Is there a better way?
Positively, YES!
This report provides excerpts from 26 studies which support that conclusion, and evidence of broad support for change.
The addition of smart rehabilitation programs have been proven to be many times more effective in reducing crime than standard "get tough" criminal justice programs alone.
We need much more smarts!
We need a smart new direction to reduce crime and costs!
This report provides seven recommendations which support that new direction.
Permission is hereby given by CURE-NY to reproduce and distribute this document.
Comments on this work are solicited, and should be sent to the address on the cover.
CONTENTS
1.0 EVERY INMATE’S PREREQUISITES
2.0 TWO URGENT NEEDS
Drug/alcohol treatment
Remedial education
3.0 SATISFYING PREREQUISITES DOES REDUCE CRIME
4.0 INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS
Connecticut’s Successful AIP
Broad Support for Change
Recommendation I: Community Corrections Policy
Recommendation II: Intermediate Sanctions As Rehab Incentives
5.0 SUCCESSFUL ALCOHOL & DRUG TREATMENT PGMS
Diversion to Intermediate Sanctions for Drug Offenders
Recommendation III: Expand Drug Related Diversion Programs
Graduation From Prison To Intermediate Sanctions
Recommendation IV: Expand Drug Related, 3-Stage
"Graduation To Intermediate Sanctions" Programs
6.0 SUCCESSFUL PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS
Recommendation V: Improve Prison-Based Education & Training
7.0 SHOCK INCARCERATION PROGRAMS
Recommendation VI: Dual-Track, 3-Stage Shock Incarceration
8.0 EARNED REHABILITATION INCENTIVES
Recommendation VII: The Earned Incentive Process
1.0 EVERY INMATE’S PREREQUISITES
To later benefit society, as a
1. crime free and
2. productive, tax-paying citizen,
an inmate must
1. be free of alcohol and drug addictions
2. have sufficient education / vocational training
that qualifies for a living-wage job
NCJ-136949, 19931
A Nov. 1995 Research Report of the National Institute of Justice states that the majority of inmates with drug problems still do not receive treatment while in prison; the number of drug-using arrestees who are probably in need of treatment exceeds 2 million. 5
e.g., One-half of New York State’s inmate population comes from an area served by 11 of New York City’s poorest performing schools. 2
3.0 SATISFYING PREREQUISITES
DOES REDUCE CRIME
Types of Intermediate Sanctions:
Functions:
THE SUCCESSFUL CONNECTICUT
9
ALTERNATIVES TO INCARCERATION PROGRAM (AIP)
| Drug Offenders under 21:: | 3/10 after two years; | 2/10 after three years |
| Offenders under 21:: | 3.5/10 after two years; | 2.4/10 after three years |
| Drug Offenders:: | 4.5/10 after two years; | 3/10 after three years |
| Drug Offenders with Prior convictions: | 3.75/10 after two years | 3.6/10 after three years |
| Offenders with Prior convictions:: | 6.7/10 after two years | 5/10 after three years |
| All Offenders:: | 5/10 after two years; | 3.8/10 after three years |
See graph for Drug Offenders Under Age 21
See graph for Drug Offenders with Prior Convictions
See graph for Offenders Under Age 21
See graph for Offenders with Prior Convictions
BROAD SUPPORT FOR CHANGE33
American Society of Criminology Recommendations:34
2.0 The legislatures should substantially expand the funding for those alternatives to incarceration that reduce cost and recidivism.
3.0 The nation and states should thereby provide a graduated range of sanctions, and a multi-stage, coordinated continuum of rehabilitative alcohol/drug treatment, education, and vocational training (across incarceration, intermediate sanctions, and aftercare).
4.0 The legislatures should allow courts to sentence certain minor drug offenders to mandatory community substance abuse treatment in lieu of mandatory prison terms (as recommended by the NYS Unified Court System’s Committee on Alternative Criminal Sanctions. 39 )
1. Diversion to Intermediate Sanctions as alternative to prison conditioned on commitment to
2. Graduation from prison to Intermediate Sanctions
conditioned on completion
of prison-based,
5.0 SUCCESSFUL ALCOHOL & DRUG TREATMENT PROGRAMS
| Recidivism Differenceb |
% Recidivism Reductions (as % of original)a |
|
| Delaware 3-stage Program 4 | 23% | 58% |
| N.Y. Stay’n Out TC 5 | 15% | 36% |
| Oregon Cornerstone TC 5 | 45% | 60% |
| N.Y. King’s County DTAP 6 | 27% | 58% |
See also a graph of the Ohio drug reatment results.
Oregon Study: Every dollar spent on drug treatment saves $5.60 in costs for prison, welfare, and other expenses.42
California Study: Every dollar spent on treatment results in $7 in savings on reduced crime and health care costs.43
RAND Study: Treatment of heavy drug users is 15-17 times more effective in reducing crime than spending the same money on mandatory minimum sentences.11
RAND Study: Spending money on treatment reduces consumption of cocaine 3.7 times more than spending that same money on conventional enforcement, and 7.6 times more than spending it on mandatory minimum sentences for drug dealers. 12
a. ( recidivism of control group minus recidivism with program ) / recidivism of control group} x 100%.
b. recidivism of control group minus recidivism with program
1.) Drug Courts.
a courtroom-based team approach with specially adapted drug
abuse
treatment, to coerce offenders into treatment.
2.) N.Y. Kings County Drug Treatment Alternative to Prison (DTAP).
prosecutor-based diversion program involving 15-24 months
residential
treatment instead of prison. 6
2. Insure that all who need it get full 15-24 month residential treatment.
3. Strengthen 6-12 month out-patient aftercare programs.
4. Retain sentence reduction incentives for rehabilitation.
1. N.Y. State 3-stage Comprehensive Alcohol and Substance Abuse Treatment
(CASAT)
1st. 6 month prison based treatment
2nd. 6-9 month contractual Community Reintegration or DOCS Work Releasec
3rd. 12 month aftercare (e.g., Parole)
2. State of Delaware 3-Stage Continuum of Drug Treatment 4
1st. 12-15 month, prison based, Therapeutic Community
2nd. 6 month transitional care in a work-release TC
3rd. 6 month outpatient aftercare
Offenders completing both stages 1 and 2 are twice as likely to be drug free than offenders who receive stage 1 only.
1st. 6-12 month, prison based, Therapeutic Community
2nd. 6-9 month transitional care and reintegration processing in a community-based or work- release Therapeutic Community
3rd. 6-12 month outpatient aftercare
2. Insure that all inmates who need it can get full 3-Stage treatment.
3. Retain early graduation to community-based intermediate sanctions as incentive to rehabilitation.
4. Require that all substance abuse treatment programs related to criminal justice be federally or state certified.
5. Require that all prisons and community-corrections treatment centers measure and report annually on the effectiveness of their substance abuse treatment programs in reducing recidivism.
6.0 SUCCESSFUL REMEDIAL
PRISON EDUCATION PROGRAMS
| Recidivism Differenceb |
% Recidivism Reductions (as % of original)a |
|
| Arizona literacy training 19 | 17% | 42% |
| Arizona GED 19 | 25% | 62% |
| New York post-secondary 23 | 18% | 40% |
| Connecticut GED 9 | 20% | 36% |
Bureau of Justice Statistics Report: Recidivism of young parolees has also been shown to be related to the amount of prior education: of the parolees age 17-22.44
a) Increase Correctional Education & Training Resources
b) Augment Special Ed capabilities.
c) Use modern, self-paced, computer-aided, motivational technologies.
d) Establish intensive, prerequisite education-tracks, literacy/GED/life skills/vocational training.
e) Restore post-secondary correctional education.
f) Require that all correctional education and correctional special-education programs be federally or state-certified.
g) Require that all correctional education and correctional special-education programs be
measured, annually, as to their effectiveness in reducing recidivism.
2. Add incentives for early graduation to community-based intermediate sanctions upon achievement of intensive education-track goals.45
7.0 SHOCK INCARCERATION
1. The nation’s shock incarceration programs are further examples of Diversion from Prison programs. New York’s moderately successful Shock Incarceration is a good example.46
Thus, recidivism did not increase despite the fact that, as an incentive, graduates were released to parole about 10.6 months prior to their court determined minimum period of incarceration.
2. The Federal Bureau of Prisons dual-path, 3-stage, Shock Program: two shock incarceration facilities, the Intensive Confinement Centers at Lewisburg, PA., and Bryan, TX.47
Dual Path:
3-Stages:
1st. 6 months shock incarceration
Physical training
Substance abuse treatment
Education/training
Work assignments
2nd. Finishing sentence in Community Corrections Transitional Therapeutic-Community in half way houses
3rd. Controlled aftercare
1. Greatly strengthen drug treatment and education aspects.
2. Extend to 3-stages ( as in Federal ICCs):47
1st ) 6 months intensive, more rehabilitative drug treatment and education, within Shock Incarceration
2nd ) 6-9 months transitional half-way houses48
Extended drug treatment
Extended education/training
Reintegration into mainline community
3rd ) 6-12 months out-patient aftercare
3. Employ two ways to reduce prison overcrowding:
Diversion from prison and
Graduation from Prison (as in Federal ICCs)47
4. Retain early release to stage 3 ( e.g., to parole) as incentive to rehabilitation.
8.0 EARNED
REHABILITATION INCENTIVES
Incentives
Provide powerful rehabilitation incentives, first to all non-violent state and federal prison inmates, with safeguards, incorporating the experience from the 3-stage NYS CASAT program, the State of Delaware’s Drug Treatment Continuum, the Federal Intensive Confinement Centers, and Shock Incarceration programs.
2. Offer further sentencing incentives,
with assurances, to those meeting strict criteria, for
earlier consideration by the Parole Board (or equivalent) of:
3. Include primary incentive for achievement of prerequisites, such as:
A) extensive alcohol/drug treatment, and
B) extensive education-tracks, and
C) fulfillment of other rehabilitation criteria
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
1. There is now ample proof, in many documented studies, that quality programs for reduction of recidivism do work very well, are much more cost-effective than simple incarceration, and should be substantially expanded.
Cost-cutting, half-way programs are relatively ineffective. For many offenders, drug treatments must be extensive (e.g. 12-24 months), and education /training must be extensive (e.g. GED plus vocational training).
2. The preceding seven CURE-NY recommendations, based on this data, 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
3. 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.
4. 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.
Quantitative estimates of the very large resulting cost savings are in the accompanying report, "The Pay-Back: in reducing recidivism, and thereby reducing crime and cost."
1. "Survey of State Prison Inmates, 1991," Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ-136949, March, 1993.
2. Alton R. Waldon, Jr., "Unhealthy Choice: Prisons Over Schools in New York State," State Senator, 10th District.
3. Ross,J.M. "Learning Disabled Adults: Who Are They and What Do We Do With Them?" Lifelong Learning 11, no 3 (1987): 4-7,11. (ERIC no EJ 361 993).
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Rydell and Everinham, "Controlling Cocaine supply vs. Demand Programs," RAND 1994
This 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.
8. 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 to24 months. After 3 years, the re-arrest rates for offenders who completed the program in 1991 and 1992 was 6.7 % and 8.2%.
9. "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.
10. "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."
11. "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.
12. 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.
13. D.R. Gerstein, R.A. Johnson, H.J. Harwood, D.Fountain, N. Suter, and K. Malloy, "Evaluating Recovery Services: The California Drug and Alcohol Treatmenjt Assessment (CALDATA)," Calif. Dept. of Alcohol and Drug Programs, Sacramento, CA, 1994.
14. "Preliminary Report: The Persistent Effects of Substance Abuse Treatment - One Year Later," Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, The National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study, U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MD, September 1996.
15. C. Peter Rydell and Susan S. Everingham, "Controlling Cocaine: Supply versus Demand Programs," A joint study by the RAND Corp., the U.S. Army, and the Office of National Drug Control Strategy.
This study found that treatment is seven times more effective than local enforcement, eleven times more effective than border interdiction, and twenty-two times more effective than trying to control foreign production.
16. Mary Ellen Batiuk, "The State of Post-Secondary Education in Ohio," Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 48, Issue 2, June 1997, pp. 70-72.
Only individuals who had completed Associate Degrees (two years of college) were included in the college sample since there were too few Bachelors completers to comprise an adequate sample size. While the overall recidivism rate was 40%, college recidivism rates were at 18%.
Other calculations suggest that graduating from college programs - in contrast to no participation in prison education at all - reduces recidivism by roughly 72%.
Under the new plan, the Dept. of Rehabilitation and Correction will fund 2623 inmate college students, based on a formula where 10% of the population of minimum security institutions, 8% of the population a medium institutions, and 4% of the population at close security institutions will be eligible for post-secondary classes.
17. Stephen Duguid, "Cognitive Dissidents Bite the Dust - The Demise of University Education in Canada’s Prisons," Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 48, issue 2, June 1997, pp. 56-68.
We have followed up the post-release lives of 654 federal inmates during the period 1973-1993. All were men who had completed at least two university courses for credit while in one of several federal prisons. An immediately interesting fact about the prisoners in this study is that as a group they did better than the norm in that only 25% of the 654 subjects recidivated in the three years following their release - a 50% reduction compared to the Canadian recidivism rate.
Utilizing the recidivism prediction system (SIR), we were able to compare how groups of prisoner-students were predicted to perform with how they actually performed after release. (The SIR score uses indicators such as type of offense, number of offenses, age at first arrest, and marital status.)
18. Allen J. Beck, Ph.D., "Recidivism of Young Parolees" Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report, May 1987.
The percent of parolees who within 6 years of release were reincarcerated:
Education Less Than High School 51%
High School Graduate 43%
Some College 31%
19. "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%.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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."
26. 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 rate 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."
27. R. Schumaker, D. Anderson, S. Anderson, "Vocational and Academic Indicators of Parole Success," J. of Correctional Education, vol. 41, issue 1, March 1990, pp. 8-13.
All 19 adult correctional institutions in a midwestern state were involved in providing release information, as was every parole district. A total of 760 releases was studied for 12 months. Criminal activity for each of four groups at 12 months was:
Vocational 25% ( a 21% reduction)
Vocational/Academic 23% ( a 28% reduction)
Academic 27% ( a 16% reduction)
Control 32%
28. Marian O’Neill, "Correctional Higher Education: Reduced Recidivism?" Journal of Correctional Education, Vol. 41, Issue 1, March 1990, pp. 28-31.
Of the total number of 258 educationally qualified (at Alabama"s Alexander City Junior College and J. F. Ingram State Technical College), 92 percent were still out in the free world and 7.7% were recidivists. This is a much lower recidivism rate than for the entire 1983 release population which the State calculated at 25%. 11.5 % of those that had not participated in PSE recidivated and 3.9% of those who had participated in PSE recidivated.
29. Heidi L. Lawyer and Thomas D. Dertinger, "Back to School or Back to Jail," ABA Criminal Justice, Winter 1993, p. 21
A 1983 study at Folsom Prison in California showed that none of the prisoners there who earned bachelor's degrees recidivated, compared to the 55 percent recidivism rate of the rest of the prisoners released .
30. M.E. Batiuk, P. Moke, P. W. Rounree, "Crime and Rehabnilitation: Correctional Education as an Agent of Change- A Research Note," Justice Quarterly, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 1997.
We use a quasi-experimental time-series analysis of 318 male inmates who left a medium security prison in Ohio between 1982 and 1983. 95 of these received associate’s degrees in prison. The other 223 were randomly selected inmates which included some completing less than 3 months of college, some high school graduates, and some high school dropouts.
The exponentiated coefficient for the college education variable suggests that participation in the Wilmington College program for at least two years reduced the odds of recidivism by roughly 58 percent.
When all three models are taken together, college education does reduce the likelihood of recidivism, but this effect works principally through postrelease employment. That is, college education increases the likelihood of postrelease employment, which in turn reduces the risk of recidivism.
31."Day Reporting Centers, Vol. 1," National Institute of Justice, September 1995.
Maricopa County (Arizona) Day Reporting furloughs selected offenders from incarceration into a program of strict community supervision and structured reintegration services. Features include job placement and job readiness, education/literacy, self-help support groups, intensive addiction counseling, community service, and other programs focusing on health, life skills, and family. 86% of the offenders completing the 12 week Maricopa program had no new arrests or serious rule violations. There were 2% absconders and 11% returns to jail.
32. 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."
Less than 3% of the participants in the DTAP group were rearrested while in treatment. By comparison, 36% of non-DTAP participants who were at liberty during the pretrial period were rearrested.
As noted in the prior Hynes and Powers reference, only 19% of the DTAP group had a post-treatment rearrest, in contrast to 46% of non-DTAP participants.
Residential community-based programs are costing about $18,000/year, compared with over $28,000 per year for prison incarceration.
33. Senator Catherine Abate, "Dollars and Cells: An Analysis of Gov. Pataki’s Sentencing Reforms and Proposals," Jan. 1996.
Increased investment, not reductions, in community corrections is essential. Other alternatives to incarceration programs and intermediate sanctions should be developed and implemented. The need to further divert non-violent offenders from State prisons and into quality rehabilitation and training programs is essential to staving off a growing prison population.
34. "Rethinking Criminal Justice Policy: A View From The Research Community," National Institute of Justice Journal, February, 1996.
35. The Edna McConnell Foundation, "Seeking Justice, Crime and Punishment in America," 1995.
36. Law Enforcement News, April 30, 1996.
37. Statement from Bobbie Huskey, President American Correctional Association, Dec. 21, 1994.
38.The Edna McConnell Foundation, loc. cit.
39. "Report of the New York Unified Court System’s Committee on Alternative Criminal Sanctions," December 1996. This committee of 16 distinguished members includes 7 judges and former judges along with others from legal and criminal justice areas. It was established in 1944 by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye and former Chief Administrative Judge E. Leo Milonas.
"It is apparent that each year thousands of persons who present no, or a minimal, threat to public safety are being committed to State prison. And this is being done despite the exorbitant costs involved and despite the fact that community-based programs may well be as effective, or appreciably more effective, in rehabilitating these offenders."
"Obviously, alternative programs, particularly those that offer long-term residential drug treatment, are not only a cheaper form of supervision but also may do a better job than incarceration in rehabilitating certain offenders."
"The overwhelming percentage of trial judges consider limited program availability to be an obstacle in sentencing offenders. Because alternative programs are less costly than incarceration, and because research strongly suggests that certain programs can be as effective, or even more effective, than incarceration in reducing recidivism, an intelligent and cost-effective criminal justice policy in New York requires that the State (as well as local governments) adequately fund alternative programs that have demonstrated their success in supervising and treating offenders."
40. "Cruel and Usual: Disproportionate Sentences for New York Drug Offenders," Human Rights Watch, March 1997, vol. 9, No. 2 (B).
New York’s laws violate the Universal Declaration of Human rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment and Punishment.
Eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders who do not have major roles in drug distribution operations.
Grant the judiciary the authority to depart from statutory sentencing ranges when necessary to serve the interests of justice.
Increase the availability and use of constructive alternative sanctions for nonviolent drug offenders who are not significant figures in a drug distribution business, and increase the availability of substance abuse treatment on demand.
41. "The United States Sentencing Guidelines: Results of the Federal judicial Center’s Survey - A report the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States," 1996 Federal Judicial Center Survey
73% of district judges and 69% of circuit judges believe mandatory minimum sentencing guidelines are unnecessary.
Of those who oppose mandatory guidelines, 67% favor advisory guidelines.
63 % of district judges believe first time offenders should be eligible for alternatives to incarceration. 47% would apply this to nonviolent offenders generally. 67% would apply this to offenders with extenuating circumstances (e.g., illness, handicap, dependents).
42. U.S. News & World Report 9/30/96.
A recent study of 2,450 substance abusers in Oregon looked at their patterns of arrest, incarceration, and use of public assistance before and after their treatment. Researchers concluded that for every dollar the state spent on drug treatment, it saved $5.60 in costs for prisons, welfare and other expenses.
43. Marc Mauer and Tracy Huling, "Young Black Americans and the 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.
44. Allen J. Beck & Bernard E. Shipley, "Recidivism of Young Parolees," Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special report.
48% of those who had attended some college were rearrested, compared to 61% of the high school graduates and 71% of those who had not completed high school.
45. Peter W. Greenwood et al, "Diverting Children from a Life of Crime," RAND, 1996.
The effectiveness of education incentives is indicated by the results of a FORD Foundation program for at-risk youths which granted modest cash and scholarship incentives to provide short term motivation. Graduation incentives were found to significantly increase high school graduation and college-enrollment rates among participants. The program also had great success in reducing crime. Observed arrests for participating students were only three-tenths that of control students.
The cost effectiveness of the graduation incentives, in serious crimes averted per million dollars spent, was calculated to be five times better than that of the 3-strikes program.
46. "The Eighth Annual Shock Legislative Report 1996," NY Dept. of Correctional Services and the Division of Parole.
47. Jody Klein-Saffran, "Bureau of Prisons: Expanding Intermediate Sanctions Through Intensive Confinement Centers," Chapter 6 of NIJ Report, Correctional Boot Camps: a Tough Intermediate Sanction, February 1996.
A relatively non-military shock incarceration program, with heavy rehabilitation emphasis, in three stages.
48. Ernest Cowles, Thomas Castellano, and Laura Gransky, "Boot Camp Drug Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: An evaluation Review," National Institute of Justice Research in Brief, July 1995.
The substance abuse education/treatment programs actually implemented in boot camp facilities are not likely to result in the rehabilitation of boot camp participants. Specific findings suggest that a maximally effective boot camp treatment regime would:
a. Adopt the therapeutic community model, … and a de-emphasis on the punitive aspects of boot camp experience.
b. Include prerelease and post-release programming to ensure a continuity of care throughout the institutional and aftercare phases of the program.
49. "Rehabilitation and Intermediate Sanctions that Reduce Crime and Recidivism, Reduce Cost, and Reduce Prison Overcrowding," Position paper of CURE-NY, submitted to the NY State Senate Standing Committee on Crime Victims, Crime, and Corrections, at its Public Hearing, December 4, 1996.
FOOTNOTES
a. (recidivism of control group minus recidivism with
program) / recidivism of control group} x 100%.
b. recidivism of control group minus recidivism with program
c. Unfortunately, because of limited facilities for stage 2 in CASAT, many do not receive the therapeutic community treatment and reintegration processing in stage 2.
Exercise your citizen rights to be heard. Support the seven CURE-NY recommendations above. Jump to the Action Alert page for more specifics.
To return to the homepage, click: