Recidivism Rates and Trends - Research Paper Example

 Recidivism Rates and Trends Introduction Recidivism is the tendency of criminals and other offenders to re- engage in activities which had led to their punishment despite having spent time in prisons. Recidivism rate, on the other hand is the percentage of inmates who are released from prison and then arrested and re-incarcerated within a certain period of time usually three years. Recidivism rate is determined by following released inmates for three years to assess their activities. They can be arrested upon justifiable evidence of committing a new crime which had not been judged before and therefore. He/she is supposed to be convicted again. Another reason for re-imprisonment results from violation of parole or supervision practices as set out in the policies. Recidivism rate can be reduced by a successful integration of inmates into the society after their release from prison. According to president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Jeremy Travis, reintegration entails the connection of released prisoners and the community and the families they are returning to. According to the Second Chance Act of 2007, the released prisoners have the same right as the general population with regard to accessibility of social and economic resources and the exercise of their civil rights like voting and should not be victimized or discriminated. Support of the re-entering inmates by the broader community enhances their integration into the community smoothly. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2000), it is estimated that about 1600 state and federal prisoners are released into the community in day. Though the prisoners anticipate this day when they get their freedom back, most of them are faced with immense challenges of living in liberty in the streets after moving out of prison. Challenges faced by re-entering prisoners are caused by lack of proper integration mechanisms of the prisoners back in the society especially for those who have spent a lot of years in prison. Such prisoners have been detached from the community and are not prepared for their life back in the society. Stigmatization of ex-convicts poses problems of getting employment, housing and rejection from families and relative. Such people are more likely to engage in reoffending in substance abuse and inappropriate behaviors which affect the health life of the ex-convict and lead to rearrests. The cycles of removal and return of person in prison increases the costs of maintaining and running the correctional institutions which burdens the public through tax (Beck, 2000). The incarceration and reentry costs are high in different states from various viewpoints. The costs on the public can be viewed on the dimensions of the public safety. Almost two-thirds of the ex-convicts are likely to be arrested again after a period of not less than three years from the time of their release due to engagement of felonious activities or other severe social misdemeanor. This translates into very high rates of recidivism rates which lead to increased numbers of victimization cases annually. Other costs have fiscal implications. According to Bureau of Justice Statistics, (2001), the state continues to invest a significant amount of funds in the criminal justice system at large and specifically, the correctional sector which had increased the cost from $9 billion in 1982 in fifteen years to $44 billion in 1997 without including the costs of arresting the prisoners. There are the social costs associated with the reentry of prisoners into the broader society such as spread of health risks, homelessness and enfranchisement. Reason for management of reentry There are many opportunities for both the ex-convict and the society as a result of reentry. Managing reentry ensures that released criminals do not commit more crimes which will ensure theta the public is safe. In turn, this will save the public more money expended in the running of the correctional institutions. The management of reentry addresses the issues of preparing the prisoners for their societal integration which will counter the effects of reoffending and how the resources can be allocated sufficiently to improve the safety of the public. It will also address the issues of drafting measures which will improve the success of the integration of the prisoners in the society. The rate of imprisonment in America has significantly improved from 1973 to 2009 by 705%. This has resulted into high rates of reentry into the society requiring the input of much resource into integration strategies. Management of correction of offenders can significantly reduce the massive investments made by the government in the correctional centres. According to the report by Pew Center on the States, the current correction costs per offender have increased to average between $3.42 and $7.47 on a daily basis. The investments made on rehabilitation and reentry services will lower the daily expenditure of the prisons systems as each reentry costs the public between $3.42 and $7.47 daily which can be channeled to other societies of the economy which will benefits the public more than incarceration expenditure (Travis, J., 2000). National perspective on recidivism Many states are using different strategies to reduce the recidivism rates. According to Pew Center on the States, the prison agents are able to reduce the high rates of recidivism by implementing Evidence- based applications and programs which are responsible for supervision of parole and probation of the offenders once they are released into the society. This has led to reduction of recidivism rates in many states from 2007. Research reveals that inmates who were released from prison in 2007 were only few who were re- incarcerated within three years from the time of their release. Although the recidivism rates have decreased on an overall perspective, it does not indicate that the corresponding number of imprisoned persons have decreased too. The two aspects are not correlated for purposes of this research. This is because whereas the rate of recidivism has reduced in many states, nationally, there has been a perceived increase in the number of imprisoned inmates up to 11% as a result of other factor beyond the scope of this paper. It is evident that the costs of incarceration would even increase further if the rate of recidivism was high in such states (Bonczar, & Glaze, 1999). The Second Chance Act of 2007 purposes to reduce the rates of recidivism, improve the safety of the public and help communities deal with the high rates of reoffending. Section3. (a) (2) requires that the link between family and the released inmates should be strengthened on order to prevent reoffending and promote stability in the family and community structures. The motivation of this act is to prevent the offender from committing more crimes in the streets and also providing rehabilitation and corrective measures to the offender. This will be effected by implementation of life skills to the offenders while they are in prisons such as provision of education, vocational training, professional training and literacy. Despite the difference in the recidivism rate among different states in the United States, it is evident that most of them have struggled and put on measures to ensure a reduction in the rate of recidivism. Recidivism rates are different with some states witnessing very low rates, others a significant decrease and contrarily, there are states which has witnessed a rise in their rates. The differences in the outcomes of such prison facilities is caused by policies and decisions made regarding issues like; the type of crimes which should be punished by imprisonment, selection of prisoners for their release, the duration under which the prisoners should be supervised after release, how to manage parole and how the facilities respond to cases of violation of their supervision. Decisions made along these issues can have a greater impact on the level of recidivism rates a state can have. As such, the rise or fall of the recidivism rate may not necessarily indicate that the correctional investment has yielded positive results. But rather, it may be because of other factors relating to the issues discussed earlier such as imprisonment policies or duration of incarceration. Role of prisons in reduction of recidivism rates Recidivism is utilized by states as a measure of success achieved by their integration strategies. There are various roles played by the correctional facilities apart from punishing the prisoners for their offences. They prevent the convicts from posing more dangers to the society by isolating them, they prevent other members of the society from committing same crimes and offences once they see that there is punishment, avoiding future crimes from the apprehended criminals and lastly, to rehabilitate behaviors of the criminals so that they can become productive members of the society. The accomplishment of these roles is used as an indicator of the success of the investments expended on the correctional facilities. For a clear perspective of the accomplishment of these roles, the recidivism rate is considered as the statistical indicator by assessing whether it is falling or rising. The success of correctional investment is witnessed by lower rates of recidivism while higher rates of recidivism imply loss on the correctional investments. Many states are engaging in strategies which will lower their recidivism rate by advancing their release preparation techniques and supervision of released prisoners to ensure that they are sufficiently integrated in the community. Factors affecting recidivism rate Sentencing Policy The sentencing policies adopted by different prison institutions result in differences in their recidivism rate. Imprisonment of petty criminals and offenders is likely to result to low rates of recidivism because their violation rates are low. On the other hand, states which concentrate high profile criminals and serious offenders on the same prison are likely to have high rates of violation resulting from dangerous activities. Such states experience high rates of recidivism as the high profile criminals who do not receive rehabilitation go back to reoffending when they are released from prison. States which imprison offender with low-profile crimes may experience drop in their recidivism rates without them having to engage in many strategies and methods of integration as opposed to prisons which imprison dangerous and serious offenders in the same prison which may require heavy investment in order to achieve a considerable drop in their recidivism rate. For example, Oklahoma State imprisons the petty offenders who could otherwise be corrected by rehabilitation and other alternative programs in other states. This ensures that the offenders are not likely to reoffend after being released from prison. As a result, the state has significantly low rates of recidivism but only because of their imprisonment policies as opposed to their investment on correction and integration mechanisms (Tonry, 1996). Community Corrections Policy A state can significantly reduce their recidivism rates by the way they manage violations of conditions which have been set by the state for purposes of supervision. This implies that the rate of recidivism is directly related to the state’s management of such violations which the inmates engage in after being released from the prison. This is mostly judged on the duration of time the inmates are incarcerated in relation with the magnitude of their offences and the length of time they are supervised after being released from prison. There are varied differences between the behavioral outcomes of prisoners based on the amount of time they have been supervised after release from prison. States may experience low rates of recidivism as a result of supervising their post-convicts for a short period on time as opposed to supervising them for a longer period of time which results in high rates of reoffending as the prisoners feel that they do not have their liberty yet even after release from prison. For example, North Carolina State has experienced low rates of recidivism as their post-prison supervision lasts for only six to nine months which is a comparably shorter period of time when compared to other states. As such, very few technical offenders get rearrested due to reoffending (Blumstein, & Beck, 1999). Ability to detect and manage violations on parole The recidivism rates are also affected to a great deal by the capacity the supervision personnel have on the management of violation son the set procedures of parole. The detection alone cannot be effective if not managed well and that can result to changes of recidivism rates between states. The procedure is involving and may result to unexpected behavioral changes such as rebellion and protects. Violation of supervision when on parole can be detected by suing different techniques and testing equipment such as GPS and drug testing kits. The effectiveness of the process depends on the amount of cases to be handled, the complexities of the rules and their numbers, regulations expected to be complied by the inmates and the accessibility of testing equipment. The community and family relationship between with the officers responsible for supervision plays a very important role in minimizing the recidivism rates. The prison agents are guide by supervision laws and policies which outline the procedure to be followed in case violation is detected. Different states have varied ways of addressing violation of parole and the path taken significantly influences their recidivism rates. California State can be attributed to their policies which require that violators of parole be re-incarcerated. On the other hand, Oregon State discourages re-incarceration on petty violation and only resorts to it after all other ways have proved futile. It is therefore important to note that the high rates recidivism does not out-rightly mean that that state has failed in the preparation of their inmate to be integrated into the society not does it mean that those states with low recidivism rates have done an excellent job in integration of the released inmates into the society. But rather, the success or failure of maintaining a low recidivism rates is based on a collective practices such as incarceration policies and means of handling transgressions. Overview of recidivism rates As we have seen earlier, the success of the integration performance of a state is not only based on the drop of their recidivism rates but also on their policies and practices which are responsible for the reoffending of released inmates. Therefore, to compare states and their recidivism rates will involve reviewing their policies, practices and procedures. This overview will take into perspective the states of Oregon, Michigan and Missouri. Their systems will shed some light into measures that can be put in place to ensure that there is a drop in the recidivism rates in all states. State of Oregon Oregon is one of the states that have tried so hard to standout in the reduction of recidivism. In 2004 the offenders that were released Oregon received the lowest rate of recidivism among 41 states it recorded a 222.8%. Oregon also experiences the biggest decline in recidivism from the year 1999 to 20004. This merit is attributed by the Oregon officials as their commitment to change and all-inclusive approach across all level of government from the supervision officer in the field, to the judiciary, through the state correction department and up the ranks of legislative leadership. When the inmates are in prison at the state of Oregon they receive risk and needs assessment at intake and targeted case management during confinement, transitional planning accompany this six month before the release of the inmate. The community is prepared by the probation officers, this is done by the probation officers imposing swift, definite penalties for violation , generating steadiness across offenders and from county to county. This change was so benefit to the correction facilities at major Oregon’s correction facilities. It has been recorded in the past that parole and probation violators filled more than a quarter of Oregon’s prison beds. But today the violators are rarely confined. The Oregon’s effort can be attributed to the fundamental legislation that required any correctional program receiving state money to be evidence-based in its design and delivery. Such legislative measure can help so much in the reduction of recidivism. This bill can push correctional programs to truly translate any available research into practice of this field (Pew Center on the States, 2008) State of Michigan In the beginning of the year 2000, Michigan did not seem to be a state that was on the point embracing and inspiring any correctional reforms. Michigan was facing numerous problems such as high crime rates, an increase in the inmate population, a disappointing recidivism numbers and an economy that was suffering from the ailing auto industry. After two years the state was pumping about $1.6 billion a year into the correctional facilities. It was until about ten years later that Michigan led a wave policy that allowed it to shrink its inmate population by more than 12%, it was also able to shut down about 20 correctional facilities and increased the numbers of parolees from returning to custody. This achievement can be attributed to Michigan Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI). This was launched in 2003 and was expanded to cater for the whole state in 2008. The initiative’s main purpose was to equip each released offender with tools and skills to succeed in the community. MPRI begins at intake, when the prisoners risk, needs and strengths are measured to develop Individualized programming. Before the parole takes place the offenders are transferred to a reentry facilty.at this point a transitional plan begins to address issues such as employment, mentoring, housing, transportation and treating any mental illness or addiction incorporating a reliable community service. When the offenders are released the officers use very firm but flexible graduated sanctions that can include a short stay in a reentry Centre and this curbs any rule breaking that can arise and intensify a very serious contraventions. An ASCA survey found out that recidivism in Michigan had reduced by 18% between 1999 and 2004 which was attributed to the drop of the confined technical violators, but returns for new crimes jumped by almost 21% during this period. Since recording keeping began about twenty four years ago it can be deduced that all offenders who were released from Michigan prisoners reveals that parole revocations for both new crimes and technical are at the lowest level. This trend is so significant because the MPRI has produced positive results which have led to a higher level of parole approver rates. It is worth to consider corrections ‘right’ as they will decrease the number of prisons which will later result in large savings. Many prisons are just but a source of huge expenses (Beck, 2000). State of Missouri Around the year 2002, Missouri was faced with the dilemma of whether to stretch the capacity of the prisons yet there were enough finances to do increase the capacity of the prisons. The governor’s office and the General Assembly were very clear that there was not going to be another prisons and this meant that a solution had to be put in place to cope with situation. The Missouri policy makers embarked on a mission to assess as to what increasing the population of the inmates. They found out that the primary contributor to this was the rising number of parole and the violators behind bars. The rate of the recidivism was estimated to be about 55.4% from Pew/ASCA in 2004. It was also recorded to have a very highest proportion of released offenders that were imprisoned for a technical violation. Missouri then came up with a plan to manage all but the most serious violators in the community. A work group was established to analyze revocations, it then became an inter-agency team that drafted a vision and set goals, they carried out a pilot project that was later implemented with the aid of new policies and procedures; it also trained parole and probation staff. The released offenders in Missouri are subjected to an “e-driven supervision” which means ‘evidence-driven supervision.’ This system uses a new risk assessment tool that categorizes parolees and then set supervision levels. In case of an occurrence of a violation the officers have a variety of sanctions that they can impose. This can include such as verbal reprimand or modifying conditions, electronic monitoring or shock time in jail. Any relevant avenue is tried before an individual is considered to be sent back to prison. This has reduced the population of inmates in the prisons. This can be considered as a great model in the quest of reducing the population of inmates in prisons. Fate of Recidivism Recidivism can be reduced if proper integration measures are adopted by a state. Prisons and jails can do a better job preparing offenders for success upon release through successful integration of inmates into the society. This can be done by following some steps which will ensure reduced cases of reoffending. The measures should not be followed in isolation as their integration in the same system seeks to be very effective than when used in isolation. First, the prison agents should carry out risk assessment of the offender to evaluate the chances the offender has of reoffending if released into the society. This will allow the prison to use their resources only on those offenders who are at the high risk of recidivating. The prison agents will be required to identify the personal motivators of the offender so as to turn it into an opportunity of “self-motivating” the offender. The next step would be to assess the most appropriate interventions to be used on offenders. It is recommended that that intervention measures be organized such that they take most of the high-risk offender’s time for 40 to 70% in 3-9 months. Cognitive-behavioral approaches can be used to help the offender rewire their brain through role-playing which will promote pro-social behaviors. Positive behavior can also be promoted by reinforcement. The reinforced positive behavior should be maintained through ongoing support which is extended by the community after the inmate is released from prison. In closing, America has witnessed a significant reduction in the rates of recidivism. This is attributed to strategies that have been put in place to ensure effective correction of the inmates and their integration into the community. The reduction in the rate of recidivism does not imply that the imprisonment rate has declined as the overall increase in the imprisonment rate has been noted to be 11% from 2007. Different states have used different strategies to reduce their recidivism rate. Some states have witnessed massive decline in their recidivism rate such as Oregon, Michigan and Missouri. The recidivism rate is influenced by other factors which affect the correction and integration of inmates into the society but does not necessary mean that low rates are as a result of unsuccessful integration and high rates are as a result of failed integration. This research paper has clearly reviewed the recidivism rate and reentry behavior of inmates in America in general and in particular, three states; Oregon, Michigan and Missouri have been put into perspective to show how the three states have been successful in implementation of strategies and policies which reduce the recidivism rate an promote a smooth transition between prison isolation and liberty in the community. The inmates need to be helped to cope with the outside environment especially after spending a long time in prison since some of them are not even ready to face the community due to stigmatization and discrimination in areas of housing, employment and family relations. Investing in correction services has the potential of reducing the expenditure of the prison systems in the long run since the resources used to cater for the re-convicted inmates will be saved and channeled to other sectors where the money is needed more. References Beck, A.J., (2000). State and Federal Prisoners Returning to the Community: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Paper presented at the First Reentry Courts Initiative Cluster Meeting,Washington, D.C. Beck,A.J., (2000), Prisoners in 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 183476. Bonczar, T.P. & Glaze, L.E., (1999). Probation and Parole in the United States, 1998. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin. Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 160092. Bureau of Justice Statistics,(2011). U.S. Department of Justice, Direct expenditure on criminal justice by level of government, 1982-97. Blumstein, A. & Beck, A.J. (1999). Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980-1996. In M. Tonry & J.Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pew Center on the States, (2008). Policy Framework to Strengthen Community Corrections; Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Tonry, M., (1996). Sentencing Matters. New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Travis, J., (2000), But They All Come Back: Rethinking Prisoner Reentry. Sentencing & Corrections, Issues for the 21st Century, 7: Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, NCJ 181413. Read More