected.9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Consider a basic case. Assuming only the lower recidivism difference (15%), and assuming that all participating inmates receive four years of intensive prison-based education (literacy, GED, life skills, vocational, or college) and 80% receive one full year of intensive prison-based alcohol/drug treatment26 in their 1st stagef plus additional treatment and education in a 2nd stage, - then:
i) Net Operational Savings per 1000 Offenders Completing the Program
i-1) Lower Net Costs During 2nd and 3rd Stages
For each 1000 inmates participating in 2nd and 3rd Stages (6 mo. Transitional, residential, Intermediate Sanctions and 6 mo. out-patient aftercare):
Hence, Net Operational Savings During 2nd and 3rd Stage:
Employment Value
plus
Restitution or Charitable Contributions
plus
Community Service
plus
Avoidance of Imprisonment during 2nd Stage
minus
2nd and 3rd Stage Program Costs
= (.72+.36 +1. + 14. - 12.)m = $4.08 million per 1000 inmates completing the program
i-2) Value of Reduced Recidivism and hence Less Post Release Incarceration
For every 1000 inmates completing the 3 stages:
Again assuming only a 15% reduction in recidivism28 due to the drug treatment and/or education in prison, and assuming an average of a 2 year new sentence for those recidivating, then:
i-3) Additional Treatment/Education Costs during 1st Stage,
i-4) Summary: Net Operational Savings from 3 Stage Programs per 1000 offenders in both drug- treatment and education:
Net Operational Savings =
1) Savings due to lower net costs during 2nd and 3rd stages
plus
2) Savings from lower recidivism and less post-release incarceration
minus
3) Training/Education Costs in 1st stage
= $ 4.08 + $9.525 - $12. = $1.605 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) National Operational Net Savings from 3 Stages
· About 400,000 offenders are released nationally each year. Assume that, of these, only 15% or 60,000 could participate in 3 stage programs, that all would have had 4 years of education, and 80% would have had one full year of alcohol or drug abuse treatment. Assume only a consequent 15% difference in recidivism. Then, the national operational net savings from 3 stage programs potentially amount to: (60)($ 1.6m) = $96.3 million per year
iii) The corresponding NY State operational net savings from 15% (of 30,000 released each year or 4500) participating in 3-stage programs are: (4.5)($ 1.6m) = $7.22 million per year.
i) The reductions in the crime-cost, per 1000 offenders participating in 3 stage programs, and having lower recidivism rates (by 15 percentage points), are: ($46,000)(1000)(.15)(3) = $20.7 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) With 15% (or 60,000), of the 400,000 released each year nationally, participating in 3 stage programs, they potentially reduce the national cost of crime by: (60)($20.7m) = $1,242 million per year
iii) With 15% (or 4500), of the 30,000 released each year in NY State, participating, the corresponding NY State net savings in crime costs are: (4.5)($20.7) = $93.1 million per year.
ii) The combination of national operational net savings and national lower-crime savings ($96 million per year plus $1,242 million per year) yields a national net savings from 15% participation in 3-Stage Rehabilitation Programs of $1.338 billion per year.
iii) The combination of NY State operational net savings and NY State lower-crime savings ($7.2 million per year plus $93.1 million per year) yields a NY State net savings from 15% participation in 3-Stage Rehabilitation Programs of $100.3 million per year.
4. Earned Rehabilitation Incentives
Earned Rehabilitation Incentive programs greatly encourage rehabilitation by offering to advance the date an offender will be eligible for parole or the date of completion of a definite sentence, by one or more months, as a reward for completion of tough, prescribed rehabilitation programs.
Earlier release, as incentives for extensive rehabilitation, yields $2.3 million per month that sentences are reduced, per 1000 offenders completing the program. Estimated potential net savings are at least $ 1.1 billion per year nationally, and at least $88 million per year in NY State.
i) Earned Rehabilitation Programs operational savings: $2.3 million for each month that sentences are reduced per 1000 offenders completing the program.
