Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 8:49 pm
Time: 8:49 pm
Results for offender reintegration
11 results foundAuthor: Bazemore, Gordon Title: A Civic Justice Corps: Community Service as a Means of Reintegration Summary: Rarely considered in re-entry programs is the role of community service as a means of reintegration. We argue for the creation of a “Civic Justice Corps”; a program for parolees to return to the community in the spirit of service. A CJC would benefit both offenders and communities by allowing for “earned redemption”—enabling offenders to repair the harm caused by their crimes and regain community trust. Service may foster positive identity change leading to reduced recidivism and civic commitment, while also providing an opportunity for parolees to reestablish community social ties, leading to permanent housing and employment. We make the case for a CJC as well as review the research on the correctional use of community service. Details: Unpublished paper, 2005. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Shelf Number: 125987 Keywords: Community ServiceOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Warwick, Kevin Title: Case Management Strategies for Successful Jail Reentry Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections partnered with the Urban Institute to develop and test a comprehensive Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) model for effective jail-to-community transition. The TJC model and initiative advance systems-level change and local reentry through collaborative, coordinated jail-community partnerships. This brief presents the TJC Initiative’s approach to case planning and community handoff, drawing upon the implementation experiences of six TJC learning sites, all of which implemented elements of the TJC case management process and were continuing to work toward a more seamless and integrated process at the close of the TJC technical assistance period. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute; National Institute of Corrections, 2012. 10p. Source: Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Practice Brief: Internet Resource: Accessed October 7, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412671-Case-Management-Strategies-for-Successful-Jail-Reentry.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412671-Case-Management-Strategies-for-Successful-Jail-Reentry.pdf Shelf Number: 126575 Keywords: JailsOffender ManagementOffender ReintegrationPrisoner ReentryReentry |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Transition from Prison to Community Initiative: Process Evaluation Final Report Summary: The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) launched the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) initiative in 2001, recognizing the need to provide states with support and guidance in developing an effective reentry system to help prisoners prepare for their release, navigate their transition back to the community, and overcome short- and long-term barriers to reintegration. Along with its cooperative agreement partners, NIC developed the TPC model, a comprehensive model for a systems approach to transition from prison that would incorporate the lessons of evidence-based practice, emphasize the importance of collaboration and a unified vision throughout the reentry continuum, and provide a practical framework to guide corrections agencies and their non-correctional partners in efforts to advance reentry practices. The TPC model was first implemented in a group of eight states from 2001 to 2009. In 2009, NIC and its cooperative agreement partner the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) selected six states to receive a second round of TPC technical assistance; Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In order to assist jurisdictions in implementing the TPC model, CEPP organized TPC implementation into a ten-step organizational change process necessary to fully implement TPC: 1. Create and charter teams 2. Develop a clear vision and mission 3. Develop a work plan 4. Understand current policy, practice, populations, and resources 5. Align with evidence-based practice 6. Conduct a gaps analysis 7. Identify targets of change 8. Develop an implementation plan 9. Execute, monitor, adjust, and correct 10. Evaluate TPC work in all six sites unfolded consistent with this framework and TPC technical assistance provision was structured around it. The Urban Institute (UI) conducted an implementation evaluation of this second phase of the TPC initiative. The evaluation included a process evaluation to tell the story of TPC in each state, including whether implementation proceeded as designed, the range of activities pursued, factors that facilitated or inhibited TPC implementation, lessons learned, and a systems change analysis to examine the effect of TPC on each state’s reentry system and operations including changes in policy, procedures and processes. The evaluation drew upon stakeholder interviews, direct observation, document review, and review of performance measurement data. It was clear that system changes occurred in the TPC sites. Regardless of the state of transition practice when the six states joined TPC, at the beginning of building a reentry system or with a strong system in place, advancing in accordance with the TPC model created opportunities for focus and system improvement. All six states developed or modified collaborative structures to oversee reentry, including policy teams with executive-level leadership and implementation teams to oversee the details of key changes, and stakeholders in each state described enhanced collaboration around reentry. Kentucky, Tennessee implemented risk/needs assessment, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming worked to improve their use of existing assessment tools, and Minnesota and Texas planned for implementing new assessment tools to improve their process. All states worked to determine the quality and evidence basis of institutional and community programming. And each state worked to better understand current client-level practice, and measure and monitor reentry performance. Cross-site observations from the process evaluation include: TPC Structure and Collaboration It was important to have many people in the core agencies working on TPC who understand the big picture. Turnover in key positions is inevitable, and occurred in all TPC states. Without a network of people who understood and had ownership of the state’s reentry work, a change in a linchpin position could delay the effort for months. Even successful collaborative efforts experience growing pains. The early stages of building a collaborative effort were often characterized by stakeholder frustration with the pace of the initiative and the perception that it was unfocused. However, these frustrations generally abated (without necessarily disappearing completely) over the course of the initiative as common goals were developed and concrete accomplishments were realized. Establishing a clear charter and defining roles within a TPC effort helps partners engage. A clear charter for the collaborative bodies driving the transition work provided valuable focus to TPC work and made the initiative more transparent to external stakeholders. Securing buy-in from line staff requires special attention. Stakeholders described resistance to change from line staff arising from several sources. TPC states dealt with these challenges in a variety of ways, including focusing on staff recognition, building staff skills, general education, reporting results of reentry efforts, and empowering staff to access leadership and innovate. Middle managers have a vital role to play. TPC leaders felt that middle management in corrections agencies, meaning those directly supervising line staff, were a crucial group to engage in the TPC change process. Their influence on staff and ability to directly support or impede transition practice and transmit (or not) the message that reentry was a priority made them a critical determinant of whether desired system changes were fully executed. Dedicating staff to the change effort makes a difference. Staff dedicated to managing a change process to support transition had a tremendous impact on processes in several states. A person or team able to devote substantial, consistent attention to the TPC effort helped maintain momentum, organization, and focus in the effort. Everyone needs to own reentry. Many of the TPC states identified the need to ensure that all correctional staff, as well as community partners, felt an obligation to facilitate reentry. Establishing reentry-specific units or staff positions facilitated reentry progress in many ways, but stakeholders noted that there was a risk that other staff would feel less ownership over reentry, believing that it belonged to reentry staff. Systems change work requires patience. When asked directly what advice they would give peers in other states seeking to make changes along the lines of the TPC model, many stakeholders stressed the importance of patience with the process and recognizing that changing systems takes a long time. Implementing Systems of Integrated Case Management Assessment of criminogenic risk and need, and a case plan based on the results are the backbone of the transition effort. Once these tools were implemented and automated, it allowed for both evidence-based and consistent work at the client level, and provided vital information regarding the distribution of risk and need across the reentry population necessary for resource allocation and strategic planning decisions. Implementing assessment is just the first step. While putting a valid risk/needs assessment into place was a substantial achievement, TPC stakeholders emphasized the need to ensure that those assessments were being done correctly, consistently, and were being used to build case plans and direct individuals to the appropriate programs. Providing information and training on how to use assessment results increases buy-in to a risk and need-driven reentry system. TPC stakeholders stressed the importance of ensuring that everyone expected to utilize assessment information understood what that information meant and how it could be used. They felt that when this was done properly, assessments were recognized by staff as valuable tools for effective correctional work and decision-making. States grappled with losing program staff. Staff reductions reduced the capacity to deliver programming in a number of TPC states, and reductions in supervision staff in some states had similar effects. Minimal social service infrastructure in many rural areas is a major challenge. Rural reentry posed a difficulty in the participating states, particularly due to the scarcity of community-based treatment and program providers, the distance between them, and the absence of transportation infrastructure. Placing new requirements on staff must be balanced with removing responsibilities. States needed to seek ways to reduce workload to make room for new practices, as well as to create time for offender engagement, motivation enhancement, and positive reinforcement. Iowa, for example, is planning to simplify its case plan for this reason. Assessing Practice and Measuring Performance Capacity to draw and analyze data is limited and overtaxed. TPC states experienced challenges related to both the design of their data systems and lacking staff or sufficiently-skilled staff to retrieve data or conduct analyses using the systems. Gauging the content of line-level practice requires special effort. Every state in TPC needed to conduct activities to determine what was occurring with transition practice at the line level. There is an ongoing need to check and monitor practice at this level to ensure that policy changes are reflected in practice, but also to learn from line-level practice and innovation to guide policy improvements. Data integration is hugely beneficial when it is achieved, but requires upfront investment. Differences in data systems for institutional corrections and field supervision made it difficult to measure progress. Creating integrated data systems is a resource-intensive undertaking, but states that had done so believed it to be tremendously valuable. Measurement questions are strategic questions. It was not possible to define the correction measures to track TPC process until there was clarity at the strategic level of the initiative regarding what should be measured and why. Only once the strategic questions were answered was it possible to move to the technical questions regarding what was possible to extract from the data systems, or what data system modifications might be needed to track progress. Both performance measurement and performance management are important. Gathering measures of transition performance was difficult, and the full benefit of doing so was not realized unless there was a process for the consistent review of those measures to assess progress and identify issues. Tennessee’s Joint Offender Management Plan (JOMP) process was a good model of the regular review of data as part of a systems change process. Disseminating evidence of success builds support for the reentry effort. Summarizing and publicizing evidence of reentry success, both internally within partnering agencies and publicly, helped substantiate progress and increase buy-in at all levels of partnering organizations, as well as solicit support from elected leaders and the public. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128656 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program ImplementationTransition from Prison Program |
Author: Easton, Helen Title: Evaluation of the 218 Service: Examining Implementation and Outcomes Summary: 1.1. The 218 Service opened in Glasgow in December 2003 in response to growing concerns about the needs and treatment of women offenders in the criminal justice system. Since this time, the service has provided holistic, women centred support for adult women offenders through a partnership between Turning Point Scotland (TPS) and Glasgow Addiction Service (GAS). This report presents a summary of the findings of a second evaluation of the service and provides an estimate of key outcomes for women offenders and the cost benefits of the service. Main Findings 1.2. The 218 Service has continued to evolve and remains a highly regarded, holistic, 'person centred' residential and day service for adult women offenders. The maximum period of engagement permitted has changed to six months for the Residential Service and 12 months for the Day Service. The programme has also been updated to focus on offending behaviour and to incorporate a recovery focussed model of change (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1982) which provides increased flexibility, improved measurement of change, and has potential to increase levels of engagement. 1.3. Police-recorded offending reduced by 21% following contact with the service among the cohort of 320 women referred to the service between 1 June 2007 and 31 May 2008. Among women engaging with the service beyond their assessment overall offending reduced by 31% and dishonesty offences by 44%. 1.4. A conservative estimate of the cost benefit established that for every $1 invested in the service there was a potential saving of $2.50 per year. Further savings are likely if longer term impacts such as the impact on women offenders' children are taken into consideration. 1.5. Most referrals to the service are made by the courts (43%) or Criminal Justice Social Work (CJSW)(16%) and are aged 25-39 years (66%). From 2007 to 2009 there was a reduction in referrals of women aged 20-34 (71% of referrals reducing to 57%) and an increase in referrals of women aged 35-44 years (21% increasing to 33%). CJSW referrals had declined slightly from 19% to 16% of the total over the same period. 1.6. The number of assessments increased slightly from 198 in 2007 to 214 in 2009. A total of 439 women were assessed 630 times by the service. Multiple assessments accounted for half (51%) of all assessments compared to two thirds (67%) of referrals. 1.7. Over half (54%) of all referrals were assessed. Referrals from the Drug Court, Social Work, CJSW, and Community Addiction Teams were more likely to be assessed than referrals from other sources. 1.8. The combination of decreasing numbers of referrals, increasing numbers of assessments and lower numbers of multiple assessments than referrals could suggest an improvement in the quality of referrals made to the service. 1.9. Over half (52%) of the women offenders assessed engaged with the service. Those aged between 25-39 years and referred by CJSW, the Sheriff Court, CATs, Social Work and the Drugs Court were more likely to engage. Details: Glasgow: Scottish Government Social Research, 2010. 108p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2014 at: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9497&p=0 Year: 2010 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.glasgow.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=9497&p=0 Shelf Number: 133390 Keywords: Alternatives to IncarcerationCommunity ServicesFemale Offenders (Scotland) Offender ReintegrationOffenders RehabilitationRecidivism |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers Summary: Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) are designed to facilitate the transition from prison to the community, and many often serve as halfway back facilities for offenders who have difficulties when placed on community supervision. During this transitional period, the RRCs assist offenders in securing housing and employment as well as continuing in appropriate treatment and other programs to address criminogenic needs. Monographs available at this website are: "Executive Overview: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers" by Faye S. Taxman, Jessica Rexroat, Mary Shilton, Amy Mericle, and Jennifer Lerch; "Report 1: What Is the Impact of "Performance Contracting" on Offender Supervision Services?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 2: Measuring Performance -The Capacity of Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to Collect, Manage, and Analyze Client-Level Data" by Mericle, Shilton, Taxman, and Rexroat; "Report 3: What Organizational Factors Are Related to Improved Outcomes?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 4: How Do Staff Hiring, Retention, Management and Attitudes Affect Organizational Climate and Performance in RRCs?" by Rexroat, Shilton, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 5: What Services Are Provided by RRCs?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; Report 6: Technical Violation Rates and Rearrest Rates on Federal Probation after Release from an RRC" by Lerch, Taxman, and Mericle; and "Report 7: Site Visits" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Criminology, Law and Society, 2010. 8 parts; executive summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Shelf Number: 133728 Keywords: Halfway HousesOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRehabilitation |
Author: Erisman, Wendy Title: A Reentry Education Model Supporting Education and Career Advancement For Low-Skill Individuals in Corrections Summary: More than 700,000 incarcerated individuals leave federal and state prisons each year (Guerino, Harrison, and Sabol 2012), making reentry into the community a major concern for federal, state, and local governments. Too many of these individuals do not reintegrate successfully into society; within three years of release, four out of 10 prisoners will have committed new crimes or violated the terms of their release and be reincarcerated (The Pew Center on the States 2011). This cycle of catch-and-release costs states more than $50 billion annually (National Association of State Budget Officers 2011). Moreover, the number of those cycling in and out of our nation's prisons not only jeopardizes public safety, but also ravages families and their communities. According to a 2010 Pew Charitable Trusts report: - Approximately 2.7 million children have an incarcerated parent, and these children are more likely to be expelled or suspended from school than children without an incarcerated parent. - One in three black men, one in eight white men, and one in 14 Hispanic men between the ages of 20 and 34 without a high school credential are incarcerated. - Formerly incarcerated men earn approximately 11 percent less per hour and 40 percent less per year than those who have never been incarcerated. Unfortunately, many offenders are ill-equipped to break the cycle of catch-and-release because they lack the education and workforce skills needed to succeed in the labor market and the cognitive skills (e.g., the ability to solve problems and reason) needed to address the challenges of reentry. In fact, approximately 40 percent of federal and state prisoners lack a high school credential, compared to less than 20 percent of the general population. Even fewer have completed any college course work (Greenberg, Dunleavy, and Kutner 2007). Many prisoners also have limited work experience and struggle to find employment once released (Gould, Weinberg, and Mustard 2002; Yahner and Visher 2008). They also typically have cognitive deficits, which are associated with criminal behavior (Andrews et al. 1990; MacKenzie 2006; MacKenzie 2012). Although most state and federal prisons offer adult education and career and technical education (CTE) programs and some offer postsecondary education, participation in these programs has not kept pace with the growing prison population (Western, Schiraldi, and Ziedenberg 2003). Similarly, those under community supervision (parole or probation) often do not participate in education and training programs (Visher, Debus, and Yahner 2008). Possible reasons for these low participation rates include lack of programs or awareness of program opportunities; reduced services because of state budget constraints; insufficient personal motivation; and competing demands (e.g., employment) that may take precedence over pursuing education (Crayton and Neusteter 2008; Visher, De-bus, and Yahner 2008). It is not surprising, therefore, that formerly incarcerated individuals cited education, job training, and employment as vital needs not generally met during incarceration or after release (Visher and Lattimore 2007). Education and training opportunities for these individuals, who often move in and out of prison, can be further thwarted by a lack of coordination and communication among the institution and community-based education programs and their partners providing services. These disconnects include: - Differing standardized assessments and curriculum and lack of articulation agreements (a legal agreement matching courses between education institutions), making student transfers from one program to another difficult. - Misinterpretation of federal and state privacy laws and lack of links among data systems, making it difficult for programs to get a comprehensive picture of their students' backgrounds, avoid duplication of effort, and track outcomes. - A perception among corrections officials (e.g., wardens, parole and probation officers, and the court) and policymakers that individuals in corrections should not receive educational services; this, in turn, can make it difficult to enforce student participation and establish supportive education and reentry policies. - Inadequate staff training, resulting in ineffective instruction. - Limited funds, leading to long waiting lists for programs (U.S. Department of Education 2009; U.S. Department of Education 2011). Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 31, 2015 at: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/reentry-model.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ovae/pi/AdultEd/reentry-model.pdf Shelf Number: 136639 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsOffender ReintegrationPrisoner ReentryVocational Education and Training |
Author: Kilmer, Ashley R. Title: "I'm just trying to fit back in": the role of social bonds, stigma, and legal consciousness on the reentry experiences of recently incarcerated adults Summary: This project integrates concepts from both the fields of law and society and criminology as a way of creating a more comprehensive theoretical lens in which to examine the reentry process and understand the successes and struggles during those critical first few months following release. Specifically, this study examines how the legal consciousness of returning citizens, experiences of stigma, and the development and maintenance of social bonds work together or individually to impact individuals' experiences with reentry. Findings from semi-structured interviews with recently incarcerated individuals reveal that each of the three theoretical concepts have numerous relationships to one another as well as a meaningful role in the reentry process. Findings from this project shed light on the real experiences, struggles, and successes of people coming out of prison during the initial weeks and months of returning home. It is hoped that the stories of these men and women will illuminate the ways in which families, communities, policy-makers, and society can assist these individuals as they try to begin their lives as formerly incarcerated adults. Details: Newark, DE: University of Delaware, 2016. 252p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed September 25, 2017 at:https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/19955/2016_KilmerAshley_PhD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://udspace.udel.edu/bitstream/handle/19716/19955/2016_KilmerAshley_PhD.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Shelf Number: 147438 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry Social Bonds |
Author: Helmus, L. Maaike Title: Detention past statutory release dates Summary: According to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, federal inmates who are not granted early discretionary release must be released at their Statutory Release Date (SRD) after serving two-thirds of their sentence to serve the remainder of the sentence under community supervision. This policy is designed to facilitate gradual community reintegration. However, the Correctional Service of Canada (CSC) may detain offenders past their SRD if certain criteria are met. Detention is intended for offenders serving a determinate sentence for a violent offence causing death or serious harm, a sex offence against a child, or a serious drug offence, and who are considered likely to recommit such an offence before their sentence expires. The purpose of the current study was to examine patterns of detention referrals and decisions over a 10 year period. The study examined determinate sentences with a SRD between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2014 (N = 46,369). Results demonstrated that across the study time period, 4.5% (n = 2,075) of all sentences resulted in a referral to the Parole Board of Canada for detention, and 4.1% of sentences (n = 1,903) resulted in detention. Detention rates were largely stable across the 10-year study period, with a slight decrease in the last three years examined. Most referrals for detention (over 90%) resulted in a Parole Board detention decision, with these concordance rates increasing slightly over time. Detention rates were lowest in the Atlantic region (2.9%) and highest in the Prairie region (4.6%). Sex offenders were most likely to be detained (15%). Approximately 6% of offenders with a current non-sexual violent offence were detained. In contrast, less than 1% of sentences for a serious drug offence resulted in a detention decision. Among detained offenders, 97% had a current violent or sexual offence (nearly half of these had a current sexual offence). Additionally, over 90% also had a prior violent or sexual offence. Offenders with longer sentences were more likely to be detained. Less than 1% of women offenders were detained. Nearly 8% of Aboriginal offenders were detained, which was roughly twice the detention rate of non-Aboriginal offenders. About 14% of detention referrals came from the Commissioner of CSC. These referrals were likely to be for serious drug offenders or for those who did not meet the general detention criteria. Detaining inmates past their Statutory Release Date impedes gradual community reintegration and should therefore be reserved for the highest risk offenders. The current study confirms that detention rates are low and targeted primarily towards violent and sex offenders. Additional research is currently underway to better understand what individual risk factors other than the referral criteria are related to detention decisions, and whether Aboriginal offenders are more likely to be detained after accounting for risk to reoffend. Details: Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada, 2015. 40p. Source: Internet Resource: Research Report 2015 N- R-375Accessed October 19, 2017 at: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-375-eng.pdf Year: 2015 Country: Canada URL: http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/scc-csc/PS83-3-375-eng.pdf Shelf Number: 147733 Keywords: Community CorrectionsCommunity SupervisionOffender ReintegrationOffender Supervision |
