"Can Rehabilitation Succeed and Reentry be Successful"

Transcription

1 "Can Rehabilitation Succeed and Reentry be Successful" Dr. Reginald A. Wilkinson ICPA Vice Chair, North America Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction American Bar Association, Justice Anthony Kennedy Commission, November 12, 2003 Introduction Good afternoon. My name is Reginald A. Wilkinson and I am the Director of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (DRC). I have worked in the corrections field for over thirty years and have been the Ohio Director since I am also President of the Association of State Correctional Administrators and Past President of the American Correctional Association. It is a great pleasure for me to be here today to address the American Bar Association (ABA) Kennedy Commission. I was inspired by United States Supreme Court Justice Kennedy s historic speech this past August at the ABA annual meeting where he expressed concern over the inadequacies and injustices in our prison and correctional systems. He poignantly suggested a new public discussion about the correctional infrastructure and the impact it has on those sentenced to prison and the families and communities left behind. I want to return to the title of our agency: the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. I m personally proud of the fact the rehabilitation is acknowledged in our agency name. But this pride extends well beyond a mere title. Rehabilitation is alive and well in the basic structure of Ohio s adult felony corrections system. DRC s treatment and programming menus are extensive. Our agency mission simply put is to ensure public safety though good supervision and to prepare offenders to reenter society as productive and contributing citizens. Background Let me share with you the trend over the last two decades in Ohio. Our adult prison population grew tremendously, not unlike prison populations nationally. Between 1982 and 2002, the Ohio prison population increased from about 17,000 to over 45,000. From 1982 to 1998, the annual average population increase was seven percent, peaking at just over 49,000 inmates in However, Ohio s population began to decline for three consecutive years to approximately 44,800 in Nonetheless, by the end of calendar year 2002, Ohio had the six largest state prison population in the United States, and the 22 nd highest incarceration rate, with 398 prisoners per 100,000 residents. I share these figures with you to frame my discussion today. As you see, Ohio incarcerates a large number of its citizens even considering the decline in the prison population over the last several years. For every inmate in prison, there is a family and a community that face new challenges. Thus, it matters greatly how we incarcerate, program, supervise, and reintegrate offenders. I will talk about effective rehabilitative programs and why it is crucial to target the right individuals, both in institutional and community settings. You will hear about our efforts to increase bonding opportunities for incarcerated parents and their children and enhance community cohesiveness upon the offender s return. Last, I will talk about the philosophy of reentry and how in Ohio it provides the foundation for returning offenders home to stay. Given the number of individuals in prison, what we do with inmates matter. Surely no one would argue that our agency s policies and practices impact the immediate period of incarceration, but I would suggest that they have a more powerful and important affect both on the offender and the family once release from prison occurs. It is crucial to use the incarceration period to adequately prepare the inmate and his loved ones for release before he or she is walking out of the prison gates. This, coupled with a post-release balanced approach of supervision and treatment, is a reliable way to tip the scales towards successful reentry. The Impact of Incarceration on Families and Communities Page 1

2 It is indisputable that incarceration affects more than just the prisoner. It impacts the offender s family and his community. Studies have shown time and time again that minority males are affected more than others by incarceration. The lifetime probabilities of spending time in prison are 28.5 per 100 African-American males and 16 per 100 for Hispanic males, about six and three times higher respectively, than for white males (Bonczar, 1997). In communities where a significant percentage of the population is incarcerated, there tends to be a dichotomy at play meaning incarceration both helps and hurts. For instance, removing offenders makes the neighborhood safer at the same time it weakens families and increases their burdens. Returning offenders to the community may make the neighborhood less safe in some cases, at the same time that it reunites families, albeit, many of these families are dysfunctional. A reunion may be good but it can also simultaneously strain relationships due the effects from the period of absence. The effects on offenders families are also evident by examining the stigma attached to incarceration. For example, it is often difficult for the offender to find meaningful and gainful employment. Further, we must be mindful that this stigma is not just directed at the offender returning home, but oftentimes transfers to the entire family. Noncriminal neighbors and associates tend to be wary and suspicious of the offender and even their family members, making community acceptance very difficult. Children in particular feel shamed when they are stigmatized from others for the actions of a parent. One of the most significant incarceration factors impacting families is an adverse financial effect. Though incarceration may bring families relief from the drain of an active offender, it also imposes new costs associated with caring for the confined family member such as accepting collect telephone calls and providing commissary money. If the offender was providing an income to the household prior to incarceration, the family struggles to compensate for this loss. As you see, the effects of incarceration on communities are quite complex. In an attempt to offset some of the problems associated with incarceration, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction believes in a strong commitment to offender family, community and citizen participation. The basic assumption behind this commitment is that communities are strengthened and the quality of life is improved through active citizen participation in corrections. Furthermore, when the responses to crime are tailored to the preferences and needs of victims, communities and offenders families reintegration is positively impacted. Family and Community Involvement in Rehabilitation Family involvement is central to successful offender reentry. Even though at risk, it is important that children of incarcerated parents do not continue the cycle of crime. According to the U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics (Mumola, 2001), state and federal prisons held 721,500 prisoners with minor children in It was estimated that these inmates had nearly 1.5 million children under the age of eighteen. Thusly, the Ohio Department of Corrections has embarked upon a series of family oriented programs with the intention to break the cycle of crime with offenders as well as in various communities. Ohio s largest female prison (the Ohio Reformatory for Women), for instance, houses a nursery for new mothers serving less than eighteen months in prisons. The intention is to have the mother and child leave prison together. Additionally, there are two programs where children visit their incarcerated parent for extended periods of time. The Father and I and Mother and Me programs are implemented within portions of the prison that are cordoned off from the general population, where family related activities can occur safely. There are many other family oriented programs such as several with the Girl Scouts of America and faith-based programs. There are existing plans to conduct statewide conference in Ohio addressing the question of increased family participation. Our corrections agency initiated a successful program aimed at involving citizens directly in the reintegration of offenders to their community. This significant community-based partnership is called Lives Incorporating New Concepts Successfully (L.I.N.C.S.). It involves working with citizens from Marion, Ohio under the auspices of what is referred to as a Citizen s Circle. The Circle is inclusive of two correctional facilities in the area and the local Adult Parole Authority office. The Citizen s Circle is a forum that is designed to build better relationships between the community, our Department, offenders and their families. The L.I.N.C.S. project goals emphasize the need to involve local citizens in rehabilitative and reentry processes, while clearly communicating community expectations to offenders. Offenders participate in the programs on a voluntary basis exercising individual choice to seek restored citizenship in the community. Each offender must submit an application to be considered for acceptance. They must accept full responsibility for their past criminal behavior, acknowledge hurt their behavior has caused others, agree to participate in some form of community service and to abide by all recommendations and obligations required by the Citizen s Circle. The Circle meets on a regular basis to discuss the offender s progress, expressing accolades for a positive attitude and outcomes and admonishing the offender for negative behavior. Offender Programming that Works I would now like to shift this discussion to that of the importance of evaluating programs. We are obligated to Page 2

3 spend tax dollars wisely. It is my personal philosophy that if you can t measure it, you can t manage it. Empirical data must be available for correctional professionals to determine if the desired outcome of a particular program is being accomplished. This idea was recently applied in Ohio by conducting the largest know evaluation of residential community correction programs. Today, Ohio spends over $110 million on community corrections including jail and prison diversion programs and halfway houses for post-release reintegration and sanctioning. In fiscal year 2003, over 42,000 offenders participated in community correction programs. Though the cost savings is significant compared to that of incarceration, what is more meaningful in the long term is the question: Can criminals be rehabilitated? In 2002, the I commissioned the University of Cincinnati to conduct an evaluation of the effectiveness of residential community correction programs, namely Community-Based Correctional Facilities (CBCFs), which divert offenders from prisons and halfway houses which help to transition and/or sanction offenders under post-release supervision. The study compared recidivism rates of offenders participating in halfway houses and CBCFs with similar offenders released from prison directly to a period of supervision. The results indicate that, overall, halfway houses and CBCFs are slightly more effective than prison, but are substantially more effective with moderate and high-risk offenders. Most notably, over fifty percent of the halfway houses studied reduced recidivism by percent when targeting high-risk offenders. The risk principle has been validated over the years and again substantiated with the University of Cincinnati evaluation. Simply stated, resources should be dedicated to moderate to high-risk offenders and limited or eliminated for low-risk offenders. The programs evaluated demonstrated a positive difference in outcome for higher risk offenders while having a counter productive effecting on low-risk offenders, specifically an increase in recidivism. A further analyses of referral types to halfway houses revealed they are most effective with the Transitional Control population and post-release offenders who have violated conditions of supervision. (The Transitional Control program allows eligible inmates to be reassessed up to 180 days before the expiration of the stated prison term or projected release date. The inmates are approved by the Ohio Parole Board and sentencing judge to participate in the program. The Transitional Control period is served in a structured halfway house program.) Transitional Control offenders recidivated fifteen percent less than the comparison group and the violator population recidivated twelve percent less. The analyses of offenders violating terms of parole or post-release control supervision is especially noteworthy given the fact then in the U.S. close to two-thirds of all recidivists return to prison for technical violations alone and not new criminal offenses. Ohio s statistics on technical violator returns to prison is a lot lower that the national average, but we still hope to reduce these numbers further by placing more offenders in the Transitional Control program and more supervision violators in halfway houses. In addition to measuring recidivism, the study summarizes the relationship between the quality of each program and outcome, giving Ohio invaluable insight into which program modalities and components are best suited for offenders. The key components to effective programming are as follows: (1) a cognitive behavioral strategy should be implemented as the primary treatment modality; (2) programs must vary in intensity of supervision and services according to the risk level of the participants; (3) programs must focus on criminogenic targets, such as substance abuse; employment; anti-social peer association; and anti-social attitudes. Ohio is fortunate in having a very strong community corrections network, of which CBCFs and halfway houses are an integral part. The results of this latest study support the effectiveness of community-based programs and, further, suggest the critical importance of targeting appropriate offenders for programmatic intervention. Focusing efforts on using quantified statistical date in making resource related decisions is always goods practice and this study has provided a wealth of information to policy makers in Ohio. Reentry in Ohio We recognize the importance of utilizing this risk principle throughout the Department. Through our reentry efforts we have begun the process of planning for an offender s release at the point of reception. We assess inmates in order to identify those offenders with a higher probability of recidivating. We then provide the most intensive treatment to high-risk offenders and minimize programming for the lower-risk offenders. Let me go on to expand on the reentry initiative in Ohio. The notion of preparing offenders for reentry is certainly not a new concept in the field of corrections. Through a wide array of management policies and programs, correctional systems have attempted to provide offenders with a continuum of opportunities to succeed upon their release. All to often though preparations for offender release have been fragmented within institutions and between various sections of an agency diffusing both responsibility and accountability for managing this important transition. At the heart of reentry in Ohio is the notion that reentry represents a philosophy, not a program. In July 2002, Page 3

4 the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction published a comprehensive report called The Ohio Plan for Productive Reentry and Recidivism Reduction. In terms of definition, reentry refers to the system governing the return of prisoners to the community following a period of incarceration in a prison, jail or detention center. But it does not signify just letting offenders go after doing their time. It requires that offenders are prepared to be released. It means they are better off at the time of release than at the time of their admission. It suggests a period of supervision will contribute to their crime-free lifestyle. The challenge of reentry is to achieve a more systematic approach that ensures a continuous transition of offenders treatment and training from reception through completion of supervision in the community. The Ohio Plan adopts a new vision and mission governing reentry. The focus on reentry is clearly long term. However, broad-based systematic changes have been and will continue be incorporated in the years ahead building on existing programs and policies, as well as creating new innovations that together will contribute to a stronger infrastructure for achieving successful reentry outcomes. The well established what works literature strongly supports targeting know predictors of crime and recidivism. A section of the Ohio Plan does just that. It includes the development of reentry accountability plans for offenders, which draw on the results of a risk and needs assessment. We recently adopted a policy to review all prison and community programs to ensure they are based on principles that drive effective correctional programming. The process of offender programming is not and should not be a whimsical notion. Not withstanding budget and staffing considerations, it is critical that offenders occupy their time with meaningful activities and in programming that, as stated earlier, addresses their criminogenic needs. Programming for offenders must be must be carefully designed, properly implemented, and target appropriate offenders. Restorative Justice and Victim Awareness Inclusive of the concept of reentry, the Department has long embraced community or restorative justice as a framework governing correctional practices. Community service work in Ohio has become a mainstay of offender programming. Inmates perform over five million hours of community service work each year. Just to name a few projects, inmates rehabilitate low-income homes, plant flowers, train pilot dogs, and repair computers to be donated to schools. In many prisons, inmates participate in victim impact panels where crime victims and survivors of crime describe their encounter with criminals. Their portrayal of how crime has changed their lives leaves an indelible impression on the inmate listener. We have also instituted victim/offender dialogues in an attempt to help repair the harm to crime victims. This is a voluntary meeting that is monitored by a trained facilitator. Behind each of these restorative activities is a strong commitment to community, offender accountability, and victim input and participation Conclusion In summation, Ohio believes all releases must be able to exit prison gates and begin new lives with as much confidence, support and community connectivity as possible. Only in this way will the value of the reentry movement in corrections nationally, and in Ohio, contribute tangibly to public safety and community well being. Thank you for inviting me here today to share some of our experiences in Ohio with you. References Andrews, D.A The Psychology of Criminal Conduct and Effective Treatment. Pp35-62 in What Works: Reducing Reoffending, edited by James McGuire. West Sussex, UK. Bonczar, T.P. and Beck, A.J Lifetime Likelihood of Going to State of Federal Prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Harrison, P. and A. Beck. Prisoners in Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice (July 2003). Page 4

5 Latessa, E.J. and Christopher T. Lowenkamp Evaluation of Ohio s Community-Based Correctional Facilities and Halfway House Programs. University of Cincinnati, Division of Criminal Justice, Center for Criminal Justice Research. Mumola, C.J Incarcerated Parents and Their Children Special Report. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Page 5