Christopher Zoukis's Blog - Posts Tagged "recidivism"

The Wyoming Department of Corrections is proud to have the second lowest recidivism rate in the nation, 38% below the national average. Three out of four offenders released from Wyoming’s prisons stay out. Department of Corrections officials believe their prison education programs are, to a large extent, responsible for their success.

Wyoming’s lawless Wild West days are firmly in the past. The state’s crime rates are well below national averages. Violent crimes are 43% below national rates, and property crimes 22% lower. Burglaries are just half the national average, and robberies a tenth.

As a consequence, the state’s prison population is small at about 2,200. Yet, despite the low crime and impressive re-incarceration rates for released offenders, the prison population has grown by almost a third since 2000. In fact over the decade to 2010, the rate by which Wyoming’s prison population increased was double that for the rest of the country. It now appears to have leveled off.

As has happened across the country, funding for public services, including prisons, has been cut. Betty Abbott, Education Programs Manager for the Department of Corrections recognizes that education and programming usually bear the brunt of such cuts. Despite now being underfunded, she must do the best with what is available.

Fortunately, Wyoming’s prison population is better educated than most. While nationally about 40% of state prisoners have neither a high school diploma nor a GED, the majority of Wyoming’s prisoners do have one or the other. Those who do not must take mandatory GED classes. About 20% of current Wyoming inmates obtained their GED while in prison.

Earning a GED while inside is certainly worth the effort. Over many decades, studies have consistently shown that obtaining a GED in prison is associated with a lowered risk of returning to prison. The RAND Corporation’s highly influential meta-analysis of over fifty prior studies, published in 2013, suggests that the reduction is around 30%.

The benefits of earning a GED don’t end there though. Studies have also shown that post-incarceration employment rates can be up to 50% higher, and wages increase too.

For those inmates who already have their high school diploma or GED, more advanced educational opportunities are available. Eastern Wyoming College, for example, offers prisoners an advanced computer applications course, complete with college credits.

The same RAND meta-analysis demonstrated that on average, participation in college education while in prison reduced an inmate’s likelihood of returning to prison by 51%.

It is regrettable that Ms. Abbott, and her peers across the country, must manage the education of our prisoners with dwindling resources. As the RAND Corporation observed, crime prevention is more cost-effective than building prisons. And of all crime prevention methods, education is the most cost-effective. So cost-effective, in fact, that on average, a dollar spent on correctional education brings around five dollars in direct savings from avoided incarceration costs, as fewer released offenders return to prison. Add in the avoided losses to new victims of crime, contributions to the economy from the increased productivity and consumer spending of successfully re-integrated ex-offenders, not to mention the taxes they pay, and that savings can easily be tripled.

With its impressively low re-incarceration rate, Wyoming’s prison and probation systems are clearly doing better than most. In scrambling for savings, however, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that money spent on prison education is a fantastic investment. Short term savings from cutting prison education programs now will likely turn out to be an expensive folly in the long term. It is to be hoped that Wyoming can stay at the top of the recidivism league table, and lead the way for other states to follow.

Finding a job and somewhere to live are probably the two most critical factors determining whether a released offender will do well, or end up back in prison. In the United States, up to 90% of those who are sent back to prison are unemployed.

In the U.K., the one year recidivism rate for released offenders who find a job and a home is about 40%; for those who find neither it is almost 75%.

Yet finding a job after prison is tough. In Britain only about 40% of released offenders find employment, but some interesting programs may be able to improve that figure.

Work training or slave labor

Working in prison is nothing new. British prisoners used to be known for sewing mailbags. Thankfully things have moved on since then, although as in the U.S., there is criticism that some programs amount to little more than slave labor. At Ranby prison in Nottinghamshire, inmates assemble bulkhead lights for Applied Security Design, a private company, for a little over $10 a week.

A shoe-in for post-prison employment

Other programs, however, offer a realistic route out of prison and into employment. Timpsons is a family-owned shoe-repair chain, and a familiar sight on British high streets. The company has three prison training academies where inmates learn the trade. They then go on to work in the company's three in-prison workshops. British inmates are often given daily work-release during their final year. Those who have trained with Timpsons may be given temporary jobs in the firm's stores during this period, then employed full time once they are released.

Railtrack, which runs Britain’s rail network, trains inmates how to lay track, then offers them permanent jobs when they leave prison.

The company that operates Britain's power distribution network, National Grid, coordinates a scheme involving about eighty firms, through which offenders are trained on day-release, and then employed after their release. Over the past ten years, the recidivism rate amongst those who completed the program has been just 6%; that's 85% lower than the national average.

Clink hospitality

Yet another great example is The Clink Charity, which trains inmates for careers in the hospitality industry. The charity currently operates three training restaurants for prisoners, with a fourth due to open at Styal prison in 2015, and Clink Events, an event catering company. Planned expansion should take the charity to ten training programs by 2017.

Offenders enroll with The Clink train while still in prison or on day-release. Once they leave prison, Clink provides ongoing monitoring and support, and works to find them permanent positions within the industry. A number of well-known and well-connected industry experts act as ambassadors to the program, including celebrated chef Albert Roux and accomplished hotelier and Master Innkeeper Graham Bamford. Clink Ambassadors both mentor the students, and use their network of contacts to boost the program's profile and to find training and career positions for program graduates.

A need for similar programs in the U.S.

Initiatives like these not only provide training for real jobs, but also offer continuity from prison to the outside world, and remove at least some of the uncertainty offenders face when leaving prison. When released prisoners have jobs they are much less likely to return to criminal behaviors, or to be dependent on social services, both major benefits to the wider community.

In 2002 the Urban Institute Justice Policy Center recommended involving the private sector in prison vocational training so that similar schemes could be established in the U.S., but there has been little traction. The potential benefits for offenders, society, and the private sector suggest a win-win-win situation. As America looks for ways to begin reducing the enormous prison population, perhaps now is the time to start implementing similar programs across the U.S.

Last October, thousands of prisoners were released after changes to federal drug penalties made by the US Sentencing Commisison. But for many, release came as a double-edged sword. Because while there is little doubt that their freedom has been a source of great celebration, they must also face the biggest question of all: what comes next? For those for whom release came as a surprise, of sorts, they may not have even had time to consider how they will adapt to the dramatic changes ahead. And even for those who have had that time, many have been hampered by the lack of options available to them to assist in that process.

As I've discussed before as regards some of those individuals freed through the granting of clemency, when the initial excitement over release dies down, former prisoners often find themselves adrift. With little training and few skills, re-entering society and trying to contribute positively is no easy feat. Not least among the obstacles faced is the “box” effect, namely efforts made by some employers to weed out anyone with a prior criminal conviction, regardless of its relevance (or lack thereof) to performing the duties of the job.

In fortuitous timing, President Obama has announced his intention to remedy this situation. Obama has directed federal hiring departments to “ban the box,” meaning that inquiries into one’s conviction history are to take place only later in the hiring process, when (and if) it is determined to be relevant to the performance of duties. But the reality is that the number of jobs with federal agencies for which former prisoners would be applying represent a mere drop in the bucket in their job market.

The movement has been gaining support, with involuntary initiatives to remove it from job applications being undertaken by major players like Walmart, Target, and Home Depot. But the most powerful message would come from Congress itself, were they to pass the Fair Chance Act, which “would ban the federal government and federal contractors from requesting criminal history information until they reach the conditional offer stage.” In doing so, the federal government would provide the legal and moral framework for states to pass their own versions. New York State’s law doing just that, went into effect on October 27th.

It’s probably one of the simplest and most meaningful actions governments can take when it comes to reducing recidivism, and it takes so little effort to bring it to fruition. For more information on national “ban the box” efforts, visit: http://www.nelp.org/campaign/ensuring...
Ban The Box, Recidivism

This week New York Governor Cuomo revealed the intention to transform a notorious former women’s prison into a site providing resources and assistance to women in need. The announcement served not only as reminder of the symbolic representation such buildings hold, but of the power inherent of the physical structures themselves. Changes in the physical structures of prisons over time tend to be indicative of social attitudes towards crime, punishment, and rehabilitation.

Designing a prison is not a simple task. Aside from the obvious security concerns, new prisons need to be designed in a way that allows for meaningful rehabilitation efforts to take place. And that can only occur when we eliminate segregation as an appropriate method of containment for securing safety.

Open layouts are increasingly being embraced as a way of fostering improved relations between inmates and staff and engendering trust. Those studying prison architecture, have all pointed to the traditional panopticon model (multiple levels of cells all centered around a singular observation point) as being most problematic in these respects. The suspected reason for this is the tendency for inmates to feel as though they are constantly being watched, which undermines the building of trust relationships. Yes, I can hear people already saying, “They committed a crime, we shouldn’t trust them!” But in the prison setting, such sentiments breed resentment—a major barrier to rehabilitation. This kind of set-up also decreases the amount of staff-inmates possible, because staff simply observe from afar, rather than interact. Notwithstanding Indonesia’s proposed plans to surround prisons housing drug traffickers with crocodiles, à la James Bond, there are a growing number of examples of how effective these prisons can be.

Bastøy Prison in Oslo, Norway, at first glance may appear to be a modern-day version of the UK shipping off its prisoners to Australia, or the Alcatraz of the past. But with Europe’s lowest recidivism rate (16% compared to Norway’s 20% and Europe’s average of 70%), it’s another model of how architecture is shaping the prison experience. Bastøy is engineered to act as a social microcosm, rather than an institution geared strictly at containment and punishment. Inmates live in self-contained cabins, are fed by professional chefs, and are charged with tending to the island’s farmland and animals and are given various other jobs. For many incarcerated, it represents the first glimpse at being able to contribute meaningfully to their community. Arguably the facility operates primarily as a transition system, facilitating prisoner re-entry; any prisoner in Norway is eligible for transfer to the facility once they have five years or less remaining in their sentence. Unsurprisingly, critics have been vocal about the so-called resort conditions on the island, but the results simply don’t lie. Prisoners who feel invested in the well-being of their communities will be motivated to succeed upon re-entry. A similar model is found at Austria’s Leoben Justice Center, and Helsinki’s Suomenlinna Island also boasts a 20% recidivism rate.

A new women’s prison built in San Diego followed in Bastøy and Leoben’s footsteps. Its designers are seeking to adopt a campus-style model, which arguably also serves to foster the educational components known to reduce recidivism dramatically. Las Colinas’ prison village is already seeing a reduction in violence.

Lest observers consider this a strictly industrialized world option, in the Philippines, there is an open-air prison, Iwahig Penal Farm, that from the outside, looks like an ordinary village surrounded by farm lands worked by its inhabitants. But it is very much a prison, albeit one that is largely self-sufficient and also a tourist destination. The village features a decidedly artistically oriented rehabilitation program operating alongside its manual labour activities, where inmates not only perform highly choreographed dance routines for visitors, but also stock the “gift shop” (yes, you read that correctly) with handcraft goods. However the open concept applies only to minimum and medium security inmates, with maximum security prisoners housed in an overcrowded facility on the grounds. Prison staff live on the grounds, as do many of the inmate’s wives and children, with education services being provided to everyone on the penal farm. At the moment, Iwahig has the country's the lowest recidivism rate,

Recognition of the important role that buildings can play in social cohesion and rehabilitation efforts, the American group “Architects/Designers/Planners for Social Justice,” who advocate for “responsible design,” not only in prisons, but also in communities—with the aim of reducing the need for the former. Part of their actions have called for an end to the construction of solitary confinement spaces altogether. Members have also signed pledges not to work on any prison projects unless dramatic reforms are made, or not at all.

Of course there are additional costs associated with the creation of such facilities, however analyses indicate they are marginal. But if your fundamental goal is to rehabilitate prisoners and actually reduce recidivism, then it’s virtually impossible that such investments will not yield dividends in the long-term. It feels as though we have to constantly remind people that the punishment is the loss of freedom—not the treatment we receive in prison itself, or the physical structure itself. But prison buildings have become an additional form of punishment, increasing isolation and threatening the mental and physical well-being of everyone involved.

“Everybody says this, or something like it: I guess crime does pay…Maybe I should move to Austria and rob a couple of banks. It’s a reflex, and perfectly understandable, though it’s also foolish and untrue – about as sensible as looking at a new hospital wing and saying, Gee, I wish I had cancer.
To be more accurate, free people say these things. Prisoners don’t...No one, however down-and-out or cynical, wants to go to prison, however comfortable it may be.”
When prisoners are treated like human beings, they are able to discover their own humanity.

An arcane law is being given new life in Illinois, and the results are coming at a serious social cost. A recent investigation has revealed that the state of Illinois has been ramping up efforts to sue inmates for “fees” related to their tenure in prison. While they claim to be targeting only those who can “afford” it, outside scrutiny has revealed that is simply not the case. People like Melvin Moore who inherited a whopping $14,000 he had planned to use to ease his re-entry, was sued by the state for $338,650. Johnny Melton who’d received roughly $30,000 as a result of a settlement over his mother’s death, died homeless and destitute after a similar suit was filed against him.

Such laws have been “on the books” for many years, and exist in many states. But recently the number of claims on behalf of the state have jumped significantly in Illinois. Whereas two lawsuits were filed between 2012-2013, at least ten were filed in 2015. And the timing seems particularly absurd, given that the state has among the highest levels of recidivism in the country; Illinois seems unable to comprehend the concept of cause and effect when it comes to the cycle of poverty and crime. Because as long as this practice remains on the books anywhere, it serves to undermine the ethos of rehabilitation and reduction of recidivism.

Even the briefest glance at the demographics of prisoners makes clear that they tend to be from marginalized backgrounds, be it financially or socially. And just as with the extortionist fee regimes of private prison banking and telecommunications companies, the idea that you are punishing only an inmate with these policies is beyond naive. Because for every individual incarcerated, there is a family left behind, dependants who are scraping together their pennies to keep things afloat, to stay in contact, to try and right past wrongs. These are who we punish with these kinds of laws.

It keeps coming back to the same situation. When we strip away everything from these individuals, when we push them into the streets without access to food or housing, why are we surprised when they reoffend, or worse? When we send individuals to prison, that is the punishment—we take away their freedom. And to what end? Half a million dollars won, and for what? It’s unlikely that even covers the costs for litigation. And guaranteed, the costs associated with increased recidivism will far outweigh any gains from such frivolous suits.

What do we think is going to happen when prisoners re-enter society? Because nearly all of them will. Do we want them to have the tools and social supports to succeed? You simply cannot be serious about rehabilitation and reducing recidivism when you remove the means by which these individuals can be to do so. We all know the old definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result; the state of Illinois is taking it up a notch, doing something they know doesn’t work, and then making sure it works even less.

The Florida Department of Corrections (FDC) is making a lot of headlines—this week I’ve even written about it over at Prison Legal News. It seems like nearly every story about prisoner abuse these days is coming out of Florida, and this should have us all worried. It means that an entire state’s corrections system is so fundamentally broken as to be falling apart at the seams. Incarcerated individuals are being dehumanized in ways that we’d think more typical of a police state or dictatorship.

As we pointed out in the piece on Lowell, funding cutbacks have played a serious role in creating an environment where corruption not only survives, but thrives. With levels of institutional corruption seemingly so high, one would be tempted to point to the problems being fundamentally related to individual activities, but there is another factor at play that must be examined: corporate corruption.

Part of the Florida corrections puzzle right now has to do with the growing levels of corporate involvement in corrections. It simply cannot be a coincidence that in the 100-days following privatization of prison health care the state saw monthly prisoner mortality rates reaching a 10-year high (especially given that the number of prisoners has decreased).

At the end of November prison health care provider Corizon announced its intention to withdraw from their contract with the state of Florida to serve roughly 75,000 prisoners.

The announcement took place just shortly after the Miami Herald announced the record number of prisoner deaths in the state over the last year—176 of the 346 listing no “immediate cause of death,” and a number of those deaths classified as “natural” being highly suspicious.

Corizon cited that the state’s contract was “too constraining,” the translation of which is that they couldn't see themselves making enough of a profit while being able to provide a decent standard of care.

As any health care policy analyst will tell you, the dividends earned by privatizing health care are short-term only. When you cheap out on preventative or early intervention care, you pay for it later. Such care allows you to nip problems in the bud for relatively little cost, whereas waiting until a problem becomes acute results in astronomical costs.

Think of it this way, providing a preventative course of antibiotics to someone who has a serious wound in the beginning stages of an infection is a heck of a lot cheaper than having to deal with a bout of necrotizing fasciitis and the resulting amputations and round-the-clock care. Most medical interventions can be thought of this way. Health is not a commodity that can be bought and sold like a stereo, so why do we continue to apply a market model to it? It’s not rocket science, but DOCs complete failure to understand this logic would make you think it was.

Add to the mix that prisons typically have higher rates of mental illness and addiction than found in the general population, and you have a client base where the need for prevention and early intervention are absolutely critical.

Florida privatized its prisoner health care system in 2012. The switch was supposedly to save the state money, but as predicted by virtually every observer who understands how health care privatization works, it did nothing of the sort:

“The contract requires that both companies provide medical care to inmates for 7 percent less than it cost the state in 2010, but both companies sought and received increases in the terms of their original agreement.　

In 2014, former FDC Secretary Michael Crews agreed to raise the annual contract with Corizon and Wexford by $3.2 million. Subsequent audits revealed that even after the increased payments, Corizon failed to meet its contract obligations regarding staffing and medical care.”

Corizon’s medical practices have fallen under intense scrutiny over the last year, even well before to the Herald investigations regarding suspicious deaths. The Palm Beach Post. This isn’t the first time Corizon has been under scrutiny for some time, losing myriad contracts due to serious concerns over the quality of care and facing a number of investigations and lawsuits across the country. Palliative cancer patients were given Tylenol to deal with unimaginable pain, pain that couldn’t even be eased with morphine once prisoners were finally transferred to hospital. Diabetics are withheld insulin for months. The mentally ill are inexplicably taken off their medications. Cancer patients are misdiagnosed leading to (potentially avoidable) deaths.

People are often quick to criticize the amount of money spent on prison health care, yet remain completely silent when we privatize the industry and companies swoop in and double both the social and economic costs. Companies like Corizon are reaping billion dollar profits, but we give them a free pass when it comes to killing our prisoners. Killing prisoners out of neglect stemming from a desire to grow profits is a criminal act, no less deserving of imprisonment than the crimes committed by the inmates themselves.

Since the major shift towards privatizing prison health care swept across the country in 2012, the overall standard of care in these institutions has fallen consistently while raising the very costs to the state the private companies purported they could reduce. Research on the effectiveness of applying a private market model to prison health care has demonstrated a clear correlation: “we find that a 20 percent increase in percentage of medical personnel employed under contract increases mortality by 2 percent.” None of this news, investigations had revealed this nearly 15 years ago, yet we continue to repeat the same mistakes over and over and over again ; it’s recidivism in action.