scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question
Book

When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry

01 Jan 2003-
TL;DR: In this paper, a profile of returning prisoners is presented, along with a discussion of the changing nature of Parole Supervision and Services, and the role of the victim's role in prisoner reentry.
Abstract: Preface 1. Introduction and Overview 2. Who's Coming Home? A Profile of Returning Prisoners 3. The Origins and Evolution of Modern Parole 4. The Changing Nature of Parole Supervision and Services 5. How We Help: Preparing Inmates for Release 6. How We Hinder: Legal and Practical Barriers to Reintegration 7. Revolving Door Justice: Inmate Release and Recidivism 8. The Victim's Role in Prisoner Reentry 9. What to Do? Reforming Parole and Reentry Practices 10. Conclusions: When Punitive Policies Backfire Afterword
Citations
More filters
31 Dec 2017
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors evaluated the effectiveness of reentry court reentry programs at reducing recidivism and improving individual outcomes through a rigorous impact evaluation using a transactional and institutional cost analysis approach.
Abstract: 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 (SCA) of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-199), 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 SCA 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. Methods: The study used a multi-method approach including 1. a process evaluation in all eight sites involving yearly site visits from 2012 to 2014 with key stakeholder interviews, observations, and participant focus groups; 2. a prospective impact evaluation (in four sites) including interviews at release from jail or prison and at 12 months after release (as well as oral swab drug tests) with reentry court participants and a matched comparison group; 3. a recidivism impact evaluation (in seven sites) with a matched comparison group tracking recidivism for 2 years post reentry court entry and 4. a cost-benefit evaluation (in seven sites) involving a transactional and institutional cost analysis (TICA) approach. Final administrative data were collected through the end of 2016. 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. Also, reentry court program investment costs are described, but the comparison of cost estimates is limited to outcomes and does not include net benefits based on investment in non-reentry court case processing in the comparison group. 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).1 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. 1 SCA legislation provided support for alcohol and other drug (AOD) testing, clinical assessment, and treatment services; however substance use disorder was not a criterion for reentry court eligibility under the SCA, and study participants varied in AOD service need levels NESCAARC Summary Overview 1 Reentry Court Research: An Overview of Findings from the National Institute of Justice’s Evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts INTRODUCTION This report presents final summary findings of the National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ’s) Evaluation of Second Chance Act Adult Reentry Courts (NESCAARC). The NESCAARC study, funded by NIJ in 2010, includes a process evaluation, impact evaluation, and cost-benefit study of eight adult reentry courts. These eight programs received funding and technical assistance from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) under the Second Chance Act (SCA) of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-199). The research was performed through a collaboration between NPC Research, the Center for Court Innovation, and RTI International. Background The importance of this evaluation stems from policymaker attention to the myriad challenges associated with the reentry of formerly incarcerated individuals, coupled with a dearth of “what works” knowledge generally, and a paucity of rigorous research examining reentry courts in particular. There is a clear need for effective reentry policy. By the end of 2015, over 1.5 million individuals were incarcerated in state and federal prisons (Kaeble & Glaze, 2016). Over 95% will be released and two thirds (68%) will be re-arrested within 3 years (Hughes & James Wilson, 2002). More than half will be rearrested by the end of the first year, and 50% of those will return to prison or jail (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). 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 (Lattimore & Visher, 2009; Petersilia, 2003; Travis & Visher, 2005). Reentry courts seek to address these issues 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. Research on reentry courts has resulted in mixed findings, including studies that found reduced revocation and re-incarceration but no impact on re-arrests (Judicial Council of California, 2014) or reduced re-arrests but no impact on revocations or re-incarceration (Hamilton, 2010). These mixed findings are possibly due to wide variation in how reentry courts are implemented but still point to a potential for positive impacts. Results from a randomized controlled trial of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court indicated, over an 18-month follow-up period, a 22% reduction in the re-conviction rate, a 60% reduction in the felony re-conviction rate, and a 45% reduction in revocations (Hassoun Ayoub & Pooler, 2015). In an evaluation of six reentry courts in California, participants in reentry court were no less likely NESCAARC Summary Overview 2 to be re-arrested than a matched comparison group in most sites but participants were revoked less often in the year after entering the program and spent fewer days incarcerated in the 2 years after entering (Judicial Council of California, 2014). Similarly, a quasi-experimental evaluation of the Supervision to Aid Reentry program in Pennsylvania found that reentry court participants were no less likely to be re-arrested than a matched comparison group of probationers, although they were less likely to have experienced supervision revocations (Taylor, 2013). Notably, only 47% of the comparison group were employed at the end of the 18-month study period compared to 63% of reentry court participants (Taylor, 2014). Despite this research, there is still a substantial lack of knowledge about 1. the challenges associated with reentry court implementation, 2. the difficulties reentry courts face in meeting the needs of the target population, and 3. the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of reentry courts. Accordingly, the research presented in this report adds to the knowledge base in all three of these areas. The research protocol and process evaluation findings are documented in three annual project reports (see the scholarly products listed at the end of this report), and the data will be documented with instrumentation at the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data. Study Goals. Through a study of eight reentry courts from across the U.S., th

7 citations


Cites background from "When Prisoners Come Home: Parole an..."

  • ...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 (Lattimore & Visher, 2009; Petersilia, 2003; Travis & Visher, 2005)....

    [...]

  • ...…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 (Lattimore & Visher, 2009; Petersilia, 2003; Travis & Visher, 2005)....

    [...]

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the intended and unintended effects of formal social controls on violent crime within and across U.S. cities were examined using data from the National Neighborhood Crime Study (NNCS).

7 citations

Book ChapterDOI
01 Jul 2020
TL;DR: Brayshaw and Granville as mentioned in this paper present a non-conventional treatment of a project that supports pensioners to engage in collaborative film making, which is performed in a performative approach.
Abstract: Teresa Brayshaw and Jenny Granville offer a non-conventional treatment of a project that supports pensioners to engage in collaborative film making. Their performative approach is fairly radical and, in keeping with this, the chapter is multi-faceted. It includes a transcript of the film and its QR code to enable you to view it yourself, feedback from viewers, elements from a conference presentation and selections from the email exchanges between and among editors and academics that illustrate the difficulties when different views collide.

7 citations