WHAT CRIME RATES TELL US ABOUT WHERE TO FOCUS PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR PRISONERS

\\server05\productn\C\CPP\6-3\CPP315.txt unknown Seq: 1 9-AUG-07 15:47

REACTION ESSAY

WHAT CRIME RATES TELL US ABOUTWHERE TO FOCUS PROGRAMS ANDSERVICES FOR PRISONERS

SUSAN TURNERRANDY MYERSLORI SEXTONSARAH SMITH

University of California, Irvine

Much has been written on the causes of the dramatic increase in thegrowth of America’s prison population over the past 30 years. Evidencesuggests that this increase has resulted in some reduction in crime rates.More recently, however, scholars and practitioners have begun to focus onthe other side of the equation—what happens when these prisoners comehome? Indeed, most prisoners are eventually released and returned totheir communities (Petersilia, 2003). Vieraitis et al. (2007, this issue) focustheir attention on the latter issue and ask what happens to crime rateswhen an increase occurs in the numbers of prisoners released fromincarceration. The authors find a positive relationship, although not asconsistent as the effect of incarceration, on crime rates. An importantpolicy question then becomes, “Where do we focus our attention toameliorate this effect?”

The answer is not straightforward. The consequences associated withprisonization, reentry, or a combination of the two could actually accountfor an increase in crime rates, but the exact causal mechanism is unknown.This causal ambiguity—common to studies of reentry—complicates thetask of proposing policy recommendations. Should we focus on programsin prisons or focus on the community and services when prisoners returnhome? We first discuss ways to help us disentangle the mechanism andthen discuss specific recommendations for programs in both the prison andthe community domains.

STUDY APPROACHES

Analysis of data at the state level provides more pertinent informationfor those concerned with corrections policy than with looking at aggregatenationwide data as a whole. Policies of states with significant impacts ofreleases on crime could be examined in depth to explore what exactly isdriving these effects. Such exploration could yield crucial insight for policy

VOLUME 6 NUMBER 3 2007 PP 623–632 R


624 TURNER ET AL.

makers; states with a predominantly negative relationship between prisonreleases and crime could serve as road maps to guide effective policychanges, whereas states with positive relationships could be regarded ascautionary tales of ineffective policy.

The Vieraitis et al. findings highlight several states—Maryland, NewYork, Rhode Island, and Tennessee—that exhibit statistically significantincreases in crime rates associated with releases. Other states, such asNevada, show evidence of decreasing crime rates. Perhaps these latterstates share enlightened research-based reentry policies or a humane cor-rections style; perhaps they have in common a successful parole-grantingtechnique or a particularly progressive social service framework for reen-trants and their families.

One way to explore the differences in policies among these states is toinvestigate the prison and reentry policies of individual states in order tobetter understand the ways in which incarceration and prisoner release arehandled (see La Vigne et al., 2003 for example of this type of research).This investigation would allow for a more detailed analysis of state-specificpolicy contexts, but it also would sacrifice the breadth of information pro-vided by panel data.

Other types of research designs might be helpful in this regard. A ran-domized experiment could be conducted. Randomized designs are the“gold standard” for research and provide the strongest method for estab-lishing a relationship between an intervention and measured outcome. Totest the effect of the prison experience, we might use a factorial design. Wewould need a “negative incarceration” study condition with factors associ-ated with prisonization as well as a second “positive incarceration” studycondition with benevolent services and a rehabilitation focus (more on themodel of a therapeutic community perhaps). We also would need a studycondition of “no confinement” to discover whether the effect is confine-ment itself—regardless of its quality—that impacts crime rates. To test theeffect of the community context, we would need to assign offenders toeither a community that has a fair amount of social capital and resourcesor a community that has limited resources. In essence, such a study wouldbe a 3 by 2 factorial randomized design, in which offenders were assignedto one of six conditions. This type of experiment would be difficult to con-duct at the state level—resources and logistics would be too great a chal-lenge. This study would be more feasible to conduct with several prisoninstitutions and at the county level using county-level crime rates as out-comes. One might think such a design would be outside the realm of possi-bility. It might be difficult, but it is not impossible. Petersilia and Turner(1990) were able to randomize offenders to either of two conditions:prison or intensive supervision probation, although the sample size was


REACTION ESSAY 625

small. Weisburd (2000) offers several suggestions to help overcome ethi-cal, political, and practical barriers to conducting randomized studies incriminal justice settings that might be helpful for such a study.