In NYS Shock, for example, the average sentence was reduced by 10.6 months. If, as above, 1000 offenders had participated in extensive rehabilitation programs, they, too, could have been eligible for earlier release. If that had amounted to only 5.3 months,i only half as much as in the case of NYS Shock, the annual savings from such Earned Rehabilitation Incentive would be: (5.3)($2.3m) = $12.19 million per 1000 offenders completing the program
ii) With 15% of offenders released each year (15% of 400,000=60,000) participating in extensive rehabilitation programs, nationally, the potential annual savings, are: (60,000)($2,300.) = $ 138 million per year per month that sentences are reduced in that year
If these same 15% had also been eligible for earlier release of only 5.3 months,*half as much as in the case of NYS Shock, the annual national savings from such Earned Rehabilitation Incentive would be: ( 5.3)($138m) = $731 million per year
iii) The corresponding NY State savings from Earned Rehabilitation Incentives, with 15% of those released each year (15% of 30,000 = 4500) participating in extensive rehabilitation programs, are: (4,500)($2,300) = $10.35 million per year for each month that sentences are reduced in that year. The corresponding potential NY State savings from 5.3 months average earlier release would be: (5.3)($10.35m) = $54.8 million per year.
iv) Effect of Earlier Release Incentives on Participation
Experience with Shock Incarceration, Diversion programs, and CASAT indicate that sentence-related incentives play a very large role in the degree of completion in rehabilitation programs. The promise of earlier release is a powerful incentive for successful program completion.
There are no good statistics on this incentive effect. However, from experience in these early programs, it appears to be reasonable that another 5%-15% of the incarcerated offenders would be motivated to complete 3 stage rehabilitation programs as a result of these incentives. Assuming only the lower figure of 5%, the above net savings cited from 3-stage programs would be increased by a third with the presence of Earned Rehabilitation Incentives programs. The Earned Rehabilitation Incentives alone thus add another block of net savings amounting to:
Net Savings per 1000 participation > $ 7.3 million
National Savings > $ 446 million per year
NYS Savings > $ 33.3 million per year
5. Crime Costs due to Participant’s Crime during Reintegration
Reintegration (Stage 2) programs have halved the recidivism rates9. However, reintegration programs also carry a risk that some participants will commit crime during their gradual reintegration into the community, even though such participants had been carefully screened and had already completed major rehabilitation programs. The magnitude of this effect of the crime during reintegration is in the noise level of the prior assumptions. This risk appears in:
Such exposure occurs during up to 3 months of work release and up to 5.3 months of early release (say, an average of 8 months), in the previous program assumptions. The percentage of participants who will commit crimes during these periods is not known, but a reasonable estimate would be 20% or less. The added crime-cost, accordingly, would be:
(cost of crime per year) (number of participants)(participants crime rate)(time duration in years)
or < ($46,000)(number of participants)(.20)(8/12 )
This directly parallels the previous calculations of the savings in crime-costs due to lower recidivism, which have the form: > ($46,000)(number of participants)(.15)(3.0)
The added crime-cost from crimes possible during reintegration subtracts from the crime-cost savings due to lower recidivism, yielding a new savings of: > ($46,000)(number of participants)[.45 -.13]
The duration of savings (3 years of no crime) is greater than the duration of possible loss (8 months). Moreover, the tolerance on the estimated future career life is large; the average career life is believed to be 10-12 years, while we are conservatively using only 3 years. Merely an assumption of 3.86 years rather than 3.0 years would offset the effect of possible crime during reintegration. Hence, in sections 1b and 3b, above, we have taken the risk of crime during reintegration into account by using an "effective crime career" of 3 years, which implies an actual crime career of about 3.8 years.
The bottom line is that the rehabilitation programs, including reintegration programs, substantially reduce recidivism, reduce crime and reduce cost, even though some crimes may result during the periods of reintegration.
6. Summaries of Net Savings (after subtracting program costs)
Net Savings / Program Cost = >$45.2 / $18x1.5 = >1.67
Gross Savings / Program Cost = (Net Savings / Program Cost) + 1
Each dollar spent on these programs
yields >2.67 dollars in gross savings.
A2. Net Savings from Post Secondary Correctional Education (from #2 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 2.7 million
Lower-Crime Savings > $ 27.6 million
Subtotal > $ 30.3 million
Net Savings / program cost = >$30.3 / $10 = >3.03
Each dollar spent on these programs yields >4.03 dollars in Gross Savings
A3. Net Savings from 3 Stage Rehabilitation Programs (from #3 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 1.6 million
Lower-Crime Savings > $ 20.7 million
Subtotal > $ 22.3 million
Net Savings / program cost = >$22.3 / $24. = >0.93
Each dollar spent on these programs yields > 1.9 dollars in Gross Savings
A4. Savings from 5.3 months average sentence reduction in Earned Rehabilitation Incentives (from #4 above):
Operational Savings $ 12.2 million
Incentive Effect $ 7.3 million
Subtotal $ 19.5 million
A5. Total Potential Net Savings per 3000 Offenders Completing the program
Operational Net Savings $ 41 million
Lower-Crime Savings > $ 69 million
Incentive Effect on Participation $ 7.3 million
Total Net Savings per 3000 > $117.3 million
Total Net Savings per 3000 offenders / Total Program Costs per 3000 offenders
= >$117.3 / ($27 + $10 + $24 = $61) = >1.9
Each dollar spent on this family of four programs yields > 2.9 dollars in Gross Savings
B2. National Net Savings from 5% Post Secondary Correctional Education (from #2 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 54 million per year
Lower Crime Savings > $ 552 million per year
Subtotal > $ .606 billion per year
B3 National Net Savings from 15% participation in 3 stage Rehabilitation Programs (from #3 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 96 million per year
Lower Crime Savings > $ 1,242 million per year
Subtotal > $ 1.338 billion per year
B4. National Savings from 15% participation in Earned Rehabilitation Incentive programs (from #4 above):
For 5.3 month average reductions: $ .731 billion per year
Effect on stage 3 participation $ .446 billion per year
Subtotal $ 1.177 billion per year
B5. National Total Potential Net Savings
Operational Net Savings $1.861 billion per year
Lower-Crime Savings > $2.622 billion per year
Incentive Effect on Participation $ .446 billion per year
Total National > $4.929 billion per year
The potential national net savings from these rehabilitation programs thus approach $5 billion per year. Less conservative assumptions would result in greater projections.
C2. NY State Net Savings from 5% participation in Post Secondary Correctional Education (from #2 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 4.0 million per year
Lower-Crime Savings > $ 41.4 million per year
Subtotal > $ 45.4 million per year
C3. NY State Net Savings from 15% participation in 3 Stage Rehabilitation Programs (from #3 above):
Operational Net Savings $ 7.2 million per year
Lower-Crime Savings > $ 93.1 million per year
Subtotal > $100.3 million per year
C4. NY State Net Savings from 15% participation in Earned Rehabilitation Incentive programs (from #4 above):
For 5.3 month average reductions: $ 54.8 million per year
Effect on stage 3 participation $ 33.3 million per year
Subtotal $ 88.1 million per year
C5. NY State Total Potential Net Savings:
Operational Net Savings $139.5 million per year Lower-Crime Savings > $196.6 million per year
Incentive Effect on Participation $ 33.3 million per year
Total NYS Net Savings > $369.4 million per year
Thus, the potential net savings by New York State, directly related to these rehabilitation programs, exceeds $300 million per year.
7. CONCLUSIONS
1. The overall net savings to be gained, from further investment and incentives for addiction treatment and education/training, using both diversion from prison and graduation from prison to intermediate sanctions, are very large, in the range of hundreds of millions and billions of dollars per year.*
2. These savings in dollars are, however, only a small part of the true savings. The expenditure of billions of dollars in new prison construction, to feed the ever climbing prison population, can be curtailed. Tens of thousands of lives (offenders, victims, and families) can be positively affected. The result can be a more civil, safer and more productive society for everyone.
3. The seven CURE-NY recommendations, contained in the companion report What Works, outline positive further steps that should, accordingly, be taken to reduce recidivism and hence reduce crime and reduce costs. These recommendations pertain to:
1. Community Corrections Policy
2. Intermediate Sanctions as Rehabilitation Incentives
3. Expansion of Drug-Related Diversion Programs
4. Expansion of 3 Stage,
"Graduation to Intermediate Sanctions" Programs
5. Improvement of Prison-Based Education & Training
6. Dual-Track, 3-Stage Shock Incarceration
7. The Earned Incentive Process
4. Legislation should permit funds that are currently allocated for prison construction to be spent, partially, on implementation of the seven prior recommendations, with priority on addiction treatment, education, life skills training, and vocational training of existing and potential offenders.
5. All federal and state funds in support of substance abuse treatment, education, special-education for the learning disabled, and vocational training should be applicable to offenders as well as the general population.
* Specific recidivism-reduction data on many rehabilitation programs are summarized in the attached references. Further information is in the companion CURE-NY document What Works: in reducing recidivism, and thereby reducing crime and cost.
Comments on this work are solicited, and should be sent to the address on the cover.
8. REFERENCES
1. "Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991," Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-136949, March, 1993.
2. Anton R.Waldon, Jr., "Unhealthy Choice: Prisons Over Schools in New York State," A Report from the office of NY State Senator Alton R. Waldon Jr., April, 1996.
Seventy-five percent of all inmates in the State’s prisons have no high school diploma and 90 percent of all inmates in New York City jails have no high school diploma or equivalent. Forty percent of all state prison inmates are unable to read, and between 50 and 70 percent of the adult inmate population in the city’s jails reads English below the sixth grade level.
There is a relationship between our children’s education (or lack thereof) and the rate of crime in the neighborhoods where school performance is low. … We are pouring precious state resources into corrections at the expense of fixing our broken educational system.
Society gains an estimated $500,000 in tax revenue and avoided social costs for every child who is saved from becoming a criminal justice statistic.
3. C. J. Hynes and S. A. Powers, "Drug Treatment Alternative To Prison of the Kings County District Attorney, Fifth Annual Report of Operations, Oct. 1994 to Oct. 1995."
The Brooklyn, NY Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, diverts prison-bound felony drug offenders to residential drug treatment for 15 to 24 months. The 19% recidivism rate for DTAP's graduates, in contrast to a 46% rate for similar defendants who did not participate in the program, is the most recent evidence of DTAP's success.
4. Zimring, F. & Hawkins, G. "The New Mathematics of Imprisonment," Crime and Delinquency, (October 1988): pp. 425-436.
5. Zedlewski, E. "Making Confinement Decisions, Research in Brief," U.S. Dept. of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DC: (July 1987).
6. "The Eighth Annual Shock Legislative Report 1996," NY Dept. of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole.
7. "Prisoners in 1996" Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin , June 1997, NCJ 164619. The estimate of 400,000 releases per year used in this report is also conservative. In 1995, the number released from state prisons alone was 455,139, according to the referenced Bulletin.
8. "The Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment Program, As of June 30, 1995," New York Department of Correctional Services.
Recidivism results for CASAT: 24 months after release to Parole Supervision, the CASAT (men only) probability of return was 22%, compared with 32% for all releases, and 41% for those who failed to complete phase II, and 37% for those who failed to complete Phase I.
Currently, community-based facilities are limited, so not all CASAT enrollees are graduated to Intermediate Sanctions with further drug treatment there, which provides further assurance of rehabilitation. Some, instead, go directly into Work Release without the benefit of contracted, community-based drug treatment.
9. Dr. James A. Inciardi, "A Corrections-Based Continuum of Effective Drug Abuse Treatment," National Institute of Justice Research Preview, June 1996.
The findings indicate that 18 months after release drug offenders who received 12-15 months of treatment in prison followed by an additional 6 months of drug treatment and job training were more than twice as likely to be drug free than offenders who received prison-based treatment alone.
Furthermore, offenders who received both forms of treatment were much more likely than offenders who received only prison-based treatment to be arrest free 18 months after release (71% compared with 48 %). Only 30% of a comparison group was arrest free after 18 months.
10. Douglas S. Lipton, "The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision," National Inst. of Justice Research Report, November 1995.
An evaluation of the New York prison-based Therapeutic Community (TC) (known as Stay'n Out) conducted in 1984 showed that male participants had arrest rates of only 26% compared to 40.9% for those having no treatment, and 39.8% for those having only counseling. Programs like Stay’n Out cost about $3,000-$4,000 more than standard correctional costs per year.
An evaluation of Oregon's TC (known as Cornerstone) showed that 71% of its graduates stayed out of prison for 3 years, while only 26% of the dropouts from the program did so.
The most serious drug users are responsible for a high volume of predatory crime. Without intervention, this group will return to crime and drug use 9 times out of 10 after release, and most will be back in custody within 3 years. With appropriate intervention provided for a sufficient duration, more than 3 out of 4 will succeed; that is, reenter the community and subsequently lead a socially acceptable life.
11. C. J. Hynes and S. A. Powers, "Drug Treatment Alternative To Prison of the Kings County District Attorney, Fifth Annual Report of Operations, Oct. 1994 to Oct. 1995."
The Brooklyn, NY Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP) program, diverts prison-bound felony drug offenders to residential drug treatment for 15 to 24 months. The 19% recidivism rate for DTAP's graduates, in contrast to a 46% rate for similar defendants who did not participate in the program, is the most recent evidence of DTAP's success.
12. Rydell and Everinham, "Controlling Cocaine supply vs. Demand Programs," RAND, 1994.
A RAND study concluded that drug treatment programs are seven times more cost-effective in reducing cocaine consumption than other programs that aim at controlling the supply of drugs. The study further concluded that drug treatment could reduce cocaine consumption by a third if extended to all heavy users.
13. Marc Mauer and Tracy Huling, "Young Black Americans and he Criminal Justice System: Five Years Later," The Sentencing Project.
A study conducted for the state of California provides the most comprehensive cost-benefit examination to date on the effectiveness of substance abuse treatment. Looking at all treatment programs in the state, researchers concluded that every dollar spent on treatment resulted in $7 in savings on reduced crime and health care costs.
14. "Report of the Unified Court Systems Committee on Alternative Sanctions, December 1996."
The Brooklyn Treatment Alternatives to Street Crime (TASC) program places second felony drug offenders into residential drug treatment, usually for 18 to 24 months. After 3 years, the re-arrest rates for offenders who completed the program in 1991 and 1992 was 6.7 % and 8.2%.
15. "Longitudinal Study finds Lower Re-arrest Rates in AIP," State of Connecticut Judicial Branch Sanctions Update, May 1996 Special Edition.
This study measured how offenders from each sample get arrested relative to the days they are actually in the community. In this way, the number of days offenders in each sample have the opportunity to be arrested for new crimes is kept the same. The rates for AIP and DOC are then compared to one another to produce a ratio.
Drug offenders under 21: AIP graduates had 3 arrests for every 10 arrests in the DOC sample.
Drug offenders with conviction histories: AIP graduates had 3 arrests for every 8 arrests in the DOC sample. These AIP clients had less than one arrest for felonies for every two felony arrests of offenders in the DOC comparison group.
Sixty-four percent of AIC clients with high school diplomas were arrest-free after two years, compared to forty-four percent of those with less than a high school education. Literacy and employment-related training might be a constructive use of lengthier supervision.
16. "Preventing Crime. What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising," A Report To The U.S. Congress, University of Maryland, for the U.S. Dept. of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.
Substantial scientific evidence shows that drug treatment is an effective method of reducing both drug use and crime by these offenders. Furthermore, the criminal justice system can coerce offenders to remain in treatment longer. The longer they stay in treatment the better they do later, and those who are coerced do as well as comparisons who volunteer for treatment. One advantage of Drug Courts is that the court can oversee and supervise the coordination of the treatment and the community restraint.
As with Drug Courts, the prison-based substance abuse programs appear to be a promising way to reduce the drug use and associated criminal activities of offenders, once they leave prison. In general, the studies of in-prison therapeutic community programs demonstrated that such programs reduced the recidivism rates of offenders once they were released.
17. "Cost Effectiveness of Mandatory Minimums," RAND Study.