Author: New York University Center on the Administration of Criminal Law Title: Disrupting the Cycle: Reimagining the Prosecutor's Role in Reentry: A Guide to Best Practices Summary: The report provides concrete recommendations that prosecutors can implement in order to focus on reentry and target the risk of recidivism. The report proceeds in four parts: PART I focuses on reforms that prosecutors can implement at the "front end" of the process, including considering how prosecutorial discretion at various stages of a criminal case can impact defendants' risk of recidivism and affect their reentry process. This includes using discretion to make screening and charging decisions, considering diversion and other alternatives to incarceration, supporting pretrial release of defendants where appropriate, and considering the use of creative sentencing alternatives; PART II focuses on reforms that prosecutors can implement at the "back end" of the process to begin preparing for an incarcerated individual's eventual reentry to their community. This includes prerelease reentry planning, and removing barriers that interfere with their ability to reintegrate into their communities, such as obtaining identification and drivers' licenses, providing them opportunities to expunge their convictions and reduce fines that may burden them upon release, and collaborating with employers and community-based resources; PART III focuses on the prosecutor as office leader and highlights office-wide reforms that can shift office culture to include anti-recidivism concerns as part of a broader focus on public safety; and PART IV focuses on the prosecutor's role in the larger community and how he or she can use his or her power to engage a diverse group of stakeholders in outreach and education initiatives, including legislative reforms designed to target recidivism at the front and back ends of the justice system. Details: New York: NYU Center on the Administration of Criminal Law, 2017. 110p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 22, 2018 at: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/CACL%20Report.pdf Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/CACL%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 149228 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner ReentryProsecutorial DiscretionProsecutorsRecidivism |
Author: Thielo, Angela J. Title: Redemption in an Era of Penal Harm: Moving Beyond Offender Exclusion Summary: For nearly forty years, the United States was in the grips of punitive thinking and mired in an era of mass imprisonment. The hallmarks of this paradigm were the embrace of policies and practices that systematically excluded convicted offenders from full participation in civic, social, and economic life. In recent years, however, it appears that American corrections has experienced a historic transformation that involves efforts to foster offender inclusion in society. Thus, policymakers are increasingly questioning the use of mass imprisonment and are embracing a campaign to downsize American prisons. Similarly, they are advocating for reentry services for released offenders and calling for reductions in the collateral consequences that attach to a criminal conviction. Punitive rhetoric seems in decline, replaced by discussion of the importance of offender rehabilitation and, ultimately, redemption. This dissertation is an attempt to explore these developments. Specifically, based on a 2017 national, opt-in Internet survey of 1,000 respondents, the study investigates the extent to which the American public rejects the exclusion of offenders and supports their inclusion. In this regard, public support of four aspects of offender inclusion was assessed: the (1) rehabilitation, (2) reentry, (3) reintegration, and (4) redemption of individuals with criminal records. The results reveal that support for offender inclusion is extensive. First, regardless of how it is measured, support for rehabilitation is strong. Americans see rehabilitation as a central goal of prisons, support treatment programs, and favor the new innovation of problem-solving specialty courts. This embrace of treatment is long-standing and must be considered a core American cultural belief or what Alexis de Tocqueville called a "habit of the heart." Second, the respondents endorsed the concept of prisoner reentry programs, supporting the delivery of an array of supportive services to inmates released to the community. Third, the sample members recognized that collateral consequences could be barriers to offender reintegration, stating that such legal restrictions should be disclosed to criminal defendants, reviewed regularly by legislators, and eliminated if not shown to prevent criminal conduct. The respondents favored voting rights for ex-offenders but were divided on access to jury duty. Support for ban-the-box statutes was high. The subjects were split on the policy of the expungement of records, apparently trying to balance concerns of public safety with concerns over offenders