| Other Topics | Offender Reentry: A Storm Overdue Director Reginald A.
Wilkinson, Ed.D., Director Corrections Management Quarterly, 2001 |
||
|
The process of offenders transitioning from prison back to the community is in need of repair. This article discusses some of the more salient notions that encompasses the philosophy of "reentry.” In addition to providing a general discussion of reentry dynamics, the newly instituted "Ohio Plan" of the Ohio Department of Corrections is unveiled. There is also mention of the Richland County, Ohio, reentry court initiative. The concept of offender "reentry" is beginning to take the corrections world by storm--a much overdue storm. Reentry is the process of prisoners reentering society after a period of incarceration in a prison, jail, or detention facility. But it doesn't signify just "letting them go." It connotes that offenders are "prepared" to be released. It means that they are much better off at the time of release than at the time of their admission. It suggests that their period of community supervision will contribute to their crime-free lifestyle. Preparing offenders for community reentry is certainly not a new concept to the field of corrections. Through a vast continuum of management policies and programs, correctional systems have attempted to provide offenders with the best possible opportunities to succeed after their release. At the same time, however, preparations for offender release have often times been fragmented within institutions and between various sections of an agency or have simply been relegated to the paroling authority. From a national perspective there has been a growing awareness of the significance of offender reentry through various projects and initiatives (e.g., reentry courts, reentry partnership initiative, transition from prison project, urban institute reentry roundtable). Yet, only recently have practitioners and scholars alike begun to question the conceptual framework that has historically been used to prepare inmates for release and to acknowledge its contrast to the current realities of offender management. Faced with overburdening caseloads, the scarcity of institutional and community-based programming and the demand for more fiscal accountability, correctional management has found itself with the need to reinvent. With the realization of declining crime rates and prison populations, departments are now consistently facing competition for resources from other public entities that have previously been overshadowed by increasing crime and incarceration rates. This is certainly the case in Ohio. Ohio's prison population has decreased from an all-time high in July 1998 of 49,000 to 45,500 in January 2001. This reduction of 3,500 prisoners in 2.5 years is attributed to several factors: an increased number of parole releases; legislation that created a presumption for local sanctions for nonviolent offenders; an expanded continuum of community sentencing options; and, the decline in crime rates. At the same time, community officers have experienced an increase in offender caseloads. I will discuss the "Ohio Plan" later in this article. Society has ostensibly been comforted in the knowledge that postrelease supervision would act as a "safety net" for both the offender and the community. For it was this point during an offender's supervision that determined whether successful reintegration was occurring. However, significant increases in the number of released offenders, coupled with limited resources, has clearly weakened what was, and still is, considered to be a vital link to offender rehabilitation. Because of the inverse nature of this relationship, where more offenders requiring greater need is met with less support and programming, larger numbers of offenders are being returned to prison. Offenders being returned to prison because of a parole violation or rearrest now account for a much larger proportion of all prison admissions (Petersilia, 2000). To further exacerbate the process of preparing inmates for reentry, changes in sentencing structures have led to an increase in the number of inmates released with no supervision because of the completion of their definite term. Recent estimates suggest that 20 percent of the inmates leaving state prisons have no postrelease supervision requirement (Travis, 2000). In Ohio there has been a measured increase of releasees serving "monitored time." Monitored time, in essence, means that the offender is not supervised unless there is probable cause to do so. In many instances, it means that the threat of revocation doesn't exist for this population. This 20 percent figure will obviously increase as the more serious offenders begin reaching their maximum sentence dates. Although it is perhaps premature to assess the consequences of truth-in-sentencing laws on reentry initiatives because of the relative infancy of such legislation, to me it is clear that the lack of a support system could conceivably produce a more adverse effect on reentry, and subsequently recidivism. It therefore becomes imperative that reentry initiatives commence at the institution level, and more importantly, during the reception process. This represents a paradigm shift that, also, is an overdue corrections mission. I adjure that prerelease preparation or prerelease readiness should begin during the reception or diagnostic stage, not a few weeks before release from incarceration. The notion of beginning the reentry process from the point of admission requires a change in correctional leadership philosophy. Many corrections concepts are steeped in tradition. I am as passionate about our tried-and-true corrections history as anyone in this profession is. However, the time is upon us to cast aside some processes in an attempt to improve our corrections lot. This change will involve a shift from the historical dichotomy that has evoked fragmentation between institutional and community service divisions within the correctional system. The challenge is to achieve a more systemic approach that ensures a seamless transition of offender treatment and training from reception through the completion of community supervision. Additionally, departments must continue to cultivate the necessary partnerships with community agencies such as mental health, substance abuse, employment services, and local law enforcement to maintain the rehabilitative process beyond the state's direction. Further, I do not shy away from the idea of rehabilitation. It is not a demonic "soft on crime" process. Achieving rehabilitation should be a viable goal for corrections agencies. In the past I was an advocate for minimizing even the use of the word "rehabilitation." Now, I am proud that the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) wears this word well in our agency title. Although departmentalization through specialization is the means by which various areas of an agency coordinate their functions (Robbins, 1990), it has frequently resulted in further organizational complexity in regard to an offender's reentry process. In other words, the left hand does not always know what the right hand is doing. As a consequence, an offender's rehabilitation plans may become segmented, duplicative, or nonexistent as the offender moves through the system, creating an adverse responsivity toward staff. Correctional administrators have a deep awareness of the role staff play in the success of an offender within both the prison context and during postrelease supervision. The reentry success of the offender has been found to be contingent on the attitudes and behavior of staff (Andrews, Zinger, Hoge, Bonta, Gendreau, & Cullen, 1990). As I previously referenced, reentry (more commonly prerelease) training is typically offered toward the latter phases of an inmate's sentence and is rarely examined in the framework of prison admission. To commence a shift in reentry philosophy toward offender intake, it is imperative that a reentry plan be- come inculcated into the reception assessment process so that it transpires in a manner equivalent to classification, medical and mental health screening, and issuing clothing and personal hygiene items. De- spite seeming counterintuitive to admission practices and a punitive ideology, reentry planning requires a change in the way corrections is conceptualized. Staff should ask the question, "What is needed to prepare this offender for successful reentry?" Considering that in Ohio, for example, the average time served in prison is approximately 3 years (Martin, 2000), the need to develop a reentry plan for offenders is that much more critical. Developing a comprehensive offender reentry or discharge plan requires that many factors be considered to assist inmates with meeting their rehabilitative needs and court-mandated requirements. Before any planning, though, is the availability of good offender background data. This information is often detailed in presentence investigation reports. These reports are sometimes not ordered by sentencing courts. Ohio has compensated for this lack of demographic data by conducting offender background investigations on new admissions. These reports give us some very basic information on the offender. Consequently, we have come to rely heavily on these, and they help facilitate good correctional decision making. Moreover, a comprehensive reentry plan must encompass a core set of evidence-based programming that centers on the offender's economic viability on release through such mechanisms as education, vocation, or work programs and, where applicable, involve professional intervention for special needs offenders (e.g., substance abuse, sexual offending). It has been well established that providing opportunities to improve educational and work-related skills can reduce the risk of future offending (Anderson, 1995; Andrews & Bonta, 1994; Gerber & Fritsch, 1995; Wilson, Gallagher, & MacKenzie, 2000). In fact, some have argued that employability is related to criminal involvement (Piehl, 1998) considering that a significant number of offenders come to prison with poor work histories (Saylor & Gaes, 1996). In essence, the experiences gained or missed by prisoners will likely dictate his or her future. The process of offender programming is not and should not be a whimsical notion. Notwithstanding budget and staffing considerations, it is critical that offenders occupy their time with meaningful activities. It is important that correctional leaders understand that most offender offerings can be improved. Of course the more common education, treatment, and job preparation courses remain extremely important; however, I am starting to doubt that we are maximizing the potential of these activities. Existing programs can and should be augmented with components that will help guarantee a smooth and successful transition to society. Ohio has begun to think differently about traditional prison offerings. For instance, community service work in Ohio has become a mainstay of offender programming. In calendar year 2000 inmates performed more than 5 million hours of community service work. Service work includes literally dozens of activities, including rehabbing low-income homes, planting flowers, clearing brush in state parks, training pilot and companion dogs, recycling, repairing computers to be donated to schools, and much more. There are many winners with community service work: the inmate gains vocational skills and good work habits; the prison reduces idleness; and the community is the recipient of the service. We didn't stop with just the service work. We have added a service learning curricula based on a model of the American Association of Community Colleges. This course work focuses on personal