PROGRAM OPTIONS

If the increase in crime as a result of prison releases can be attributed tothe prisons, then clearly the policies that affect our correctional institu-tions are in need of alteration. These policies can be altered through aprocess of rigorous evaluation and expansion of existing rehabilitationprograms as well as the implementation of new, evidence-based programsdesigned to reduce recidivism. The recent burgeoning of meta-analytictechniques in criminology has yielded important findings with regard toprison programming. In addition to summarizing results from multiplestudies, these meta-analyses often employ strict inclusion criteria to ensurethe methodological rigor of each study. The large-scale, quantitative analy-sis of educational and vocational programs, cognitive behavioral therapy,and substance abuse treatment has aided policy makers in determining“what works” with regard to incarceration-based programming to reducepostrelease recidivism.

In their meta-analysis of educational and vocational programs, Wilsonet al. (2000) examined 33 experimental and quasi-experimental evalua-tions of in-prison programs ranging from adult basic education and GEDpreparation to post-secondary degree programs. The results of their studyshow that inmates who participated in at least one of these educationalprograms recidivated less than inmates in a control group without educa-tion. The results of the same meta-analysis show that vocational trainingor vocational education programs were effective in reducing recidivism,although no evidence supported a similar claim for correctional industriesprograms that did not include an educational component. Clearly, a con-sensus exists that educational and vocational-education programs “work”to reduce recidivism.

Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) also has been demonstrated to beeffective in reducing recidivism. Wilson et al. (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of 20 studies to evaluate various CBT programs administered in aprison setting; their findings show that CBT is associated with lower recidi-vism rates, although the effectiveness of the CBT program varies by type.For instance, evaluations of moral reconation therapy (MRT) developedby Little and Robinson (1988) yielded more statistically significanteffects—accompanied by larger effect sizes—than evaluations of the Rea-soning and Rehabilitation program designed by Ross and Fabiano (1985).A narrative review of these studies by Allen et al. (2001) revealed that


626 TURNER ET AL.

CBT is not only effective in reducing recidivism, but also it can be appliedsuccessfully in a variety of settings for various types of offenders.

Many offenders, however, have needs that cannot be met through edu-cational programming and CBT alone. In 2004, 53% of state prisoners and45% of federal prisoners met DSM-IV criteria for drug dependence orabuse (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004). Of these prisoners with sub-stance abuse problems, less than half (40% of state prisoners and 49% offederal prisoners) participated in substance abuse treatment programswhile incarcerated; this low participation rate is attributed at least partiallyto limited access to substance abuse programming (Petersilia, 2003). Thesefigures are dismaying, as drug treatment programs have often fared well inevaluations of their impact on recidivism. For example, the results ofnumerous meta-analyses of substance abuse programs (mainly focused ontherapeutic communities and group counseling programs) exhibitfavorable effects on recidivism (Mitchell and MacKenzie, 2003; Mitchell etal., 2005; Pearson and Lipton, 1999; Predergast et al., 2002; Wexler et al.,1990, 1996). Therapeutic communities in particular seem to be effective inreducing recidivism, as evidenced by a 43% average recidivism rate for TCparticipants across studies, as compared with a 50% mean recidivism ratefor control groups (Mitchell and MacKenzie, 2003). Furthermore, incar-ceration-based substance abuse programs with aftercare components faredbetter than those without, displaying the importance of continuity betweenin-prison and post-prison treatment.

The interesting thing to note about most of these incarceration-basedprograms is that they actually target both pathways to crime postrelease,as discussed in the Vieraitis et al. article. By helping to reduce the pains ofimprisonment, these programs can attenuate the effects of prisonization,through education and preparation for life post-release, and can helpoffenders to reintegrate successfully into the community. Some prisonreforms do target prisonization specifically, however. Programming is notthe only way to reduce recidivism; the ways in which our prisons are oper-ated need to be addressed as well. Such policy changes would not targetprison programming exclusively, but they would address the quality of lifewithin prisons generally. With steps taken to ensure that inmates aretreated humanely, the deleterious effects of prisonization could beassuaged, and the criminogenic effects of imprisonment could be lessened.Unfortunately, the evidence-based literature regarding conditions of con-finement and prisonization is far more limited than in the area of prisonprogramming.

Regarding prisonization, Haney (2006) makes correctional policy rec-ommendations based on psychological theory that aim to “normalize”prison contexts, to minimize psychological harm to inmates, and torespond to the adverse effects of prison in order to allow rehabilitation.


REACTION ESSAY 627

Among these recommendations are such concrete reforms as housing pris-oners in environments where their physical and psychological needs aremet, allowing as much contact as possible with the outside world (such asvisitation with family members), establishing employment contexts inwhich correctional officers are encouraged to be humanitarian, and pro-viding transitional programs that prepare inmates for the shift from prisonlife to reentry into the community. These reforms all have a commonthread that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment. Indeed, as Haney(2006) points out, “prisons punish by depriving prisoners of their liberty;anything more—unnecessary deprivations, indignities, ill treatment—rep-resents gratuitous pain.” The point Haney makes is that perhaps by treat-ing prisoners more like humans, they will behave less like criminals.

This array of prison-related policy recommendations serves mainly as asolution to the problem of the criminogenic effects of imprisonment. But ifincreases in crime can be attributed to community factors rather than toincarceration, policy makers face a different dilemma. They must thendetermine how to adjust not only the criminal justice policies that affectreentry but also the health and human services policies that impact formerinmates in unique ways because of their ex-offender status. In this case, itis not prisons that are criminogenic, but it is ex-offender status that acts asthe criminogenic agent, impeding successful reentry. As noted by Vieraitiset al., the obstacles faced by recently released inmates in the communityare numerous. They also note that these difficulties are exacerbated by theformal and informal barriers posed by their ex-offender status.

Returning inmates are challenged to find work because of their ex-offender status, lack of skills, and limited work history (Petersilia, 2003).Returning prisoners also are often still battling substance abuse problemsand mental health issues while they attempt to segue from incarceration tothe community. Drug and mental health problems may resurface whenreturning prisoners lose in-prison support mechanisms and medical careand when they are simultaneously exposed to the stresses of the outsideworld. These reentrant-specific challenges often are compounded by thelack of adequate health care and of social services experienced by manycitizens on the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder (Currie, 1998).Research and program evaluations addressing many such issues facingreentrants have highlighted how programming pre-release and post-release can help with these reentry challenges.

Although less research exists on community-based programming thanon in-prison programming, and randomized experiments evaluating com-munity programs are especially rare (see Visher et al., 2005 for a discus-sion of employment programs), some evidence shows that well-implemented programming on the outside can help ex-offenders overcomemany barriers to reentry. Seiter and Kadela’s (2003) synthesis and analysis


628 TURNER ET AL.

of methodologically rigorous reentry program evaluations lend support tothe implementation of a diverse array of reentry programs. Their review ofresearch on reentry strategies shows that programs such as halfwayhouses, substance abuse treatment, and prerelease education help toimprove reentry outcomes. However, the lack of implementation and eval-uation of community-based programs makes any firm conclusions abouthow to address the problem premature. Reentry issues have only garneredserious academic and policy attention in the past few years (Visher andTravis, 2003). What is clear is that reentrants face a multitude of challengeswhen coming home and only additional research and evaluation of com-munity-based programs will allow us to determine “what works” whenassisting reentrants.

The answer to our initial question is that, although the two pathways tocrime are distinct, effective correctional policies should focus on bothpathways simultaneously. In fact, these two policy foci—prisonization andprisoner reentry—are complementary. A comprehensive strategy todecrease the effect of prison releases on crime must target both of thesepathways to crime; policy initiatives should concurrently aim to reduce thecriminogenic effects of prisons and to assuage the deleterious effects ofpoorly facilitated community reentry.

Several factors that are integral to successful reentry include assessingoffenders’ needs in prison, addressing those needs, and providing con-tinuity of care once the offender leaves the custody of the prison andresumes life on the outside. Correctional organizations should shiftresources to provide adequate programming and services, whereas com-munities must respond to the need for employment, housing, and mentalhealth and substance abuse treatment. In-prison programs with aftercarecomponents, such as cognitive behavioral therapy and therapeutic commu-nities, should be developed where appropriate, and respectful and humaneapproaches to offender management should be established to reduce thedetrimental effects of prisonization. Social services that are designed tohelp offenders obtain employment, affordable housing, and child care, aswell as mental health and substance abuse treatment, can then facilitatesuccessful reentry in the community.

California recently has released a report written by a panel of nationalcorrections experts that suggests such an approach as part of their roadmap for effective offender programming in California (California Depart-ment of Corrections and Rehabilitation, 2007). Requested by the legisla-ture in an effort to reduce the state’s prison overcrowding, the road mapuses an eight-stage logic model that combines prison programming as wellas community reintegration. Six core programming areas are recom-mended for prison and the community: academic, vocational, and finan-cial; alcohol and drugs; aggression, hostility, anger, and violence; criminal


REACTION ESSAY 629

thinking, behaviors, and association; family and marital relationships; andsex offending. Eleven evidence-based principles were developed to helpthe state create a model rehabilitation programming system. The next stepfor the state is to put this model into action.

REFERENCES

Allen, Leana C., Doris L. MacKenzie, and Laura J. Hickman2001 The effectiveness of cognitive behavioral treatment for adult offenders: A

methodological, quality-based review. International Journal of OffenderTherapy and Comparative Criminology 45:498–514.

Bureau of Justice Statistics2004 Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners. Washington,

D.C.: U. S. Department of Justice.

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation2007 Report to the California State Legislature: A Roadmap for Effective

Offender Programming in California. Sacramento, Calif.: CaliforniaDepartment of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Currie, Elliott1998 Crime and Punishment in America. New York: Owl Books.

Haney, Craig2006 Reforming Punishment: Psychological Limits to the Pains of Imprison-

ment. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

La Vigne, Nancy G., Vera C. A. Kachnowski, Jeremy Travis, Rebecca Naser, andChristy Visher2003 A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. Washington, D.C.: Urban

Institute Justice Policy Center.

Little, Greg L. and Ken D. Robinson1988 Moral reconation therapy: A systematic step-by-step. Psychological

Reports 62:135–151.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh and Doris L. MacKenzie2003 Crime prevention via prison-based drug treatment: A systematic review

and assessment of the research. In Helmut Kury and Joachim Obergfell-Fuchs (eds.), Crime Prevention: New Approaches. Weberstrabe, Ger-many: Weisser Ring.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh, Doris L. MacKenzie, and David B. Wilson2005 The effectiveness of incarceration-based drug treatment: An empirical

synthesis of the research. In David P. Farrington and Brandon C. Welsh(eds.), Preventing Crime: What Works for Children, Offenders, Victims,and Places. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth.

Pearson, Frank S. and Douglas S. Lipton1999 A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatment

for drug abuse. Prison Journal 79:384–410.

Petersilia, Joan2003 When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford, U.K.:

Oxford University Press.


630 TURNER ET AL.

Petersilia, Joan and Susan Turner1990 Diverting Prisoners to Intensive Probation: Results of an Experiment in

Oregon, Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation.

Prendergast, Michael L., Deborah Podus, Eunice Chang, and Darren Urada2002 The effectiveness of drug abuse treatment: A meta-analysis of comparison

group studies. Drug and Alcohol Dependence 67:53–73.

Ross, Robert and Elizabeth A. Fabiano1985 Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency prevention and offender

rehabilitation. Johnson City, Tenn.: Institute of Social Science and Arts.

Seiter, Richard P. and Karen R. Kadela2003 Reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime &

Delinquency 49:360–388.

Vieraitis, Lynne M., Tomislav V. Kovandzic, and Thomas B. Marvell2007 The criminogenic effects of imprisonment: Evidence from state panel

data, 1974–2002. Criminology & Public Policy. This issue.

Visher, Christy and Jeremy Travis2003 Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual path-

ways. Annual Review of Sociology 29:89–113.

Visher, Christy, Laura Winterfield, and Mark B. Coggeshall2005 Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Experimental Criminology 1:295–315.

Weisburd, David2000 Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and

problems. Crime and Delinquency 46:181–193.

Wexler, Harry K., Gregory P. Falkin, and Douglas S. Lipton1990 Outcome evaluation of a prison therapeutic community for substance

abuse treatment. Criminal Justice and Behavior 17:71–92.

Wexler, Harry K., Ronald Williams, Kevin Early, and Carlton Trotman1996 Prison treatment for substance abusers: Stay’N Out revisited. In Kevin E.

Early (ed.), Drug Treatment Behind Bars: Prison-Based Strategies forChange. Westport, Conn.: Praeger.

Wilson, David B., Leana A. Bouffard, and Doris L. MacKenzie2005 Quantitative review of structured, group-oriented, cognitive-behavioral

programs for inmates. Criminal Justice and Behavior 32:172–204.

Wilson, David B., Catherine A. Gallagher, and Doris L. MacKenzie2000 A meta-analysis of corrections-based education, vocation, and work

programs for adult offenders. Journal of Research on Crime andDelinquency 37:347–368.

Susan Turner is a Professor in the Department of Criminology, Law and Society andthe Associate Director for the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at the Universityof California Irvine (UCI). Before coming to UCI, she was with the RAND Corpora-tion for over 20 years as a Behavioral Scientist. Dr. Turner received her Ph.D. in SocialPsychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has led a varietyof research projects, including studies on racial disparity, field experiments of private-sector alternatives for serious juvenile offenders, work release, day fines, and a 14-site


REACTION ESSAY 631

evaluation of intensive supervision probation. Dr. Turner’s areas of expertise includethe design and implementation of randomized field experiments and research collabo-rations with state and local justice agencies. She has conducted several evaluations ofdrug courts, including a nationwide implementation study. Her article, “A decade ofdrug treatment court research“ (2002) appeared in Substance Use and Misuse, summa-rizing over 10 years of drug court research conducted while she was at RANDCorporation.

Randy Myers is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law & Societyat the University of California, Irvine (UCI). His research interests include reentryissues and juvenile justice. He has served as a research assistant for the Center forEvidence-Based Corrections at UCI for the past year.

Lori Sexton is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Societyat the University of California, Irvine (UCI). She has a Master of Arts degree in Crimi-nology from the University of Pennsylvania, where her thesis focused on the effects ofrestorative justice on juvenile offenders. Her current research interests include correc-tions, specifically prison reform, and social justice issues. She has served as a researchassistant for the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at UCI for the past year.

Sarah Smith is a doctoral student in the Department of Criminology, Law and Societyat the University of California, Irvine (UCI). She received a Master of Arts degree inSociology with a concentration in Criminology from The George Washington Univer-sity (GWU). At GWU, she completed a qualitative study of a restorative justice pro-gram as her Master’s thesis. Her research interests include prisoner reentry,criminological theory, restorative justice, and juvenile justice. She currently serves as aresearch assistant for the Center for Evidence-Based Corrections at UCI.

Documents

WHAT CRIME RATES TELL US ABOUT WHERE TO FOCUS PROGRAMS AND SERVICES FOR PRISONERS