Highlights
The USDOJ states that they have programs that massively reduce offender recidivism (arrests and incarceration after prison).
I assume that the DOJ will now call an immediate meeting of all the states and within a couple of years, we will eliminate most of our prison capacity because it’s no longer needed. Tens of millions of crimes committed by released offenders will disappear. Billions of dollars will be saved.
It’s Pulitzer Prize time (if it’s true).
Author
Opinion
There is a long history within criminology of questioning data. My somewhat snarky response below continues that tradition.
The US Department of Justice just saved federal and state governments billions of dollars in prison costs and, in one stroke, eliminated the criminal victimization of millions of Americans.
There’s no doubt that they will win the Pulitzer Prize for public service.
How did they do this? Through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, they state that former inmates in a Colorado program had a recidivism rate of an astounding five percent. They suggest that a Michigan program cut its recidivism rate to 23 percent.
But these findings contradict all previous USDOJ data on the subject of offender recidivism showing that the vast majority of released inmates are arrested and incarcerated after release from prison.
USDOJ-Colorado’s WAGEES Program
“…WAGEES served thousands of people returning to communities from incarceration. The recidivism rate for active WAGEES participants is less than 5 percent and has been low as 2.5 percent, and the recidivism rate reductions were statistically significant.”
Chart
“Community partners must provide core services: case management and services that align with the programmatic outcomes of WAGEES, including vocational or education credentialing, placement into employment, and decreased recidivism. The community can decide on the different types of services and how they will be implemented (through partners, subcontracts) and decide how grant funds are distributed to achieve programmatic outcomes.”
“Grant funds can underwrite programs and services not outlined in the initial request for proposals, such as family reunification, anger management counseling, and gang disengagement. WAGEES participants are people under parole supervision who score as medium to high risk under CDOC’s validated risk assessment tool. The program is voluntary, and participation is not required,” Bureau Of Justice Assistance.
USDOJ-Michigan’s Peer-Led Reentry Developing Human Capital
“Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative has a rich history of criminal justice system and reentry reforms and, in recent years, decreased its prison population to levels seen in the early 1990s and reduced its recidivism rate to 23 percent, the fourth best in the nation.” The paper describes a comprehensive effort to involve all stakeholders while transitioning into a new focus that was designed by former offenders, Bureau Of Justice Assistance.
Analysis
Because of the considerable reductions cited, I assume that the DOJ will now call an immediate meeting of all the states and within a couple of years, we will eliminate most of our prison capacity because it’s no longer needed. We’re talking about the elimination of billions of dollars in construction and operating costs and the eradication of tens of millions of future crimes.
Claims of success of this magnitude need to be a national and international story. But I suggest that a “tad” of caution is necessary. There are issues to consider.
Replication: Program success is a matter of veracity and replication. There have been programs in the past that were heralded for reducing recidivism but based on further examination, the program’s success could not be duplicated. Hawaii’s Project Hope is one example. It created considerable reductions in recidivism and technical violations. “However, several more long-term studies, funded by the National Institutes of Health were not able to replicate the earlier promising findings.”
But the USDOJ is claiming success without replicating the Colorado-Michigan programs in other locations. Why is that?
Who Designs Programs? We’ve had the best and brightest in criminology examine offender recidivism and programs for offenders from every possible angle for many decades. The Colorado program was run by community leaders yet “they” were able to figure out and implement the right components that have befuddled some of the brightest minds in criminology? Michigan’s evolving efforts are led by former offenders? What do they know that the rest of us missed? I’ve interviewed hundreds of offenders for radio and television programs and when I asked them what we should do to reduce recidivism, they didn’t have a clue.
Recidivism Numbers: If one returns to USDOJ data and research from the US Sentencing Commission, approximately 82 percent of all inmates leaving prison are rearrested and most are returned to prison. How can states claim massive differences in recidivism when compared to contrasting data that has been endlessly replicated?
A ten-year study from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that 82% were arrested at least once during the 10 years following release. Offenders committed well over two million new crimes. About 61% of prisoners released returned to prison within 10 years for a parole or probation violation or a new sentence.
Criminal Backgrounds: 25 percent of Colorado’s participating parolees scored medium to high risk? Per the US Department of Justice, 62 percent of national prison inmates are serving sentences for violent crimes. 66 percent of male inmates are serving time for violent crimes. We all understand that if one looks at criminal histories, the percentage of those in prison for crimes of violence easily reaches 70-80 percent. Are Colorado prisons filled with nonviolent offenders with minor criminal histories?
Per the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the 369,200 persons admitted to state prison in 34 states had an estimated 4.2 million prior arrests. Persons admitted to state prison had a median of nine prior arrests. Over half (59%) were arrested at least once within 2 years of release. 78 percent of inmates had previous incarcerations. Forty-two percent had 5-10 or more incarcerations. 62 percent were violent.
Per the US Sentencing Commission, violent offenders, by far, have the highest rate of recidivism.
So somehow, Colorado found a preponderance of parolees where 75 percent scored less than medium to high risk? Where did they find people being released from prison who meet that criterion?
Do Rehabilitation Programs Work? Finally, if we again return to US Department of Justice data on recidivism, Colorado’s efforts focusing on “vocational or education credentialing, placement into employment” efforts would obviously be supported by the best available literature. But that’s not the case. In a review of hundreds of rehabilitation programs, vocational, education, and employment programs all had a negligible (if any) impact on recidivism.
Conclusions
We’re supposed to be evidence-based in our analysis of programs. The best available evidence suggests that the program data cited by the US Department of Justice above may be suspect, and if so, we betray evidence-based efforts.
If my analysis is correct, this is fundamentally wrong. This document was promoted in the Office of Justice Programs feed introducing new and important documents. It’s on the letterhead of the Bureau of Justice Assistance.
Many of us support programs for people leaving prison because we are committed to finding pathways to a crime-free lifestyle that may save families and individuals beyond the massive savings to correctional budgets and the impact on criminal victimization.
But some states have been telling others that they have been successful in considerably reducing recidivism and they get local media publicity for their claims. But national reporters take a look at the same data I present above and believe that “somethings fishy.”
Yes, gentle reader, something’s amiss. I ignore most of the claims of states as to dramatic reductions in recidivism because it’s misleading based on national data. But when it’s promoted by the US Department of Justice-Office of Justice Programs, (I have immense respect for their current leadership) or offered without mentioning their own contrasting data for context, it becomes something else. Rather than acknowledge methodologically sound previous research, do we do a disservice to the effort to find solutions?
I would love to be wrong and I would love to embrace the program numbers as presented. But my criminology background both as an associate professor and student, requires us to question data especially if it conflicts with long-standing, replicated research.
I question this data.
Privacy Policy
We do not collect your personal information. See our privacy policy at “About This Site.”
See More
See more articles on crime and justice at Crime in America.
Most Dangerous Cities/States/Countries at Most Dangerous Cities.
US Crime Rates at Nationwide Crime Rates.
National Offender Recidivism Rates at Offender Recidivism.
The Crime in America.Net RSS feed (https://crimeinamerica.net/?feed=rss2) provides subscribers with a means to stay informed about the latest news, publications, and other announcements from the site.