Spending an additional $1 million on longer sentences for convicted dealers would reduce the nation’s total consumption of cocaine by less than 29 pounds a year. The same $1 million on treating heavy cocaine users would cut consumption by as much as 220 pounds. For every crime eliminated by X dollars on mandatory minimum sentences, 15-17 crimes are eliminated by spending that same amount on treatment of heavy users.
18. "The Impact of Correctional Education On Recidivism 1988-1994," Office of Correctional Education, U.S. Dept. of Education.
This report contains summaries of diverse programs, including the following:
A report of the Adult Probation Dept. of the Superior Court, Pima County, Arizona concludes that offenders given literacy training in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (23%) compared to a control group (40%). Offenders given a GED education in 1994 had a lower new felony arrest rate (15%) than a control group (40%).
A 1994 State of Texas report (Tracy and Johnson, Windham School System) found that the recidivism rate for those who received both a GED certificate and completed a vocational trade was over 20% lower than for those who did not reach either milestone. That Texas report also showed that two years after release, the overall recidivism rate for degree holders was a low 12%, and inversely differentiated by type of degree: Associate, 13.7%; Baccalaureate, 5.6%; Masters, 0%.
19. Miles Harer, "Recidivism Among Federal Prisoners Released in 1987," Federal Bureau Of Prisons, Office of Research & Evaluation, 1994.
Recidivism rates were inversely related to educational program participation while in prison. The more educational programs successfully completed for each 6 months confined, the lower the recidivism rate.
20. J. Gerber and E.J. Fritsch, "Prison Education and Offender Behavior: A Review of the Scientific Literature," Prison Education Research Project, Report 1, July 1993. Analyzes the results of earlier studies, most of them conducted in the 1980s and early 1990s.
Basic and Secondary Education:
Of 14 findings regarding recidivism, 9 showed positive effects.
Of 4 findings regarding post-release employment, 3 showed positive effects.
Vocational Education:
Of 13 findings regarding recidivism, 10 showed positive effects.
Of 7 findings regarding post-release employment, 5 showed positive effects.
College Education:
Of 14 findings regarding recidivism, 10 showed a positive effect.
Of 3 findings regarding post-release employment, all 3 showed a positive effect.
21. K. Adams et al. "A Large Scale Multidimensional Test of the Effect of Prison Education Programs on Offender's Behavior."
Duration of Academic Program (hours) vs. Percent Returning to Prison:
100 or less hours: 25 % Returning
201-301 hours: 22 % Returning
301 or more hours: 17 % Returning
22. Chester H. Clark, Asst. Commissioner, "Analysis of Return Rates of the Inmate College Program Participants," NYS Dept. of Correctional Services, August, 1991.
Inmate College Program participants in 1986-1987 who had earned a degree were found to return at a significantly lower rate than participants who did not earn a degree. Of those earning a degree, 26.4% had been returned to the Department's custody by Feb. 28, 1991, whereas 44.6% of those participants who did not earn a degree were returned to custody. Degree earning participants also returned at a lower rate than would be expected when compared to the overall male return rate. These findings suggest that earning a college degree while incarcerated is positively related to successful post-release adjustment as measured by return to the Department's custody.
23. Chester H. Clark, Asst. Commissioner, "Follow-Up Study of a Sample of Offenders Who Earned High School Equivalency Diplomas While Incarcerated," NYS Dept. of Correctional Services, July, 1989.
The offenders who earned a GED while incarcerated returned at a considerably lower rate (34.0%) than those offenders who did not earn a GED while incarcerated (39.1%). This study clearly indicates a relationship between completion of a GED diploma while incarcerated and a reduced probability of returning to the Department's custody.
24. KET Adult Learning Quarterly, Winter 1996.
In a memo to the Utah State Legislature, Jeffrey Galli, former prison warden for 22 years, and then in Corrections Education, wrote: "Data received from independent evaluators indicate that Project Horizon (a comprehensive education and training program) reduces recidivism of participating offenders from twenty to as much as twenty-six percent."
25. Jon M. Taylor, "Post Secondary Correctional Education: An Evaluation of Effectiveness and Efficiency," Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 43, Issue 3, Sept. 1992, pp. 132-141.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (1987) reports that in two studies those offenders with at least some college education recidivated at the rate of 30.4 and 31 percent, while respectively, high school dropouts from the same sample recidivated at rates of 40.9 and 51 percent.
In 1974, Thomas reported in an in-house study that the Burlington County College of New Jersey prison program experienced a recidivism rate of 10 percent compared to an overall national recidivism rate of 80 percent.
Thompson (1976) in his in-house evaluation of Alabama’s City State Junior College’s prison program stated that a "State recidivism rate of 16% compared with a state and national recidivism range of 70-75%.
Duguid (1981) reporting on an objective analysis of the University of Victoria’s prison college program noted "the rate of recidivism for the students as 14% compared to 52% of the matched group of non-student prisoners."
Chase and Dickover (1983) reporting on the evaluation of the Folsom Prison college program revealed a zero percent recidivism rate for the released participants over one year, while the average recidivism rate for the state’s parolees was 23.9 percent for the first year, increasing to 55 percent within three years.
Psychology Today (1983) reported "the rate of recidivism among inmates who took college classes at New Mexico State Penitentiary between 1967 and 1977 averaged 15.5 percent, while the general population averaged 68 percent recidivism."
26. J. P. Caulkins, C. P. Rydell, W. Schwabe, and J. Chiesa, "Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences: Throwing Away The Key Or The Taxpayer’s Money?" RAND Study.
Spending the money on mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers can reduce total national cocaine consumption by 13 kg. Spending it on conventional enforcement against such dealers cuts use by 27 kg. Spending it to treat heavy users reduces consumption by over 100 kg.
Treatment reduces about 10 times more serious crime then conventional enforcement and 15 times more than mandatory minimums. 27. C. J. Hynes and S.A. Powers, loc. cit.
28. Statistics from multiple sources (e.g. Lipton, loc. cit., and Hynes & Powers, loc. cit.) give a range of 14.9% to 45% reductions in recidivism for holistic drug treatment. The NY DTAP drug program reports a 27% reduction. In the U.S. Dept of Education report, "The Impact of Correctional Education On Recidivism," loc. cit., Arizona reports a 17% reduction in recidivism for literacy programs. For the GED, Arizona also reports a 25% reduction in recidivism, and Texas reports a 20% reduction, in that same report. Also for the GED, New York ( Clark, 1989, loc. cit.) reports a 5% reduction. For college, (Clark, 1991, loc. cit., and Taylor, 1992, loc. cit. citing Duguid,) report an 18-36% reduction in recidivism.
29. Jon Marc Taylor, "Should Prisoners Have Access to Collegiate Education? A Policy Issue," Educational Policy, Vol. 8 No. 3, September 1994, pp. 315-338.
30. Programs like "Stay ‘n Out" cost about $3,000 to $4,000 more than the standard correctional costs per inmate per year, as reported in NIJ Research Report by Douglas Lipton, loc. cit.
Footnotes
a. A publication obtainable from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.
b. Recidivism difference = Recidivism of control group minus Recidivism with program
c. The "effective length" of future crime career can include the effect of crime during reintegration. See section 5 below.
d. Not all Shock programs do this. The Federal Intensive Confinement Centers (ICC’s) use a 3-stage program, wherein offenders complete a 1st stage of shock incarceration, then spend the remainder of their sentence in 2nd stage community-based half-way houses, followed by a 3rd stage of aftercare.
e. An incentive is that upon completion of Stage 1, the offender is returned to his or her home community 6 to 18 months prior to parole eligibility date8.
f. Of course, if some offenders do not need one or the other, some money can be saved.
g. Assuming that general education costs somewhat less than the earlier quoted figure for college education.
h. The "effective length" of future crime career can include the effect of crime during reintegration. See section 5.
i. 5.3 months is also approximately a 15% reduction of a 3 year sentence.
j. For those completing only part of each program, the costs would be less and the benefits would be less.
Exercise your citizen rights to be heard. Support the CURE-NY recommendations. Jump to the Action Alert page for more specifics.
To return to the homepage, click: