Observations
Reentry court recidivism, like most offender rehabilitation and reentry programs, show limited results as to new arrests, revocations and returns to prison.
Author
By Leonard A. Sipes, Jr.
Thirty-five years of supervising public affairs for national and state criminal justice agencies. Interviewed by every national media source multiple times. Former Senior Specialist for Crime Prevention for the Department of Justice’s clearinghouse. Former Director of Information Management for the National Crime Prevention Council. Post-Master’s Certificate of Advanced Study-Johns Hopkins University.
Article
Offender rehabilitation programs often show no difference in crime and recidivism or the reductions are slight, generally below ten percent, Crime in America.
The data below regarding reentry courts is no different.
Background
There are three major federal studies from the National Institute of Justice (Serious and Violent Offender-Second Chance Act) and the US Sentencing Commission on Drug and Speciality Courts that either shows no differences between control and experimental groups or minor differences (drug courts).
Readers will respond by citing research that does show a difference but once again, results are generally ten percent or less.
The overwhelming number of offenders released from prison recidivate via rearrests and reincarcerations, Crime in America.
I and many others recognize the need for a national conference or major research agenda (similar to cancer) on offender rehabilitation and reentry programs. We simply need better results.
It’s just not possible to declare that, “nothing works or nothing works well,” and walk away. Governors throughout the country insist that correctional agencies reduce costs, and sentencing reforms have prompted most states to make changes in either thresholds for convictions or increasing standards for revocation.
But sentencing reform will never dip into those with violent offenses or multiple felony convictions, which includes the vast majority of the prison population.
Without improvements in our offender reentry and rehabilitation efforts, the only option left is incarceration.
Reentry Courts
The study below summarizes results for reentry courts. My focus on arrests (headline) mimics the opinion of the US Sentencing Commission that arrests are a primary indicator of recidivism.
What happens after arrest is subject to an array of factors and discretionary actions, many having nothing to do with the offender (i.e., plea bargaining, overwhelmed prosecutors, the impact of a guilty verdict on someone on supervision).
Yes, there are differences in the findings below, but like so many studies, they are generally slight (i.e., a one percent difference in rearrests). To me, that indicates no change.
Yes, most (not all) findings favor those getting services, but 14 percent (receiving services) versus 18 percent (control group) going to prison is not a meaningful difference. More getting treatment were revoked.
The authors point out that results for the eight programs varied considerably and I encourage readers to review the full report. But again, the fact that some did better as to recidivism and others didn’t is a fairly common result.
What is it about offender rehabilitation and reentry programs that produce varied results? What is the secret sauce as to getting positive results? Sooner or later, the Department of Justice needs to answer those questions.
The data below attempts to answer this question (the site with better scores did it better as to services) but why do so many programs fail to meet the same criteria after guidance and process evaluations from federal researchers? The only site characterized as having consistently positive recidivism findings was Texas.
The Study (lightly edited for readability)
Background:
There are myriad challenges associated with the reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals, coupled with a dearth of rigorous research examining reentry courts. It is well known that formerly incarcerated individuals face overwhelming obstacles, such as limited occupational or educational experiences to prepare them for employment, drug and alcohol addictions, mental and physical health challenges, strained family relations, and limited opportunities due to the stigma of a criminal record.
Reentry courts seek to address these challenges by assessing the individuals for risks and needs; linking them to appropriate community-based services; and overseeing the treatment process through ongoing court oversight, probation or parole supervision, and case management.
Under the Second Chance Act of 2007, the Bureau of Justice Assistance funded reentry programs including the eight sites participating in this National Institute of Justice Evaluation of SCA Adult Reentry Courts.
This document provides a summary overview of the evaluation and complements three annual reports that provide more detailed information on the program processes and populations, research methods, and findings.
Study Goals:
This study of eight Second Chance Act reentry courts across the U.S. had four goals: 1. Describe the SCA reentry courts through a comprehensive process evaluation. 2. Determine the effectiveness of the SCA reentry courts at reducing recidivism and improving individual outcomes through a rigorous impact evaluation. 3. Conduct a cost-benefit analysis. 4. Contribute to the development of a “true“ reentry court model.
Results:
Results were mixed across sites. One site consistently demonstrated positive outcomes across the interview, recidivism, and cost analyses with the reentry court successfully delivering more substance abuse treatment and other services than what was received by the comparison group.
In addition, reentry court participants out-performed the comparison group in reduced recidivism (re-arrests and re-conviction) and reincarceration (revocation and time in jail or prison).
Two sites had neutral, trending toward positive, results with reduced participant re-arrests but with other outcomes (such as convictions and re-incarceration) not significantly different between the participants and the comparison group.
Two other sites had mixed results (e.g., participants had significantly fewer re-arrests but significantly increased re-incarceration) and two had negative results (e.g., participants had significantly more re-arrests and incarceration while other outcomes were no different between groups).
Cost findings were similarly mixed with two sites experiencing cost savings due mainly to lower recidivism costs and fewer victimization costs for reentry court participants ($2,512 and $6,710 saved per participant) and the remainder experiencing loss (ranging from just over -$1,000 to almost – $17,000 loss per participant).
The research protocol and process evaluation findings are documented in three annual project reports; research caveats include a lack of detailed treatment service data.
Conclusions:
Key processes that set the one site with positive outcomes apart from the other sites was the high level of consistency and intensity of substance abuse treatment, wraparound services for multiple criminogenic needs, high intensity supervision, as well as an increased use of praise from the judge along with other incentives and sanctions.
In addition, the eligibility criteria for this site required that participants have a substance use disorder with risk levels ranging from moderate to high (based on their local risk assessment with a three point scale that ranged from low to high).
In contrast, other site eligibility criteria did not require a substance use disorder and participant risk levels were mostly high to very high (depending on the assessment tool used and their specific scoring and risk category criteria).
It is possible that the sites with less positive results did not have the appropriate level and type of services consistently available to best serve the varying risk levels of their participants.
Source
Contact
Contact us at crimeinamerica@gmail.com.
Media on deadline, contact leonardsipes@gmail.com.
My book: “Amazon Hot New Release”- “A Must Have Book,” Success With The Media: Everything You Need To Survive Reporters and Your Organization available at Amazon
This is an ad-free website.
Reviews are appreciated.