Recidivism
Darin Stevens
Central Methodist University
Author Note
The author, Darin A. Stevens, Doniphan, Missouri is a psychology major, minoring in sociology. He attends Central Methodist University via the distance learning campus in Poplar Bluff, Missouri. Currently, Stevens is a communications operator for the Missouri State Highway Patrol. He began his law enforcement career as a jailer at the Doniphan (Missouri) Police Department in 1997.
Working at the deck plate level of corrections was a very formative experience for the author. He saw people in every stage of the corrections process. From petty thieves, to child molesters to murders; the author had daily contact with people who had made some very bad choices.
In that time, he also worked as a transport guard for the Ripley County (Missouri) Sheriff’s Department. On more than one occasion, he transported convicted peoplewho were making their first trip to prison, along with prisoners who were getting their last glimpse of the outside world on their way to serving a life sentence.
This study is a review of various scholarly articles, book sections, government statistics and anecdotal reflections of author. The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Mrs. Amanda Crabtree, Central Methodist University; Chief Mark A. Rodgers, Doniphan Police Department; Chief Richard Joyner, Doniphan Missouri Police Department (retired); Mr. James Berry, Missouri Department of Corrections, Division of Probation and Parole; Mrs. Kimberly D. Stevens, Deputy Juvenile Officer, Missouri 36th Judicial Circuit.
Darin Stevens
8 Fox Drive
Doniphan, Missouri 63935
Abstract
Prison is, by most accounts, the last place most people would like to spend an hour, let alone a significant portion of their life. That point is hard to dispute, but scores of people are stuck in a revolving door by which they are released from prison, only to return. Sometimes their return to prison is due to violation of the terms of release, other times subsequent offenses result in new convictions. Whatever the reason; recidivism has a direct and substantive effect on society.
In this study of recidivism, the author examines the causes of recidivism and programs that have been instituted to assist convicted persons with re-entry into society. We will examine the meaning of recidivism, the population in question, causes of recidivism and programs in place that assist convicted persons with re-entry into society in such a way that help them avoid recidivism. We will also examine programs that exist beyond the prison walls, particularly drug court.
Method
The author researched both quantitative and qualitative data to gather information for this study. After completing the outline, the author set about finding sources to address the various sections of the paper. It was at this point that adjustments were made to the outline, particularly to the rehabilitation methods section of the paper. It was difficult to find unbiased, scientific documentation to support the claims of these programs. The author has little doubt that faith-based programs, for instance, can be effective for some people. However, it is difficult to find unbiased documentation to support that claim. A minister, or subscriber to a particular belief system, may attribute the success of these programs to faith. The author does not discount the power and influence of faith. It isn’t difficult to find examples of instances where faith would appear to be the only conclusion. However, these assertions aren’t easily quantified. Therefore, in the interest of scientific research, the author has avoided faith-based programs.
Rather than devote more time to the search, the author chose to place additional emphasis on the areas that provided more usable information.
Recidivism is serious business, but there is no harm in a heartwarming moment. Though not as scientific as the other sections, the Jail Dogs program of the Gwinnett County, Georgia Sheriff’s Department is an example of the good that come from bringing together two parties in need.
Introduction
All levels of government strive to keep mechanisms in place that are designed to protect the public from harm. Responsibilities in this effort are divided between the legislature, the court system, law enforcement and corrections. The focus of this study is on the corrections portion of the equation. Some simply view corrections as place to stockpile maladjusted humans in places where they can’t do further harm. The prison system, however, is overflowing. To further exacerbate the issue, economic conditions have caused state and federal governments to slash the budgets of all government-supported concerns. Corrections have been no exception.
The problem isn’t an increase in crime. According to the United States Census Bureau, crime rates in the United States have been trending downward since 1992 (Bureau, 2013). Murder rates have ticked down from 9.8 (per 100,000) in 1991 to 5.0 in 2009 (Bureau, 2013). All other categories of crime have taken a similar route. The author does not wish to underplay the depths and seriousness of the tragedies people face or to make light of the terrible things that still occur, but crime in America is trending downward. So why are the prisons overcrowded?
The problem facing us is success with which we rehabilitate those who have offended. A large number of people who run the punitive gambit from law enforcement to the courts to corrections are caught in a revolving apparatus from which they cannot seem to escape.
In addition to various scholarly references, the authorwill also make anecdotal reference to his own career in law enforcement. He has worked in law enforcement since 1997. He had direct contact with incarcerated persons from 1997-2011. In that time, the author saw literally hundreds of people work their way through the judicial cycle. In some cases, people moved directly from the juvenile court system into the adult court system. From there, the majority of them followed similar path. The cycle of arrest, conviction, probation, probation violation, continuance, probation violation, prison, parole, parole violation and prison is viciously repeated.
The author also worked closely with probation/parole officers. These men and women were tasked with supervising persons serving their sentences outside prison walls. Probation/parole officers conduct regularly meetings with clients and report their progress or regress to the court. In these meetings, clients and officers review the goals and stipulations of the client’s conditional release. Clients are also subject to unannounced urinalysis.
Some of these meetings are conducted at the office of the officer. Officers also conduct meetings in the homes of the clients. This is normally a routine evolution, but it does place the officer in a potentially dangerous situation.
What is recidivism?
Recidivism is defined as a tendency to relapse into a previous condition or mode of behavior; especially relapse into criminal behavior. People who have no frame of reference in criminal behavior may find it perplexing to know that people who have committed crimes, been convicted and were assessed punitive measures for those crimes would chance further punishment by continuing to exhibit criminal behavior. That is a difficult concept to accept, but recidivism is a reality in the lives of thousands of people.
We will explore that portion of the American public at-risk for recidivism and factors that contribute to recidivism. We will also be assessing the various programs in place to supervise and assist convicted persons before and after their release from incarceration. First, however, we’ll look at the numbers.
The Population in Question
According to Bureau of Justice Statistics:
“During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
Released prisoners with the highest re-arrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide (Justice, 2013)”.
What are the causes of recidivism?
Persistent Substance Abuse
According to a follow-up study of prisoners with histories of substance abuse, conducted by Anders Hakansson and Mats Berglund, substance abuse has been shown to predict criminal recidivism. The study was conducted in Sweden, but the parallels are clear.
“Substance abuse and criminal behavior are closely related, and a large proportion of substance users commit crimes. While some part of criminal behavior is likely to occur in order to finance drug use, substance use is also clearly associated with violent crime.
Also, criminal behavior is generally more common among mentally ill and a very large proportion of criminal justice clients suffer from alcohol or drug dependence or other mental disorders, including high rates of personality disorders(Berglund, 2012)”.
Hakansson and Berglund found 69 percent of clients who abused controlled substances returned to the criminal justice system. Use of amphetamines, heroin and injection drug use all serve as predictors of recidivism. Recidivism was also associated with the use of more substances prior to initial incarceration (Berglund, 2012)
In the author’s law enforcement experience, substance abuse is easily the largest contributor to recidivism. Methamphetamine was fairly-new to our region of southern Missouri when I first joined the ranks of law enforcement. It quickly grew to epidemic proportions and our jail was filled to capacity most of the time. Nearly everyone in jail was there for making, possessing or selling methamphetamine. Unlike marijuana, where the legal status of the drug is oftentimes the only crime associated, there is a great deal of crime associated with methamphetamine. Many others were incarcerated because their methamphetamine habit had led to property crimes or, in some cases; they had committed physical or sexual assaults while they were under the influence of methamphetamine. The epidemic has subsided somewhat, but the problem remains pervasive.
The Nature of Sex Offenders
Another group of offenders at great risk for recidivism are sex offenders. This group also causes a great deal of concern for the public, due to the personal nature of their crimes. U.S. Department of Justice statistics show that one in four women and one and six men will experience some kind of sexual assault in their lifetime. Statistics also show that 67% of sexual assaults are committed by someone known to the victim (Missouri Sex Offender Registry, 2013). Law enforcement and government at all levels has attempted to protect the public by instituting stringent conditions of release for sex offenders. Convicted sex offenders must provide local authorities with their address, place of employment and registration information for any vehicle they own or operate. There are also community restrictions that dictate where sex offenders can reside. Sex offenders who are incarcerated must complete sex offender counseling before they can be released from prison. All parolees must provide the department of corrections with a home plan that outlines where and with whom they will reside. This is particularly significant with sex offenders who are convicted of assaulting children. In the case of child molesters, parole officers must verify that the residence in question is not within the prescribed proximity to school or child care facilities. These measures were set into motion by the Jacob Wetterling Act, also known as “Jake’s Law”. In 1989, Jacob Wetterling, age 11, was riding his bike with friends when a masked man grabbed him and told his friends two friends to run toward the woods nearby. By the time the two friends turned around, Jacob and the man were gone.
Following Jacob’s abduction, his mother, Patty, was appointed to a Governor’s Task Force and became a strong voice for missing children. As a result of her efforts, Congress passed the first federal law in 1994 dealing with sex offender registration, known as the Jacob Wetterling Crimes AgainstChildren and Sexually Violent Offender Registration Act.
A similar incident led to an amendment of the Jacob Wetterling act. In 1996, Megan Kanka, age 7, was raped and murdered by a twice-convicted pedophile who was residing in her neighborhood. While this law gives states discretion as to the criteria of information available, it requires them to enact a community notification system. Megan’s law allows states to make private and personal information available to the public(Missouri Sex Offender Registry, 2013). Today, anyone can search the online database and see if there is a convicted sex offender living in their neighborhood. It doesn’t prevent movements of sex offenders who are not in compliance, but when those offenders are apprehended; the punitive measures can be very severe.
Another amendment to the Jacob Wetterling Act came in 1996 with the Pam Lychner Sexual Offender Tracking Law. This law provided law enforcement the ability to track sex offenders from one location to another. Initially, when a sex offender moved, there was no system in place to enable one law enforcement agency to notify another. This law also added the length of time an offender was required to register from 10 years to life (Missouri Sex Offender Registry, 2013).
John Hepburn and Marie L. Griffin, of Arizona State University submitted a report to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding recidivism in sex offenders. The study was designed to identify those static and dynamic factors that best predict success or failure among adult sex offenders while on probation. Information on a large number of diverse factors for a sampling of probationers in Maricopa County is examined. This information will permit us, initially, to locate those factors that are associated with unsuccessful probation outcomes (Hepburn & Griffin, 2004).
“Recent sex offender recidivism research has been characterized by a distinction between static and dynamic risk predictors. Static risk factors are those relatively unchangeable factors that are historically antecedent to the time the probationer is placed at risk in the community. Among the static risk factors identified are the offender’s age (Escarela et al., 2000; Firestone et al., 1999; Firestone et al., 2000; Hanson and Buissiere, 1998; Hanson and Harris, 2000), educational history(Firestone et al., 2000; Hanson and Harris, 2000), employment history (Dempster and Hart, 2002) and marital status (Hanson and Harris, 2000; Quinsey et al., 1995; Rice et al., 1991). Additional static predictors are the offender’s criminal history(Dobson and Konicek, 1998; Firestone et al., 1999; Firestone et al., 2000; Grubin, 1999; Hanson and Harris 2000; Hanson et al., 1993; Hudson Wales, Baker and Ward, 2002), history of alcohol and drug abuse (Dobson and Konicek, 1998), and such elements of the instant office as number of victims (Dobson and Konicek, 1998, Maletzky, 1991), the age (Dobson and Konicek, 1998; Escarela et al., 2000) and sex (Hanson and Harris, 2000; Hanson and Harris, 2001; Hanson et al., 1993) of victims and the use of force or injury to the victims (Marshall and Barbaree, 1988; Dempster and Hart, 2002; Dobson and Konicek, 1998; Hanson and Harris, 2000; McGrath 1991; Heburn and Griffin, 2004)”
Court-ordered rehabilitation is integral for helping sex offenders avoid recidivism. In a report prepared for the US Department of Justice by Doctors Richard Tewksbury, Wesley Jennings, and Kristen Zgoba, rehabilitation for sex offenders is examined.
“Sex offenders, the seemingly worst of the worst among criminal offenders today, are commonly, albeit incorrectly, assumed to be highly recidivistic, as well as specialists, engaged in sex offending only. Despite the fact that our legal responses to sex offenders, primarily sex offender registration and notification (SORN), are based on assumptions that those who commit sex crimes have no control over their sexual impulses and will repeat their crimes again, relatively little research has found support for such beliefs (Tewksbury, 2011).”
“At the center of the arguments in support of the growing breadth and depth of legal responses to sex offenders is the belief that there is a high rate of recidivism among sex offenders. As a foundation for SORN is the belief and pursuit of deterrence. SORN is premised on the idea that by making information public about identities, and residential locations, of known sex offenders, the public will be better equipped to avoid situations in which these offenders have possibilities to reoffend. The research evidence, though, does not support this belief. However, any review of reported rates of sex offender recidivism should be viewed with consideration of the inherent similarities and differences in methodologies across studies. Further, it is important to recognize that not all sex offenders are alike in regards to their offenses. There is great diversity among sex offenders and corresponding recidivism rates when looking at their preferences for victims (Tewksbury, 2011).”
Tewksbury, et al, makes a valid point in their study in stating that not all sex offenders are created equal. There is a marked difference between a predator that targets children and a young man of 22 years unwittingly has intimate relations with a young woman of 16, who misrepresented her age. However, they also assert that the rigors of being a convicted sex offender, i.e. sex offender registration, housing restrictions, etc. contribute to increased episodes of depression, alcoholism, drug abuse and even recidivism. These measures, however, enjoy broad public support from the public, as well as from law enforcement officials. They are seen as key tools for public safety. They aren’t failsafe, but the public understands and appreciates that keeping close tabs on sex offenders helps to protect potential victims of these crimes.
The post-conviction behavior of sex offenders can be defined in two distinct categories; reoffended or did not reoffend. There are convicted sex offenders walking among us who committed their offense(s) when they were very young, benefitted from rehabilitation and carried on with their lives. They are still subject to the same restrictions as every other sex offender, but they manage the regimen. Such is the case of Dallas Wuesthoff.
Dallas Wayne Wuesthoff was 21 years of age when he was accused of first degree statutory sodomy on May 18, 1996(Missouri Sex Offender Registry, 2013). In Missouri, Statutory Sodomy – 1st Degree is defined as, “A person commits the crime of statutory sodomy in the first degree if he has deviate sexual intercourse with another person who is less than fourteen years old” (Chapter 566 Sexual Offenses Section 566.062). Wuesthoff’s victim was a three year-old girl. He was convicted and was sentenced to prison on March 31, 1997. Since his release, he has been consistently-compliant with the terms of his release.
The author is familiar with this case, as the events unfoldedin his hometown of Doniphan, MO. He worked at the Doniphan Police Department at the time of his sentencing. Since serving his sentence, Wuesthoff has faded into the workforce; perhaps a best-case scenario for a young man whose wrongdoings made the front page of the local newspaper. Today, he is nearly 40 years old, married, with children, and has held the same job for well-over a decade. People unaware of his past would scarcely believe he’d ever be capable of abhorrent behavior. Jeffrey Shelton, on the other hand, is a very different story.
On October 24, 2012, convicted sex offender Jeffrey Shelton abducted a 5 year-old girl in Poplar Bluff, MO, launching a massive manhunt involving officers from the Poplar Bluff Police Department, The Butler County Sheriff’s Office, The Missouri State Highway Patrol, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Marshalls Service. Fortunately, Shelton surrendered to authorities and his victim was recovered, unharmed. Shelton, who had been previously incarcerated for forcible statutory sodomy, has since been sentenced to life in prison.
There was a tremendous public outcry in the aftermath. People simply could not understand why a person who was previously convicted and confined for sexually assaulting a child was permitted to walk the streets. These two men were convicted of the same crime, but the choices they made going forward were extraordinarily different.
The author is very familiar with this case because it happened on his watch. He actually took one of the initial phone calls regarding the Poplar Bluff Missouri abduction and assisted in coordinating the law enforcement response. The men and women of the law enforcement agencies involved upheld, to the fullest extent, the long-held law enforcement motto, “to serve and protect”.
Socioeconomics
Socioeconomics can also be a telling factor when determining the danger of recidivism. Becky Petit and Bruce Western had a study published in the 2004 issue of American Sociological Review that examined perceived and real differences in the likelihood recidivism by race.
“High incarceration rates among black and low- education men have been traced to similar sources. The slim economic opportunities and turbulent living conditions of young disadvantaged and black men may lead them to crime. In addition, elevated rates of offending in poor and minority neighborhoods compound the stigma of social marginality and provoke the scrutiny of criminal justice activities (Petit, 2004)”.
The hopelessness of poverty, combined with a proclivity toward criminal behavior puts people in increased danger of recidivism. If the offender lives with or around friends and family members who share similar behavioral traits, they are also at greater risk. In families and social groups wherecriminal behavior is commonplace, it is difficult for offenders, particularly young offenders, to come to the determination that they are capable of steering their lives toward a better path.
Release programs
Probation/Parole
During 2009, the number of offenders under community supervision declined 0.9%, from 5,064 to 5018,855. This was the first decline observed in the community supervision population, including adults on probation or parole, since the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Annual Probation Survey and Annual Parole Survey began in 1980 (Justice O. o., 2013).
“Probation is a court ordered period of correctional supervision in the community, generally as an alternative to incarceration followed by a period of community supervision. Parole is a period of conditional supervised release in the community following a prison term. It includes supervision following a discretionary or mandatory release from prison and other types of post-custody conditional supervision, such as a term of supervised release (Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
“There are a couple of different ways that felony probation can be handled. For example, if a person is convicted of committing a felony, a judge could sentence him to jail time but may decide to place him on probation instead. In other cases, a judge may require a criminal to spend a certain amount of time in jail but allow him to serve the rest of his sentence on probation. If a person would normally be given two years in prison, for example, a judge could have him spend 18 months in prison but allow the last six months to be spent on probation(Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
“Between 2008 and 2009 the number and percentage of probationers supervised for a felony increased. In 2008 an estimated 2,111,800 (49%) of probationers were supervised for a felony. As the probation population declined during 2009, the estimated number (2,138,700) of felons on probation increased and accounted for a larger portion (51%) of the probation population at yearend 2009. The increase in the felony probation population observed between 2008 and 2009 reversed a decline in trend observed between 2000 (52%) and 2008 (49%)(Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
“Consistent with the increase in the felony probation population between 2008 and 2009 was a small decrease in the percentage of probationers supervised for a misdemeanor (48% in 2008; 47% in 2009), reversing an increasing trend observed since 2000 (46%) (Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
“However, the probation population decreased by 40,079 during 2009 from 4,244,046 to 4,203,967. Twenty-nine states reported decreases in their probation population in 2009, with a combined total decrease of 79,801. Washington (down 13,899), California (down 13,023), and Florida (down 11,319) reported decreases of 10,000 or more probations during the year. These three states accounted for almost half of the total decrease in the probation population. The decline in the probation during the year in those 29 states was partially offset by a combined total increase of 39,722 probationers in 21 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal system (Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
Large decreases in some states were consistent with recent legislation passed, as in Washington, and court-ordered mandates, as in California, to address current budgetary constraints by reducing community supervision populations. Washington and California were required to reduce their community supervision populations, including both the probation and parole populations, by concentrating resources primarily on high-risk, violent offenders and reducing the number of nonviolent, low-risk offenders supervised (Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
“The number of entries to probation declined for the second consecutive year. Between 2007 and 2008, entries declined by 23,000 (down 1.0%). The decline in entries was larger between 2008 and 2009 (down 55,700 or 2.4%). The decline in entries during 2009 contributed to the decrease in the probation population as the number of exits from probation (2,347,500) exceeded the number of entries (2,313,600) for the first time since the Annual Probation Survey began in 1980 (Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).
The exit of the at-risk population is defined as the ratio of the number of probationers who exited supervision during the year to the number of probationers who could have exited supervision at any point during the year (i.e., at-risk probation population. The probation exit rate is a measure of how quickly the population turns over. A small increase in the exit rate of the at-risk probation population was observed between 2006 (34 per 100 probations at risk of exiting) and 2009 (36 per 100).
“The small increase in the exit rate was not related to an increase in the percentage of probationers who were incarcerated because the percentage of probationers incarcerated declined between 2006 (18%) and 2009 (16%). The increase in the exit rate between 2006 and 2009 was associated with an increase in the percentage of probationers who completed the terms of their supervision, through either completion of their full-term sentence or an early discharge (58% in 2006; 65% in 2009)(Bonczar & Glaze, 2010).”
Examples of Rehabilitation Programs
Drug Court
“Drug courts are specialized court docket programs that target criminal defendants and offenders, juvenile offenders, and parents with pending child welfare cases who have alcohol and other drug dependency problems. Although drug courts vary in target population and resources, programs
are generally managed by a multidisciplinary team including judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community corrections, social workers and treatment service professionals. Support from stakeholders representing law enforcement, the family and the community is encouraged through participation in hearings, programming and events like graduation. Adult drug courts employ a program designed to reduce drug use relapse and criminal recidivism among defendants and offenders through risk and needs assessment, judicial interaction, monitoring and supervision, graduated sanctions and incentives, treatment and various rehabilitation services. Juvenile drug courts apply a similar program model that is tailored to the needs of juvenile offenders. These programs provide youth and their families with counseling, education and other services to: promote immediate intervention, treatment and structure; improve level of functioning; address problems that may contribute to drug use; build skills that increase their ability to lead drug- and crime-free lives; strengthen the family’s capacity to offer structure and guidance; and promote accountability for all involved. Family drug courts emphasize treatment for parents with substance use disorders to aid in the reunification and stabilization of families affected by parental drug use. These programs apply the adult drug court model to cases entering the child welfare system that include allegations of child abuse or neglect in which substance abuse is identified as a contributing factor. Program goals include: helping the parent to become emotionally, financiallyand personally self-sufficient; promoting the development of parenting and coping skills adequate for serving as an effective parent on a day-to-day basis; and providing services to their children.
Other types of drug courts have emerged to address issues specific to unique populations including tribal, driving while intoxicated (DWI), campus, reentry, veterans and mental health courts (Justice U. D., 2012).”
Dogs in Prison
An interesting and beneficial rehabilitation program in some corrections facilities has prisoners working with shelter dogs. The Gwinnett County Georgia Sheriff’s Department has one of these programs. The GCSD, in partnership with The Society of Humane Friends of Georgia, takes dogs collected by Gwinnett County Animal Control Officers and places them with prisoners who have been trained in dog rehabilitation.
“The program started initially with five dogs pulled from the euthanasia line at Gwinnett County Animal Control, Jail Dogs now houses over fifteen dogs at a time. Upon arrival at the unit, each dog is assigned a primary inmate handler, in whose room the dog sleeps, plus either one or two secondary handlers. This not only gives inmates access to dogs and ability to learn handling skills, but also provides continuity for the dog should one of its handlers leave the unit. Trainers visit with the dogs and inmates three times a week, teaching the inmates how to train and care for the dogs. Basic obedience, tricks, and agility are all taught to the dogs and many have become quite adept! We also have groomers, vet techs, and other animal welfare volunteers and professionals visit the unit to educate the inmates on different issues surrounding the dogs, their care, and ways to reduce pet overpopulation (Jail Dog, 2013).
Since the program's founding, over eighty dogs have been rescued, vetted, trained, and adopted into new families. In addition to saving dogs, we're also benefiting the inmates, giving them new skills in dog training and handling, as well as learning to care for something other than themselves and the knowledge that they have made a positive difference in a dog's life (Jail Dog, 2013).”
Programs of this nature give their caregivers a sense of purpose and provide a valuable service for the community. Inmates in the program are taught a skill and experience the affection of dogs that, like them, come from backgrounds lacking love, affection and kinship. As of March 2012, the Gwinnett County program has found homes for 100 dogs.
Boot Camp
As early as 1983, corrections officials were looking for a better way to prevent recidivism in first-time offenders, thus reducing prison populations and costs. Prison boot camp programs are designed to emulate military-style basic training. Studies of these programs revealed mixed results. The Department of Justice commissioned a study to examine the success of these programs. Ten years of findings were compiled and researcher’s conclusions published (Parent, 2003).
Participants reported positive short-term changes inattitudes and behaviors; they also had better problem-solving and coping skills (Parent, 2003).
These changes, however, did not lead to reduced recidivism. The boot camps that did produce lower recidivism rates offered more treatment services, had longer sessions, and included more intensive post release supervision. However, not all programs with these features had successful results (Parent, 2003).
“Under a narrow set of conditions, boot camps can lead to small relative reductions in prison populations in prison populations and correctional costs (Parent, 2003).”
Parent concluded that correctional practitioners and planners might learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:
Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s individual program and reentry plans may improve the likelihood he or she will not commit a new offense (Parent, 2003).
“Programs that offered substantial discounts in time served to those who completed boot camps and that chose candidates sentenced to serve longer terms were the most successful in reducing prison populations (Parent, 2003).”
Chances of reducing recidivism increased when boot camp programs lasted longer and offered more intensive treatment andpost release supervision, activities that may conflict with the goal of reducing population.
Efforts to achieve multiple goals are likely the overallcause of boot camps’ conflicting results. Program designers are urged to determine which options are best for their jurisdictions; for example, they may consider whether to implement moretreatment programs or move inmates out of the system more rapidly. These decisions affect costs, as prison bed-space savings go up or down.
Other correctional programs are adopting some of theimportant elements of boot camps for example, carefully structured programs that reduce idleness to increase safety and improve conditions of confinement for younger offenders.
However, in recent years, some jurisdictions facing risingcosts have responded by cutting programs. One lesson for policymakers from 10 years of boot camp research is that curtailing programs may lead to increased violence, misconduct, and serious management problems (Parent, 2003).
The breakdown in the boot camp plan lies in the after care. The initial program provides participants with a good foundation of discipline and order. However, if that structure is removed to soon, failure becomes more likely. Compare it pouring a wall of concrete. When pouring concrete, reinforcements are constructed, forms are set and secured. After the concrete is poured, the forms are left in place long-after the concrete appears to be hardened. Veteran masons know that the concrete you cannot see takes longer to cure. If the forms are removed too soon; the wall will.
This is where correctional boot camp and military basic training are dissimilar. The military calls it “basic” training because there is far more training to follow. If the Army or Marines sent their troops directly from basic training to their units; they’d be of little service. After the military teaches men and women to Sailors, Marines, Soldiers, Airmen or Guardsmen; they teach them a trade, while continually reaffirming the information they were taught in basic training.
Recommendations for Further Research
More corrections facilities should consider adopting rehabilitation projects in which prisoners are trained to work with pets and service animals. On the face, it would appear that these programs can provide a valuable service to society. Researchers could then do a long-term study to judge the effectiveness of these programs.
Research into the effectiveness of Drug Courts could also prove valuable. This is still a fairly-new concept, but if early results are an indication, a study of former Drug Court participants five years after their participation could be illuminating. The author has a relative who successfully completed a drug court program. Since this relative’s “graduation”, she has remained sober, employed and has started a family.
Researchers could aid in improving these programs by examining the elements therein, determining what methods work best and assist in the development and implementation of drug court programs where they don’t currently exist.
Research should be conducted to determine if recidivism rates could be reduced by segregating non-violent offenders from violent offenders. If people without violent tendencies can be dissuaded from developing violent tendencies while incarcerated; society will benefit.
The treatment received by sex offenders, while imprisoned, should be examined to see if there are more effective methods for rehabilitation. It would also be of benefit to research if monitoring of more-serious offenders could be enhanced by allowing offenders who are determined to no longer be a threat to work their way off of sex offender registries through good behavior and compliance with the terms of their registration.
Further research into the benefits and drawbacks of boot camp-style programs is warranted. Researchers could examine the elements of past and existing programs and use those findings to develop new approaches to the boot camp method. New programs should include an emphasis on aftercare. Our military men and women aren’t finished with training when basic training is over. Basic training is merely the beginning of their training. It would be useful to know if a boot camp program, followed by a vocational program could be more effective in the treatment of first-time felons.
Conclusion
Public safety is dependent upon society’s ability to deter crime. The most effective deterrent comes when people make conscious decisions to respect the lives, property and possessions of others. Most people develop that moral compass, but some do not. Once those people have identified by their transgressions, authorities must decide to either isolate them from society or teach them to function within society. The former may be effective in the short term, but it is an extremely expensive proposition and, if not properly administered, becomes a training ground for more criminals to become even more dangerous. The latter can give offenders another chance at a satisfying life experience, a benefit that will serve both the offender and the community.
It behooves society to support efforts to reduce recidivism. The bad choices made by people do not have to define the rest of their lives, but they cannot do it alone. Legislators and others who dictate financial support in the form of budgets have a very serious job and much of that job is driven by politics. However, our leaders and populace alike need to be aware that every convicted person who can be turned away from recidivism will result in fewer victims, less lost property and will ease overcrowding in prisons.
References
Berglund, A. H. (2012). Risk Factors for criminal recidivism - a prospective follow-up study in prisoners with substance abuse. BMC Psychiatry, 111-120.
...