The Effects of Interventions and Sanctions - Research Paper Example

The Effects of Interventions and Sanctions Abstract Rehabilitation programs work effectively in efforts to reduce recidivism rates. Recidivism rates can be reduced if the criminal justice system focuses on the effectiveness of correctional interventions and sanctions. The more programs and services are offered, the more likely recidivism will be reduced. Educational services to inmates are the most effective intervention to reduce recidivism while supervision and drug abuse therapy also have their place in achieving the goals of the criminal justice system. The Effects of Interventions and Sanctions and Reducing Recidivism Rates Research Recidivism is the result of committing a new crime and returning to prison. The United States struggles to fight against crime and to reduce recidivism. For the criminal justice system, a decrease in the levels of recidivism promotes the safety and security of all citizens. It is essential to rehabilitate every single individual who enters the criminal justice system through community supervision, incarceration and sanctions – both because rehabilitation ensures recidivism is reduced and it initiates the reintegration process. Reintegration is possible once an individual successfully completes a substance abuse, mental health, education, and jobs skills program offered by a correctional institution. Such programs provide assistance towards achievement in a social environment without the prospect of committing a repeat offense. When inmates are released into the public, it is important they leave the system a better person than when they entered prison. To better analyze the problem and understand this issue, studying what is effective in correctional interventions and sanctions supports the implementation of more effective programs. If the rehabilitation model focused on the effectiveness of correctional interventions and sanctions, then rehabilitation would work more effectively and recidivism rates would be reduced. Research has made it possible to understand what programs are effective in reducing recidivism. This research focuses on the success of intervention and sanctions through education, vocational training, mental and psychological, substance abuse, and probation and parole programs. The Indiana Correctional Institution in particular produced helpful research on the effect of prison in education programs as well as the effects of recidivism with the study of release without supervision. The research concluded that rehabilitation programs are effective when inmates participate in a rehabilitation programs and furthermore, such research can help restructure rehabilitation to narrow down efforts to those that work in reducing recidivism. Several decades ago, there was an increase in attention paid to correctional interventions and sanctions. Research was conducted into the factors at play that prolong and detract from intervention programs amongst those who successfully attended rehabilitation programs while in prison. Rehabilitation programs have been successful and some have not. From 1970 to 1989, tended to be subject to labor and other harsh punishments. Labor and harsh punishments were served as means of reprimand and discipline; it was intended to teach prisoners a lesson. However, once released from prison, ex-convicts had no jobs, and nowhere to live. Therefore, after their release, the majority of ex-offenders had a high degree of reoffending (Phelps, 2011). The point of this matter is that in order to achieve an effective rehabilitation program, the need for softer interventions is a must. Interventions can help an individual to cope, to understand, and to discuss a problem that may be causing criminal behavior. Several factors contribute to crime. Perhaps, an offender was at one time a victim of violence, sexual abuse, drugs misuse, or lacked social opportunities. Any combination of these factors can affect an individual’s behavior and lead to criminal behavior (Garbarino, 2011). Similarly, criminal behaviors may lead to more heinous crimes, such as murder, robbery, rape, or drug dealing, which affect the safety and security of all citizens. In order to protect citizens, criminals must be separated from the community and rehabilitated before they can be allowed back into the public. Since criminality is inevitable, the primary responsibility of correctional facilities is to rehabilitate criminals in order to prevent future recidivism and protect the community against future criminal acts. Many studies have addressed recidivism through statistics and research. In 2005, 30 different states tracked 404,638 prisoners after their release. The results of the study concluded that 67.8 percent of those individuals were re-arrested within the course of 3 years and 76.6 percent were re-arrested through the course of 5 years (Durose, Cooper, & Snyder, 2014). Since recidivism increased over a decade, the study emphasized the need for successful intervention programs. The effectiveness of these programs is aided by an understanding of why people decide not to re-offend. Simply measuring the effects of these programs can provide insight into most questions about recidivism. According to research, most people reoffend due to social disadvantages or associations with other criminals during incarceration. Many return to an environment where they face economic and political disadvantages. Due to social disadvantages, ex-offenders will be tempted to re-offend again as their needs are not being met (Melrose, 2011). Rehabilitation programs may reduce recidivism by providing inmates with knowledge, skills, and mental stability to survive economical obstacles. Since job markets demand more qualifications and skills in the 21st century, correctional facilities should take the lead in providing such skills and knowledge to inmates. Inmates need to be able to reintegrate into society without the risk of reoffending. Assessing an individual’s risk to reoffend can predict recidivism. In an ideal world, not all offenders would fall into the temptation of reoffending based on their social environment or experiences in prison. Some prisoners live in poor neighborhoods with limited resources and most of these areas have high crime rates or few educational opportunities. Inmates may also leave prison traumatized from prison violence. Eventually, ex-convicts face mental and social issues, which can lead to damaging drug and alcohol abuse (Stasio, 2010). It has been suggested in the literature that correctional facilities should provide programs to correct criminal behavior through rehabilitation in order to help ex-convicts reintegrate in society. Reoffending can generally be ascribed to experiences that individuals have after being released from prison. Ex-convicts reoffend mainly based on a lack of social opportunities and the influence of friends and environment (Stasio, 2010). Recidivism may be measured based on who is at risk of reoffending. Risk assessments indicate the level of correctional treatment and the intervention programs that may be most effective. Intuitively, high-risk individuals receive more treatment than low-risk individuals on account of a higher risk of reoffending. Risk assessment illustrates and targets who will likely reoffend based on age, criminal history, education, employments, and negative influence. Based on age and criminal history, courts predicted 81.4 percent of 393 high-risk male offenders will be likely to reoffend (Mokros, Stadtland, Osterheider, & Nedopil, 2010, p. 435). Importantly, risk assessment can provide courts and correctional facilitates guidance on where to place individuals in different intervention programs based on their risk factors. Assessing the risk of reoffending is important as it categorizes who are in the greatest need for rehabilitation programs. Risk assessment can be used to separate high-risk individuals from those who are low-risk and are vulnerable to their influence. Essentially, by mixing high-risk individuals with low-risk individuals, low-risk individuals may be misled to follow in the footsteps of those who commit violent acts. For example, if Person A was arrested for robbery but never did drugs, a correctional facility should not allow Person A to intermingle with Person B, who was convicted of drug dealing but not robbery. Assessing risk prior to sentencing can prevent recidivism by healing low-risk and high-risk individuals with different interventions programs. Psychological test can also help predict if an individual is more likely to reoffend. One assessment tool is the Level of Service Inventory (LSI), which helps experts make more accurate assessments of the likelihood of re-offending. It was developed from an extensive body of research and has been shown to predict the likelihood of adult recidivism. It includes risk factors such as criminal history, education, employment, financial management, family, companions, alcohol use, drug use, mental health, and use of leisure. Probation officers may use the LSI to advice the court regarding whether an offender is at a low-, moderate-, or high-risk of reoffending. Also, an individual’s mindset toward crime plays a role in determining if that individual’s criminal intentions would result in reoffending upon release from prison. All people have different ways of thinking that lead to a decision. Decisions are usually a result of one’s ability to think and the capacity to make reasonable judgments and choices in life. Good choices and decisions are made by individuals who judge situations rationally. Evaluating the physiological state of a convicted inmate can determine future levels of recidivism through a self-reporting questionnaire – as opposed to the LSI tool that probation offers use to make decisions. During an initial physiological evaluation, 178 individuals were evaluated with mental issues. Their mental issues revealed that their criminal past experiences lead to negative answers in an interview. The outcome of this research assisted in determining levels of recidivism based of meta-analysis of prediction studies. Even though the study showed those who scored high on an initial evaluation were likely to reoffend, other offenders who scored less did reoffend due to deception and feigning their responses to the questionnaire (Walters, 2011). With this in mind, creators of psychological assessments must create surveys that control for deception and maintain internal validity in spite of insincere responses. In addition, a psychological analysis can help predict future recidivism by effectively measuring its risk and interventions. Based on psychological results, correctional facilities can determine what mental health programs best educate those with mental incapacities. Educating those with mental problems can reduce recidivism by intervening in their behavior problems. Even though this method seems to be effective, reductions to recidivism will not be entirely consistent due to the deception and feigning of participants when they answer questions during their psychiatric screening (Walters, 2011). Assessing psychological behaviors can orchestrate what programs are more effective in the criminal justice system. Predicting recidivism is important in the criminal justice system as it can articulate what methods of intervention is needed amongst inmates. The need for better programs is essential when it comes to measuring what works best. Cognitive-behavioral therapy is an intervention program that can adjust an individual’s behavior by encouraging positive thinking (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). In a cognitive-behavioral intervention program, an offender attends 25 sessions, roughly two hours per session. During these sessions, the therapist addresses antisocial attitudes. After completing the 25 sessions, graduates are able to successfully identify, challenge, and develop alternative action plans during though situations. After administering the cognitive-behavioral programs, the study showed that 53% of 662 offenders who participated in a group treatment session were likely to reoffend after release due to their prior criminal history and due to the challenges they will face after release (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). Also, past criminal history has a high impact in relation to reoffending due to other social aspects such as friends and social limitations. It has been suggested that longitudinal research on the outcomes of rehabilitation programs is essential to understanding their effectiveness and to the relative weighting of various risk factors involved in predicting criminal behavior (Kroner & Yessine, 2013). Reducing recidivism is a constant priority in the criminal justice system and risk assessment will continue to make progress in predicting criminal behavior. The reintegration process is essential and prior to release, programs such as educational, vocational, substance abuse, and mental health interventions will contribute to the success of reintegration. Correctional interventions programs have gradually showed the effectiveness in reducing recidivism. Prisoners need interventions throughout their time in corrections. A prisoner’s daily life is generally conducted according to a pre-arranged plan. A day typically starts at 6:45am with healthy breakfast and some inmates work for six hours a day. Their average pay wage can range $0.10 to $0.25 per hour. This is in return for manual services related to ensuring the smooth operation of the correctional facility they are housed in. If they are not employed, inmates remain in their cells until recreational activities are open. During their time in the yard, some play basketball, handball, Frisbee, or just lay in sun. This average scenario reoccurs about three times a day. If an inmate is ill, they are provided with free healthcare (Garbarino, 2011, p. 321). Overall, the cost of housing an individual in the prison system is quite substantial, when adding up all of these free services that must be provided as a matter of law. The huge budgetary expense of corrections broadly is what pushes many counties, states, and the federal government to release non-violent criminals from jails under supervision. While supervision also has high costs associated with it (primarily the staff and capital such as cars and computers required to supervise), those costs are minimal in comparison to the capital expense of a building, staff, meals, recreation activities, labor costs to inmates who work, and so on associated with formal prisons. If recidivism can be reduced while cutting costs, then governments will find a win-win that is easy to sell to taxpayers. While prison life seems fairly easy, being locked behind a cell and doing the same activities through the course of three, five or ten years can be psychologically damaging. Being locked behind bars and not engaging in an educational program lowers their chances of succeeding once released. Upon release, inmates are usually left with nothing other than their belongings they brought with entering prison. Instead of a place of stagnation, inmates need to have an educational system that it is mandatory rather than optional. Instead of an education system, many jurisdictions opt for mandatory sentences as a way of deterring future crime amongst those who are reintegrating in society, counting on the assumption that being locked behind bars is sufficient motivation to not offend again. However, we know from the bulk of the research on this topic that this is not true and that prisons – as government agencies – should be taking a more proactive approach, rather than a reactive approach, to reducing the incidence of crime in the community. The release of 700,000 inmates from prison caused a major problem for state governments in 2011. Few of the released inmates had received education during their time behind bars (Paul, Harrison, & Sabol, 2012). Such programs, aimed at saving taxpayer money and reduce overcrowding in American correctional facilities, are well-intentioned but liable to backfire if released inmates have nothing substantive to contribute to the local community workforce. Without a strong value proposition to employers, many inmates are forced into old habits that include committing crime to earn a living. This is especially true in macroeconomic conditions that are not generally favorable to begin with. Employers looking for the best they can find will usually find that they can safely hire without having to look at the pool of candidates with a felony conviction, which is a larger issue than just training inmates. However, arming offenders with an education can lower recidivism by improving the available pool of ex-convicts. As a result of high recidivism rates, prisons offer adult education and vocational education programs and other higher education opportunities (Tolbert, 2012). The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Vocational and Adult Education have developed the Correctional Education Reentry Model, ensuring prisoners gain an education and skills to obtain a job and successfully transition out the correction facility (Tolbert, 2012). It is highly important that offenders do acquire an education while in prison or in community-based supervision such as parole. The general job market requires at least a High School Diploma or GED to for a moderately well-paying job. Offenders lacking in education or job skills are faced to work longer hours and earn 11% less than someone who possessed a high school diploma or a vocation education (Duwe & Clarck, 2014). The reentry model offers offenders with educational and vocational opportunities. Placing such needs in every correction facility can fix the gap of the reintegration process (Tolbert, 2012). The reentry model is offered to incarcerated individuals or those who are under community supervision. Prior to being admitted in an education program, offenders who abused drugs will have to attend a drug abuse program. Offenders must go through a drug abuse program, which may include mental therapy. Mental therapy is most often conducted in a group setting to avoid the cost of one-on-one services with a mental health professional, except in extreme circumstances. Therapies are often meant to address mental health issues developed prior to the inmate entering the corrections system, but it is also should acknowledge the fact that incarceration has an effect on individuals’ mental health through trauma (from violent events prisoners witness), a lack of support and feeling cut off, and when the time comes, readjusting to the basic rules of society. Once the offender completes therapy, the offender goes over an educational plan. The education plan should have common elements between all individuals in jail who did not attain a certain education level (such as high school), but it should also be tailored to each inmates’ professional or vocational interests to support them in finding a job once released. Finally, once the individual attains an educational goal, a probation officer will monitor to ensure the education is on track and meeting his or her needs (Tolbert, 2012). General supervision is a must, and probation officers need to ensure the progress is effective. Much research has demonstrated the necessity of the monitoring educations goals amongst recently released inmates. The effect of education programs and the results of reducing recidivism were studied by the Minnesota Department of Corrections. The retrospective quasi-experiment was used to determine if prison education was successful in reducing recidivism and increasing employment opportunities (Duwe & Clarck, 2014). During the research, more than 9,000 inmates were enrolled in the Minnesota Department of Corrections educational programs; it was observed that 38% of offenders did not have a GED or a High School diploma when they entered prison. But, upon release, 33% of these individual earned a GED or High School diploma during prison and the remaining 8% did not complete their requirements (Duwe & Clarck, 2014). As a result of the intervention, inmates who entered the prison system without an education have more opportunities to earn a living (within the limits imposed upon hiring by employers). The Minnesota Department of Corrections reported that earning a high school or GED during prison increased the chances of finding employment and increased work hours and wages. While recidivism rates were no different, the importance of maintaining employment was crucial to ex-inmate well-being (Duwe & Clarck, 2014). Even though correction facilities offer educational opportunities, the chances of getting employed will always be limited due to their past criminal history. Therefore, even if ex-offenders posses the skills and education needed to be qualified for a job, competing against those who do not have a criminal record is certainly an obstacle. To better understand the effectiveness of correctional education, the Indiana Department of Corrections also participates in recording employment and recidivism on post-release offenders. The Indiana Department of corrections established and evaluated two test groups, 1,077 inmates who completed an education program while incarcerated compared to 1,078 offenders who did not complete such a program (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson, & Ho, 2012). The research demonstrated a positive relationship between correctional education and reduced recidivism and increased employment opportunities. It was found that 68% of individuals who entered the Indiana Correctional Institutions did not hold a High School diploma or GED. The result of this outcome enabled education opportunities to be the primary argument for such programs (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson, & Ho, 2012). Education opportunities were concluded to be the answer to reducing recidivism at least in part by giving inmates something to strive for once released from jail, rather than falling back into old habits and with prior contacts in the criminal elements of society. Education has always been the key to success, and correction facilities should adopt more of those services. The Indiana Department of Corrections adopted such efforts and concluded that 757 of a study group of offenders did not reoffend while the comparison group revealed that 347 offenders did not reoffend (Nally, Lockwood, Knutson, & Ho, 2012). The numbers show a significant reduction in recidivism. It is evident that correction facilities should continue to provide such education opportunities – based on a clear increase in employment opportunities related to the implementation of these programs. By providing education and a way of earning wages that does not involve crime, the state can reduce recidivism rates. However, longitudinal studies are necessary to accurately assess the effect of these programs and funding should continue to go towards correctional education. Drug and alcohol abuse leads to negative behaviors and other health problems. It has been noted that at least four in ten inmates in state prisons are diagnosed with a substance abuse disorder (NIH, 2012). Due to an increase in drug abusers, many states have introduced rehabilitation programs to help those who have abused drugs in past. Helping those who have drugs problems will make allow an individual to find more success in correctional education. Many states introduced Substance Abuse Programs during community supervision and incarceration. Drug rehabilitation is essential when it comes to proving the effectiveness of interventions programs. If inmates are unable to cease their drug addiction, then education and supervision programs in probation will not achieve their intended effect. The Virginia Correctional Institution also recognizes drug abuse as a brain disease, capable of affecting behavior and altering brain function to cause an individual to take unnecessary risk (DCJS, 2014). As such, it should be treated as any other disease within the corrections system – namely, by clinical professionals who are able to assist inmates in ceasing their addictions. The Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services reported that 30.7% of their prison populations are engaged in a Substance Abuse Program (DCJS, 2014). Moreover, drugs impair someone’s ability to think and make rational decisions and judgments, leading to crimes of all kinds. To better educate offenders, substance abuse treatments are initiated by family courts and or during incarcerations. Offenders are offered opportunities to help them cope with addiction and are mandated to get involved in a Substance Abuse Program. The Pre-release and Post-incarceration Services and the Kingdom Life Ministries are two most reliable programs. The Pre-release and Post-incarceration Services offers Alcohol Anonymous, and Narcotic Anonymous to help offenders cope with their addiction. However, the Kingdom Life Ministries has had a demonstrably greater impact in lowering recidivism rates (DCJS, 2014). It was found that arrests among attendees of The Pre-release and Post-incarceration Services decreased to 32.2% from 35.6% over the course of a 12-month period. The Kingdom Life Ministries reduced recidivism to 34% in comparison to a statewide recidivism rate of 54% (DCJS, 2014). While both programs decreased recidivism, extensive research is still necessary to calculate its effectiveness to a better degree. While Substance Abuse Programs generally help offenders cope with their drug problem, probation and parole officers play a vital role when it comes to monitoring results. Probation is commonly used as a correctional sanction. Immediate sanctions allow an individual to serve in the community under several restrictions. Punishments are given according to the severity of the crime and sanctions are sometimes administered with intensive supervision coordinated by a probation or parole officer (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011). If an offender is a substance abuser, the offenders will then be sent to a drug court. Some offenders may also be punished with community service, daily reporting, remote location monitoring (GPS), residential community centers (RCC), and boot camps (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011). Immediate sanctions deliver support and assistance to those who are not dangerous to society and its victims; however, rehabilitation is still needed in efforts to reduce recidivism. When offenders participate in a sanction program, their participation promotes a smoother rehabilitation and reintegration within the community. Immediate sanctions are also cost-effective to federal and local government. By administering immediate sanctions, it has estimated that the government could save $9.7 billion dollars, which can eventually go towards investing into rehabilitation programs rather than in prisons (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011). Sanctions can rehabilitate the offender through training aids, counseling, and education. Probation officers are important in the process of reintegrating non-violent offenders into the community. The California State of Correction Institution preformed drug interventions on a number of eligible low- and high-risk drug offenders who qualified under the Proposition 36 Program. A condition of the probation included participation and completion of a licensed or certified drug treatment program instead of jail. In the event that a participant failed to complete the program, the probation could have been revoked and the offer required to serve an additional sentence including incarceration. Proposition 36 Program was found to be effective to some degree; its findings resulted in a minor drop of 12.5% in arrests (Evans, Huang, & Hser, 2011). Public policy research into Proposition 36 and similar programs aid legislators determine the future of these alternative probation arrangements. A separate study found that the total savings for California taxpayers over the period of five years of $1.4 billion (Ziedenberg & Braz, 2006). Similar programs rolled out nationally would likewise be a win-win for drug users and the communities in which they live. Sanctions are widely accepted in the criminal justice system. Community supervision serves as an alternative to incarceration. However, while supervision helps to reduce costs, it is ineffective at reducing recidivism – which may be more costly in the long-run. Correctional education seems to be the better option compared to supervision because education empowers while supervision simply seeks to control. The more sustainable option is to provide the mental resources that ex-convicts need to advance in society, rather than to keep them within the limits of society. Education programs and vocational opportunities benefit correctional system as well as integrating the offenders into their local community. Intervention and sanction programs have a place in correctional facilities alongside educational programs. The bottom line is that the more programs and services are offered, the more likely recidivism will be reduced. Criminal behavior affects everyone in one-way or another. Most have loved ones who have either committed a criminal act or know someone who was the victim of a crime. The goal in the justice system is to reduce and prevent crime. Reducing crime can be done with intervention and sanctions. Long before the criminal justice system established rehabilitation programs, prisoners were sent to prisons as means of punishment, which produced high rates of recidivism when terms were over. Interventions and sanctions is the way ahead when facing the recidivism problem. Identifying recidivism and understanding the problem can be achieved through risk assessment. Risk assessment can guide prosecutors and judges to assess the offender’s future risk while determining which rehabilitation programs an offender should participate in. To help with the recidivism phenomenon, correctional education seems to works best. Educational benefits can aid offenders to reintegrate into society when a High School Diploma, GED, or even a college education is obtained during prison. Educational programs showed an increase in employment opportunities and by administering these programs, the rate of recidivism can be lowered. References DCJS. (2014, January). Jail-based substance abuse programs. Retrieved from Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services: http://www.dcjs.virginia.gov/research/documents/Kingdom%20Life%20Report_FINAL.pdf Durose, M., Cooper, A., & Snyder, H. (2014, April). Recidivism of prisoners release in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/rprts05p0510.pdf Duwe, G., & Clarck, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and Employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454-475. doi:10.1177/0032885514548009 Evans, E., Huang, D., & Hser, Y. (2011). High-risk offenders participating in court-supervised substance abuse treatment: Characteristics, treatment received, and factors associated with recidivism. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 38(4), 510-525. doi:10.1007/s11414-011-9241-3 Garbarino, J. (2011). Understanding criminal ‘choices’ in context. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 81(2), 157-161. doi:1492509539 Kroner, G., & Yessine, K. (2013). Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: In search of mechanisms of change. Law and Human Behavior, 37(5), 321-336. doi:10.1037/lhb0000022 Melrose, M. (2011). Criminal behaviour in context: Space, place and desistance from crime. British Journal of Community Justice, 8(3), 105-106. doi:905841036 Mokros, A., Stadtland, C., Osterheider, M., & Nedopil, N. (2010). Assessment of risk for violent recidivism through multivariate bayesian classification. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(4), 418-450. doi:0.1037/a0021312 Nally, J., Lockwood, S., Knutson, K., & Ho, T. (2012). An evaluation of the effect of correctional education programs on post-release recidivism and employment: An empirical study in Indiana. Journal of Correctional Education, 63(1), 69-88. doi:1022181435 NIH. (2012, July 20). Program reduces recidivism among men with co-occurring disorders. Retrieved from National Institute on Drug Abuse: http://www.drugabuse.gov/news-events/nida-notes/2012/07/program-reduces-recidivism-among-men-co-occurring-disorders Paul, G., Harrison, P., & Sabol, W. (2012, February). Prisoners in 2010. Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p10.pdf Phelps, M. (2011). Rehabilitation in the punitive era: The gap between rhetoric and reality in U.S. prison programs. Law & Society Review, 45(1), 33-68. doi:874024722 Schmalleger, F., & Smykla, J. (2011). Corrections in the 21st century (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Stasio, R. (2010). Prisoner recidivism: A question for social marketing. Journal of Marketing Development and Competitiveness, 5(1), 47-56. doi:877026382 Tolbert, M. (2012). A reentry education model: Supporting education and career advancement for low-skill individuals in corrections. Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/reentry-model.pdf Walters, G. (2011). Predicting recidivism with the psychological inventory of criminal thinking styles and level of service. Law and Human Behavior, 35(3), 211-220. doi:0.1007/s10979-010-9231-7 Ziedenberg, J., & Braz, R. (2006, April 17). Saving money and aiding drug users. Retrieved from The San Diego Union-Tribute: http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060417/news_mz1e17zieden.html Read More