responsibility and reparation. It is also a prerequisite to performing community service activities. Hence, the benefits of community service can be characterized as restorative in nature because of its potential to help repair the damage to the community fabric resulting from crime. Research has demonstrated that offenders who have experience with community service work have significantly lower recidivism rates than those offenders who do not participate (Wilkinson, 1998). Secondary education has also been modified to reflect the spirit of reentry. Character education has been added to many course offerings in an attempt to instill morality and improve self-esteem. Traditional education programs have seriously lacked a more profound perspective on correctional learning. It is obvious that something more than the Three R's is necessary for prisoner populations. I am convinced that schooling will be enhanced when character education takes a front-row seat in correctional class- rooms. Not unlike the concept of reentry, the ODRC has adopted community or restorative justice as a frame- work for governing correctional practices. Prisoners are not absent from restorative programming. In many prisons, inmates participate in victim impact panels where crime victims and survivors of crime describe their encounter with criminals. Their portrayal of how crime has changed their lives leaves an indelible impression on the inmate listener. We have also instituted victim/offender dialogues in an at- tempt to help repair the harm to crime victims. This is a voluntary meeting monitored by a trained facilitator. Other restorative activities are also a part of the Ohio correctional infrastructure. Ohio's Sex Offender Risk Reduction Center (SORRC) was established in 1995. The mission of SORRC is twofold: (1) to complete sex offender-specific assessments on every sex offender committed to ODRC's custody, focusing on identifying levels of risk to reoffend and developing treatment plans, and (2) to provide psychoeducational programming for all sex offenders, emphasizing victim awareness and relapse prevention (Wilkinson, 2000). Following the initial reception process, all sex offenders are committed to SORRC for a series of diagnostic tests and counseling. A treatment plan is developed for each inmate before they are transferred to their parent prison. Each year a sex offender conference for staff is conducted. Invitees include counseling staff, administrators, crime victims, and others. Following the offender's release from prison, parole staff have well-documented information on their sex offender subjects. One common element of each of these offender activities is community and citizen participation. The basic tenet that communities are strengthened through citizen participation and when the responses to crime are tailored to the preferences and needs of victims, communities, and offenders (Kurki, 1999), reentry initiatives are positively affected. As public opinion continues to support rehabilitative ideology (Applegate, Cullen, & Fisher, 1997; Maguire & Pastore, 1998), the maintenance of linkages to community entities remains imperative to the offender's reparation to society. Using technology in the correctional setting will also continue to play a pivotal role in reentry. The demands to reduce the costs associated with offender management and supervision while increasing public safety requires new and emerging technologies. Integrating what Fabelo (2000) has labeled "technocorrections" to augment the efforts of staff and management will enable offender reentry plans to ideally transition from prison to postrelease supervision, which in turn has the potential to minimize fragmentation to the rehabilitative effort. The ability to electronically monitor and control an inmate's re- entry plan progress from the point of reception through supervision discharge can not only reduce costs, but also improve the effectiveness of offender management at all system levels. The commitment of ODRC in moving toward a new vision of the offender reentry process has resulted in more than intangible dialogue. Although the focus on reentry is clearly long-term, the beginning elements of developing a reentry infrastructure are being addressed with the success of prior initiatives serving as the foundation to new planning models. In February 2001 we launched an initiative entitled "The Ohio Plan for Productive Offender Reentry and Recidivism Reduction" that involves using an internal planning committee as well as a larger council of professionals and citizens from the community. The focus of the "Ohio Plan" will involve an examination of many issues deemed paramount to offender reentry. For example, such issues include a review of existing prerelease programming and staff functions. All Ohio prisons have some version of prerelease coursework inmates are required to attend before release. However, there is no empirical data available that suggest these programs are having a positive impact on recidivism. Therefore, I have chosen to dismantle our prerelease functions as they currently exist. After careful review, we plan to redesign them with the intention of being able to measure their impact. We have budgeted $1.7 million annually for this activity. The mission is to ensure that there is value added for the offender population before committing these funds in the future. The plan will also require that personal reentry plans be developed for each offender being released from institutional supervision. Often, offenders do not adequately articulate their positive prison experiences-such as academic and vocational training, work experiences, or certificates earned. Also, when released to postrelease control (or parole), community officers have sparse documentation to assist in the offender's supervision. Thus, the need for a system of comprehensive documentation of the inmate's entire prison experience will be stressed. There is also a need to review the standards associated with parole revocation. Across the nation, prisons are being filled with offenders who have their supervision revoked for technical violations. A critical analysis of offenders who return to Ohio's prisons will be conducted. Following the review, decisions will be made regarding whether to keep existing standards or to modify them to better reflect improved correctional policy. These functions will be just the beginning of Ohio's reborn reentry efforts. Because of the need for a more sophisticated governance structure to manage offender reentry, the virtual "Office of Offender Reentry and Recidivism" will be created to ensure the successful application of all initiatives and to function as the impetus for a shift in reentry philosophy. A staff will have responsibility for day-to-day activities, but there will be additional input from other professions. There will be an internal advisory board and a larger group, which will include community volunteers, local officials, and other important partners. Recently, Ohio was selected as one of nine states to implement a reentry court program through a partnership between ODRC and the Richland County Common Pleas Court. Paralleling the principles underlying drug courts, the Richland County Common Pleas Court will manage the return of offenders being released from prison, using their authority to apply graduated sanctions and positive reinforcement to support reintegration. An initial needs assessment will be completed by the court, and a reentry court case manager will periodically meet with the offender and institutional staff to monitor the offender's case plan to ensure that his or her needs and court orders are being fulfilled. The offender will be placed in rehabilitative programs consistent with the reentry plan while incarcerated. If programs dictated by the reentry plan are unavailable, the court case manager will attempt to have these needs addressed upon the offender's release. Among other program requirements, each offender will be required to complete 300 hours of community service work that commences upon incarceration. Furthermore, Ohio was selected to participate in a 10-state initiative on reentry sponsored by The Ur- ban Institute. The mission of this research is to study the current profile of reentry efforts and to make some assessments regarding the future prospects of reentry. Additionally, the Ohio Supreme Court has named a panel of Ohio justice professionals to study reentry in Ohio. As the chair of that committee, I plan to pursue a renewed focus on this most significant initiative. The most salient posture for all that I have described is this: we can't be afraid of change. In the corrections business, change is the only thing that is constant. Tackling reentry is not a destination. It is a journey. There is no reentry utopia. What we achieve will require continuous improvement processes coupled with a lot of hard work. REFERENCES Anderson, S. (I995). Evaluation of the impact of correctional education programs on recidivism. Columbus, OH: Office of Management Information Systems, Bureau of Planning and Evaluation, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. (I 994). The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson. Andrews, D., Zinger, I., Hoge, R., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically-relevant and psychologically-informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369-404. Applegate, B., Cullen, F., & Fisher, B. (1997). Public support for correctional treatment: The continuing appeal of the rehabilitative ideal. The Prison Journal, 77, 237-258. Fabelo, T. (2000, May). 'Technocorrections:' The promises, the uncertain threats, Research in Brief, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Gerber, J., & Fritsch, E. (I 995). Adult academic and vocational correctional education programs: A review of recent research. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 22, 119-142. Kurki, L. Incorporating restorative and community justice into American sentencing and corrections, Research in Brief, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, September 1999. Maguire, K., & Pastore, A. (I 998). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Martin, B. (2000). Calendar year 2000 time served report, Columbus, OH: Office of Policy, Bureau of Research, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Petersilia, J. When prisoners return to the community. Political, economic, and social consequences, Research in Brief, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 2000. Piehl, A. (1998). Economic conditions, work, and crime. In M. Tonry (Ed.), The handbook of crime and punishment. New York: Oxford University Press. Robbins, S. (1990). Organization theory: Structure, design, and applications (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Saylor, W., & Gaes, G. (1996). PREP: Training inmates through industrial work participation and vocational and apprenticeship instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons. Travis, J. But they all come back: Rethinking prisoner reentry, Research in Brief, Sentencing & Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 2000. Wilkinson, R. (1998). The impact of community service work on adult state prisoners using a restorative justice framework. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Cincinnati. Wilkinson, R. (2000). Sex offender risk reduction center. In R. Wilkinson (Ed.), Correctional best practices. Directors' perspectives. Middleton, CT: The Association of State Correctional Administrators. Wilson, D., Gallagher, C., & MacKenzie, D. (2000). A meta-analysis of corrections-based education vocation, and work programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 347-368. |
|||