being allowed to resume a prosocial life. It appears that the extent to which citizens permit record expungement is conditioned by how long offenders have been crime free and the dangerousness of the crime committed. Fourth, the public manifested a realistic assessment of the extent to which offenders are capable of leaving a life in crime. Still, about four in five supported rehabilitation ceremonies that would declare ex-offenders "rehabilitated" and the granting of official "certificates of rehabilitation" that could be used when seeking employment, licenses, and other social goods. Taken together, these findings reveal that the American public possesses a "sensibility" (to use Michael Tonry's term) that is far more inclusionary than exclusionary. Although not necessarily demanding a transformation of correctional policy, it is clear that the citizenry is open to a range of progressive policy initiatives that seek to foster offender redemption in this era of penal harm. Details: Cincinnati: University of Cincinnati, 2017. 179p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed April 30, 2018 at: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?210335119405562::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:148896 Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://etd.ohiolink.edu/pg_10?210335119405562::NO:10:P10_ETD_SUBID:148896 Shelf Number: 149966 Keywords: Collateral ConsequencesOffender RehabilitationOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry |
Author: U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Title: Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, Redemption, and the Effects on Communities Summary: Today, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights released its report, Collateral Consequences: The Crossroads of Punishment, Redemption and the Effects on Communities. Each year, federal and state prisons release more than 620,000 individuals, and even after completing their sentences, these individuals still face potentially thousands of collateral consequences upon reentering society. Individuals can face barriers to voting, jury service, holding public office, securing employment, obtaining housing, receiving public assistance, getting a driver's license, qualifying for college admission and financial aid, qualifying for military service, and maintaining legal status as an immigrant. The impact of each consequence extends past people with felony convictions to affect families and communities. Chair Catherine E. Lhamon said, "These collateral consequences impose heavy burdens on formerly incarcerated persons' ability successfully to reintegrate into free society and in so doing render all of us less equal and less safe. Congress, and local communities, should heed the call documented in these pages to lift unnecessary restrictions and speed effective reentry for formerly incarcerated people." Key findings from the Commission majority include: - Collateral consequences exacerbate punishment beyond the criminal conviction after an individual completes the court-imposed sentence. Valid public safety bases support some collateral consequences; however, many are unrelated either to the underlying crime for which a person has been convicted or to a public safety purpose. - Evidence shows harsh collateral consequences unrelated to public safety increase recidivism by limiting or by completely barring formerly incarcerated persons' access to personal and family support. - The general public, attorneys, and courts often lack knowledge of what the totality of the collateral consequences are in their jurisdiction, how long they last, and whether they are discretionary or mandatory, or even if they are relevant to public safety or merely an extended punishment beyond a sentence. This absence of awareness undermines any deterrent effect that might flow from attaching such consequences, separate and apart from the punishment itself, to criminal convictions. Key recommendations from the Commission majority include: - Collateral consequences should be tailored to serve public safety. Policymakers should avoid punitive mandatory consequences that bear no rational relationship to the offense committed, and impede people convicted of crimes from safely reentering and becoming contributing members of society. Jurisdictions should periodically review the consequences imposed by law or regulation to evaluate whether they are necessary to protect public safety and if they are related to the underlying offenses. - Call on Congress to limit discretion of public housing providers to prevent them from categorically barring people with criminal convictions from access to public housing; lift restrictions on access to student loans based on criminal convictions, except for convictions related to financial fraud; eliminate restrictions on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits based on criminal convictions; and require federal courts to give comprehensive notice of federal restrictions on individuals' rights before guilty plea entry, upon conviction, and upon release from incarceration. Collateral Consequences is based on expert and public input, extensive research and analysis, and testimony, findings, and recommendations from Commission State Advisory Committees in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Details: Washington, DC: Author, 2019. 174p. Source: Internet Resource: Briefing Before The United States Commission on Civil Rights Held in Washington, DC: Accessed June 13, 2019 at: https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/06-13-Collateral-Consequences.pdf Shelf Number: 156411 Keywords: Collateral Consequences Ex-Offenders Offender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry |