IAS Capstone E-Portfolio/Essay Prompt

Recidivism in the United States

Xingyun Shao

Institutional Affiliation

03/12/2018

Recidivism in the United States

Over the past few years, the department of corrections in the United States has been subject to immense public scrutiny. Research indicates that since the advent of the twentieth century, the population of prisoners in the United States has increased significantly (Lockwood, Nally, & Ho, 2016). In fact, the United States is the only country of the world where a high percentage of its people are incarcerated. Case in point; out of about 100,000 Americans, about 750 of them are living their life behind bars as opposed to the world average which stands at about 166 people in every 100,000 (Lockwood et al., 2016). One of the primary contributing factor to this worrying trend has been the high rates of recidivism in the United States corrections system. Recidivism refers to the act of formerly imprisoned individuals relapsing into criminal behaviour resulting in their subsequent re-incarceration. Evidence suggests that the rate of recidivism in the United States is about two thirds meaning that within three years following their release, two thirds of released individuals with be re-imprisoned (Lockwood et al., 2016). High recidivism rates significantly undermine the economy of the nation given the high costs spent on ensuring public safety and the many resources spent on arresting, prosecuting and incarcerating re-offenders. Key reasons have been identified for the high rate of recidivism and they include the inability of ex-felons to return to their former workplaces, problems of substance abuse as well as the lack of resources required in assisting these individuals secure employment after release. It is from this backdrop that this paper describes a policy memo that proposes increasing the availability and accessibility of inmates to treatment and educational resources both while in prison and after release as the most appropriate solution of addressing the problem of recidivism in the United States. The specific policy being investigated is treatment and education resources for inmates.

Background and Significance

During the early 2000s, many states across America began developing several programs to tackle the problem of recidivism following the release of inmates back into society. Few years later, the Second Chance Act was passed by Congress with the primary objective of establishing grants to facilitate the funding and implementation of these programs (CSG, 2017). According to a study that sought to determine the progress that some of these states had made in tackling recidivism, about seven states exhibited reduced rates of recidivism and this pointed to the important roles that states can play in reducing this problem (Mardirossian, 2016). According recent statistics by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, about 700000 individuals are released every year from prisons and an additional 9 million are released from the nation’s jails (CSG, 2017). However, given the high recidivism rate, it is clear that prisoners hardly get the services they require in successfully re-integrating back into their societies. In 2014, the USC School of Social Work coordinated with the U.S. District Court for the Central California Districted in sponsoring a workshop aimed at mobilizing state, federal, and community officials into discussing the most appropriate ways of improving the process of prisoner re-entry in society (Davis, Sheidow, &McCart, 2015). Recidivism is not a problem for the corrections department but a societal problem that affects almost everyone in society. Most of these individuals find it hard to change their lives after release because of the challenges they face upon re-entering society such as lack of decent housing, substance abuse, and even unemployment. For instance, 80% of inmates released from federal prisons have drug and alcohol abuse problems, about two thirds of them lack a decent education, and about 16% suffer from serious mental illnesses (Davis et al., 2015).

Stakeholder Analysis of the Problem

To determine the most appropriate way of addressing the problem of recidivism, a critical analysis of the role of stakeholders is paramount. Evidence suggests that about ten years ago, almost all the stakeholders in the United States criminal justice system believed that the major aim of parole supervision and probation was surveillance and that the high recidivism rates were quite unavoidable (CSG, 2017). However, in today’s American society, most of the local, state, and federal corrections agencies are actively engaged in efforts aimed at preventing the likelihood of released inmates to reoffend. Other stakeholder such as community-based mental health providers believed that it was not within their responsibility to assist inmates with mental health issues. What is more, agencies of workplace development hardly considered the challenges faced by ex-felons who were trying to secure employment opportunities. However, leaders and manager in government agencies like those focused on education and housing have begun realizing their crucial role in supporting individuals in correction facilities (CSG, 2017).

Other non-governmental organizations such as businesses and religious groups have also began highlighting the challenges faced by prisoners trying to re-enter society. For instance, employers such as the John Hopkins Health System, Facebook, Starbucks and even Koch industries are actively engaged in the promotion of the employment of individuals with criminal histories as an acceptable and sensible practice of business (Lockwood et al., 2016). Also, evidence suggests policymakers, workplace development professionals, and business owners have been working the National Re-entry Resource Center in determining appropriate ways of eradicating barriers in the labour market for inmates’ post-release (CSG, 2017). The stepping up initiative is also evidence of the efforts made by stakeholders in reducing recidivism. The current number of counties involved in this initiative has risen to 365 and this represents more than one third of the US demographic. The Stepping Up initiative plays an important role of helping reduce the number of inmates with behavioural health issues by increasing their connections to effective treatment. The availability and accessibility of inmates to services of mental health treatment significantly reduces their chance for recidivism. What is more, state legislators in the political arena also play an important role in reducing high recidivism rates. These stakeholders have the responsibility of enacting laws that will ease the rei-integration process of inmates in the society. Evidence suggests that currently, more than fifteen states in the US have developed laws and policies targeted at helping prisoners recently released from prison to acquire state-issued identification (Davis et al., 2015). What is more, about twenty-seven states and at least 150 counties and cities across the nation have developed “ban the box” policies which prevent the unnecessary exclusion of individuals with criminal records from the labour market (CSG, 2017).

The distinct risks and needs of inmates recently from prison significantly influence stakeholders’ role in the reduction of recidivism rates. Therefore, programs put in place to tackle the issue will only be beneficial if they correspond to the unique risks and needs of these individuals. The following are recommendations for the various stakeholders involved including local, state, and federal agencies as well as community organizations. The first recommendation concerns the alignment of state and local policy with evidence-based research on the most effective ways of reducing reoffending. In this regard, elected officials should mobilize state and local agencies as well as private service providers in adopting evidence-based practices like the use of needs and risk evaluations in determining which resources are appropriate for the different prisoners. Evidence suggests that some existing policies and laws require prisoners to engage in programs based on the nature of their crimes irrespective of whether they need supervision to prevent recidivism (CSG, 2017). Thus, local and state officials should amend these laws and policies to ensure they conform to the latest research. The second recommendation is that the stakeholders should maximize their investment in supervision and a variety of other effective services and programs. Evidence suggests that probation and parole officers have unusually high caseloads that impede them from providing the appropriate supervision required in helping individuals with high chances of recidivism change their behaviour (CSG, 2017). Moreover, lack of effective treatment services and programs for prisoners struggling with addiction and behavioural problems significantly undermines their recovery process. Increasing the availability of prisoners to these programs and services will significantly reduce rates of re-offending.

Cost-benefit Analysis of the Problem

This policy is targeted at increasing the availability and accessibility of former prisoners to resources and services that can help them to successfully re-enter the society. These resources include access to education services while in prison as well support from the family and the community. The benefits of increasing the accessibility of inmates to educational resources before and after release from prison significantly outweighs the costs associated with the high rates of recidivism rates. The majority of the inmates in the United States lack exposure to educational programs. Studies have shown that only about 25% of state inmates have graduated from high school (Lockwood et al., 2016). Making educational programs available to inmates increases their chances of surviving in a society that discriminates against them. According to a New York study, inmates who engaged in postsecondary programs in education had lower chances of relapsing into criminal behaviour (Lockwood et al., 2016). Clearly, post-secondary education can be employed as a valuable tool or resource in the rehabilitation of offenders and their subsequent re-integration in society. Research however, indicates that over the past decades, the United States federal government has continued to cut funding meant for postsecondary education programs for prisoners (Mardirossian, 2016). This is attributable to the 1994 decision by the federal government to make prisoners ineligible for Pell Grants which was the biggest sponsor of prisoner postsecondary education programs (Mardirossian, 2016). Ever since, postsecondary education of prisoners has continually declined and this has had a major influence on the high recidivism rates. Some states have however reconsidered their interest in such programs although many continue to cut on funding for economic reasons. In a study conducted among more than 3000 inmates in Ohio, Maryland, and Minnesota, it was found out that inmates who engaged in education programs while in prison exhibited lower recidivism rates (Davis et al., 2015). Also, the study found out that for every dollar the government spent on educating prisoners, it saved two dollars in costs associated with re-incarceration (Davis et al., 2015). Clearly, the government loses money in the long run when it decides to save it by stopping the funding of educational programs in prisons. Since access to educational resources has been shown to reduce re-offending, both state and local governments should resume their support and funding of these prison education programs to enable them to reach their full potential in reducing recidivism.

Increasing the prisoners’ access to substance abuse treatment services as well as those programs that boost their family relationships also reduces recidivism rates substantially. Many studies in the United States have demonstrated the association between substance abuse and the high crime rates where criminals addicted to drugs are more likely to perpetrate more crimes than the conventional criminal. More than three quarters of inmates who successfully complete treatment both before and after release do not re-offend whereas those who only complete in-prison treatment is highly likely to re-offend than inmates who engaged in neither program (Mardirossian, 2016). Therefore, it is essential to have these prisoners continue treatment after release as this is the most crucial element of their process to recovery. In this regard, local governments can work together with community health professionals in ensuring the successful implementation of substance abuse programs for prisoners released into the society. Besides, incorporation of family programs in prison systems can also significantly reduce rates of recidivism. Studies have shown that the rates of recidivism is related to the amount of contact prisoners are allowed with their families. In the state of Pennsylvania, for instance, programs have been set up to improve the relationship of prisoners with their families. Such programs include child development classes, parenting classes as well as child playrooms where fathers can interact with their children (Lockwood et al., 2016).

However, there are those that believe that the solution to the high rates of recidivism is increasing the number of prisons to accommodate the high number of inmates as opposed to increasing these inmates’ access to resources such as education, treatment, and family programs as recommended above. In the article “There is No Alternative to Building More Prisons” Richard Willard argues that because most inmates have long histories of criminal behaviour, more prisons must be built to house many of these repeat offenders for longer periods (Mardirossian, 2016). It is this kind of ideology that has significantly contributed to the high rates of incarceration being experienced in the United States. It is imperative to note that while some prisoners may be chronic repeat offenders, a majority of them can be rehabilitated into responsible and law-abiding citizens. Numerous rehabilitation programs such as educational programs, mental health services as well as substance abuse treatment have been shown to significantly reduce the high rates of offending among inmates in both state and federal penitentiaries across the United States. With the current economic conditions in the nation, it is imperative to focus on such long-term solutions which have shown great potential of reversing the growing inmate population in the country. Building more incarceration facilities will only serve to increase the already overstretched budget for prisons and law enforcement. Moreover, it is not a long-term solution to the problem given the growing rates of recidivism. Reducing rates of re-offending is the most appropriate long-term solution to the problem and it can only achieved if emphasis is placed on rehabilitation rather than on increasing prison space. Sum of estimated costs are $32 Million dollars. On the other hand, there are benefits generated as well for example, lower recidivism rate, lower funding on social security issue, Revenue from processing fees, the ex-inmates made from their job, and Lower amount of homeless people that government need to providing help. Total sum of benefit comes up to $49.0 Million dollars. As a result, we found this policy will lead to $17 Million in new revenues and we highly recommend enacting it.

Overall, this paper proposes that increasing the access and availability of resources to prisoners both while in prison and after being released is the most effective way of reducing the high rates of recidivism in the United States. The paper employs two major approaches in examining this solution to the problem. The first approach concerns the significant role that stakeholders have in ensuring the success of this proposed solution. According to this analysis, stakeholders have a role to play in aligning state and local policy with evidence-based practices that have been shown to reduce recidivism for example substance abuse treatment and postsecondary prison education. The approach also demonstrates the role stakeholders have in increasing investment in effective rehabilitation services and programs as well as the supervision of offender’s post-release. Similarly, the cost-benefit analysis emphasizes the importance of increasing prisoners’ access to educational and treatment resources as the most effective way of reducing rates of offending. The analysis cites numerous studies that have shown the success and benefits of these programs and services in reducing recidivism. Like the stakeholders approach, this approach stresses the importance of reinstating funding for prison education programs as well as implementing mental health and substance abuse treatment programs and services in promoting the successful reintegration of prisoners back into society.

Cost Benefit Analysis

	Costs	Costs $ Value	Benefits	Benefits $ Value
1	Policy Makers Salaries	-$2 Million	Lower recidivism rate.	$20 Million
2	Increased spending on staff for vetting new applicants	-$15 Million	Lower funding on social security issue.	$15 Million
3	Externalized workforce costs in providing housing and medical treatment.	-$5 Million	Revenue from processing fees	$1 Million
4	Providing education in and out the prison.	-$10 Million	The ex-inmates made from their job.	$3 Million
5			Lower amount of homeless people that government need to providing help.	$10 Million
Sum		-$32 Million		$49.0 Million

Calculation: -$32,000,000.00 + $49,000,000.00 = 17,000,000.00 Dollars.

Stakeholder Analysis

All Scales: -10 to 10

Stakeholders	Involvement	Interest	Power	Position	Impact
State, and Federal Government	Level of involvement is 10. State, and Federal Government made the decision to help the ex-inmate.	Level of interest is 10. State, and Federal Government want to reduce the recidivism rate in U.S.	Level of power is 10. State, and Federal Government has power to make the policy to provide more help for ex-inmate.	Positive. So they can reach their goal to reduce the recidivism rate in U.S.	The distributors have no impact on the enactment of this policy.
Agencies of workplace	Level of involvement is 8. Agencies of workplace are responsible to this policy.	Level of interest is -5. Agencies of workplace have to spend more time on work with those ex-inmates, which is harder than their regular work.	Levelt of power is 5. Agencies of workplace are the one who will directly help the ex-inmates to find a job.	Negative. Since Agencies of workplace will have to do more work than usual.	Agencies of workplace have no impact on this policy.
Ex-inmates	Level of involvement is 10. The ex-inmates will receive help when they come back to the society.	Level of interest is 10. If the ex-inmates have more resources when they out of prison, their life will be much easier.	Level of power is 0. As they cannot charge the policy. Which means, have no policy making power.	Positive position.   All the ex-inmates want to get some help when they needed.	More ex-inmates will have better resources when they trying to get back to society.

References

The Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center. (2017). Making people’s transition from prison and jail to the community safe and successful: A snapshot of national progress in re-entry. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/6.12.17_A-Snapshot-of-National-Progress-in-Reentry.pdf

Mardirossian, R. K. (2016). Access of Hispanic inmates to correctional education (GED) in California and its impact on three year recidivism rates (Doctoral dissertation, Capella University).

Davis, M., Sheidow, A. J., &McCart, M. R. (2015). Reducing recidivism and symptoms in emerging adults with serious mental health conditions and justice system involvement. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 42(2), 172-190.

Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., & Ho, T. (2016). Race, education, employment, and recidivism among offenders in the United States: An exploration of complex issues in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 11(1), 57-74. Retrieved from http://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/lockwoodetalijcjs2016vol11issue1.pdf