“Of course, money alone can’t solve the complex and widespread challenges facing our communities. To succeed in reducing violent crime, there are several key steps we must take.

First, we must call attention, not only to the symptoms, but also to the sources of violence. Robust enforcement efforts must incorporate a focus on prevention and an effort to understand the root causes of violent crime. Specifically, this means our work must expand beyond arrests and prosecutions. Although PSN has helped to secure many important convictions, it’s also shown that we can’t simply arrest our way out of the problem of violent crime. Of course, incarceration is necessary for public safety. But it’s only partially responsible for the declining crime rates we’ve seen. It’s not a sole, economically sustainable, solution.

Over the last few decades, state spending on corrections has risen faster than nearly any other budget item. Yet, at a cost of $60 billion a year, our prisons and jails do little to prepare prisoners to get jobs and “go straight” after they’re released. People who have been incarcerated are often barred from housing, shunned by potential employers and surrounded by others in similar circumstances. This is a recipe for high recidivism. And it’s the reason that two-thirds of those released are rearrested within three years. It’s time for a new approach.

As so many of you have pointed out, any real effort to contain spending on corrections, while ensuring public safety, must include a strong focus on preparing for reentry. Effective reentry programs provide our best chance for safeguarding our neighborhoods and supporting people who have served their time and are also resolved to improve their lives.

I’m proud that, last year, the Justice Department distributed $28 million in reentry awards under the Second Chance Act. And I’m pleased that we have another $100 million available for reentry programs this year. But we must complement reentry programs with smart and sound policy changes at every level of government.

That’s why I established a Sentencing and Corrections Working Group – to take a fresh look at federal sentencing practices and determine how we can better prepare federal prisoners to transition back into their communities. I am also convening an interagency working group to focus exclusively on reentry issues – everything from housing and job training needs to policy recommendations – and to enhance coordination at the federal level. But we also need more information about state and local crime trends, corrections policies, and neighborhood challenges – the insights many of you can provide.

Second, we must address the problem of violent crime holistically – by building on existing partnerships and bringing in different perspectives. Federal prosecutors must become neighborhood problem solvers, not simply case processors. They must partner with all levels of law enforcement and with all sorts of community partners. Just as surely as U.S. Attorneys, law enforcement officials and leaders across the Justice Department must come together, we must also include more community leaders, teachers, coaches, principals and – above all – parents in our work.

Finally, we must meet this problem with all the resources that sound science can bring to bear. Restoring scientific decision-making at the Justice Department is one of my highest priorities. And while research has told us much about the incidence and impact of violence, it hasn’t yet told us everything. We need more information about what works – and what doesn’t – so that we can make informed funding decisions and identify community-specific strategies.

As we take these steps and work to implement the solutions we need, there is – I believe – good cause for optimism. In fact, being with all of you today, in this great city, fills me with a sense of hope and excitement – excitement from the success you’ve achieved through Project Safe Neighborhoods, and hope for continued progress toward the goal we all share: safe, vibrant and productive communities.”

Click here to link to the entire speech transcript on the Department of Justice website.

Goodwill® and Prison Fellowship will work together to engage their respective staff members nationwide and encourage local community partners — including businesses, social agencies, nonprofits and faith-based organizations — to assist with the efforts.

“Goodwill has demonstrated excellence in its services and programs that connect people from all backgrounds to achieve economic and social success,” said Jim Gibbons, president and CEO of Goodwill Industries International. “The partnership with Prison Fellowship will help ensure that people with a criminal history have the tools they need to become productive and independent members of society so that they can support themselves and their families.”

“The goal of the Prison Fellowship-Goodwill collaboration is to provide greater opportunity for ex-prisoners, their families and the systems that support them. These skills will help ex-prisoners succeed on the outside and increase the likelihood they will stay out-making communities safer for all of us,” said Curt Kemp, chief operating officer for Prison Fellowship. “The partnership will include vocational training, life skills, education and other comprehensive services.”

The agreement between Goodwill Industries International and the Prison Fellowship will enhance the dignity and quality of life for those people with a criminal background and allow them to rejoin the community successfully.

The following exerpts were extracted from the report’s “Preface:”

In the United States, where policies have a global outreach for economic (market size), financial, political and cultural reasons (its condition as the superpower and the reach of its cultural production, mostly audiovisual), priorities are also changing. The idea of a war led by a “drug czar” is being abandoned for a more balanced approach.

Secretary of Strate Clinton has stressed several times the idea of shared responsibility, and the new drug “czar” for the Obama administration, Gil Kerlikowske, in his speech to the 53rd meeting of the UN Commission on Narcotic Drugs in March 2010, presented his assessment: “The results from long-standing initiatives, such as drug courts, and newer alternatives to incarceration including ’smart’ programs which incorporate swift, certain, but modest sanctions, have been extremely encouraging. We must now expand such initiatives so all those for whom diversion from prison is appropriate, can participate. These innovative programs break the cycle of drug use, arrest, release and re-arrest and are much more cost-effective than long-term incarceration.”

After decades of an approach that favored repression as its main component and that prevailed in many countries, it has become clear that it is an oversimplification. Even if it did not totally disregard the public health aspects of drug dependence, it emphasized the criminal aspect of drug use without attenton to te public health aspect and treatment needs, resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of non-violent people all over the world; and, worse, with no indication whatsoever of any improvement in chemically- and psychologically-dependent people, and no evidence that the roots of the phenomenon were being addressed. In addition, in those countries in which the prision system has been partially privatized, there is a strong economic motive behind sending people to jail.

Drug courts, or drug treatment courts, the first practice of which started in Florida over 20 years ago, in 1989, represent thus an alternative to incarceration with advantages in critical aspects.

First, they foster the committment of addicts to work on getting rid of their dependence; second, the approach avoids incarceration of drug users who participate in these programs and comply with program requirements, and could, depending on the legislation, be applied to petty, non-violent drug dealers, which would avoid their making contacts inside the prison system that often increase the tendency of first offenders to become more deeply involved in illegal activities, as they meet hardened criminals who no longer harbor any hope of being recovered as law-abiding citizens; third, it avoids or reduces the stigma of danger and unreliability often associated with incarcerated people, thus helping reinsertion and recovery; fourth–and this is also becoming more and more critical–it helps reduce the spiralling rise in costs that countries bear to imprison a large portion of their population, sometimes hopeless and helpless poor youngsters, whose possibilities of a decent life decline even more as they are sent to prison.

Statistics vary from country to country, but certain features are common: many prison systems are bordering on bankruptcy; a vast majority of those in jail come from groups that are economically and socially vulnerable; a large portion of all those incarcerated are in prison for non-violent drug-related crimes.

The following exerpts were extracted from the report’s “Forward:”

Because drug abuse is compulsive, it does not stop at the prison door. In a 2009 survey of prisoners conducted by the Scottish Prison Service, 22% of prisoners reported that they had used drugs in prison in the month prior to the survey.

Treatment alternatives to incarceration for drug-dependent offenders involve diverting substance-abusing offenders from prison and jail into treatment and rehabilitation under judicial supervision. By increasing direct supervision of offenders, coordinating public resources, and expediting case processing, treatment alternatives to incarceration can help break the cycle of criminal behavior, alcohol and drug use, and imprisonment.

The details of these alternative mechanisms vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but most involve suspension of the sentence provided the offender agrees voluntarily to participate in a drug treatment program. The judge in the case supervises the offender’s progress in treatment, with the assistance of the prosecutor, social workers (case officers), treatment providers and probation officers. The judge has the power to end the treatment program if the offender violates its terms and conditions, in which case, the sentence will be handed down and the offender will be incarcerated.

The following exerpts were extracted from the main body of Volume I:

With this backdrop, the present publication is designed to begin to fill a critical information gap by providing a preliminary base of information regarding the experience of developing DTCs in various
countries that have embarked on these initiatives and the impact and benefits which these programs have had. Although much still needs to be done, the information compiled from the 12 countries responding to the SE/CICAD survey presents a cogent argument about why DTCs are a good idea, and gives a snapshot of what they cost in terms of human and other resources, what savings they can create for their respective
societies in economic as well as human terms, and what benefits can accrue, particularly in terms of public safety and community wellbeing.

The organization of Volume One of the report mirrors the questions on the CICAD survey instrument, with an introductory section (PartOne) providing a synopsis of the survey responses in key topic areas, followed by a compilation in Part Two of the survey responses to each question from each of the responding countries, including information on the costs and resources that have been necessary to set up and operate DTCs in the responding countries and the impact noted.

The extracted table below shows the enrollment of offenders in the DTC’s of the 12 participating countries:

The first publication will be followed by a second one, building on the summary information compiled during the course of preparing the current one. The overarching goal of this second publication will be to draft a series of Best Practices and Recommendations based on a more in-depth and scientifically based approach. This second report will therefore not only inform on the concept of DTCs, but will also address the questions of how to improve their efficiency, how to validate their effectiveness and how best to
incorporate them in the criminal justice system of the various countries that have already established such a scheme or are planning to do so in the near future.

The following excerpts were extracted from a section on Preliminary Findings:

All respondents with available data reported reduced recidivism rates among participants in the DTC compared to offenders processed in the traditional criminal justice system. Ireland reported figures from two small random assignment studies that showed 75% and 85% reductions in recidivism. Some respondents had comparison figures for the costs for handling offenders in the DTC, compared with the costs in the traditional adjudication process, and reported much lower costs for DTC participants compared to those in the traditional system. Evaluation reports for U.S. DTCs have estimated savings ranging from $3,000 to $20,000 per drug court participant, based on avoided costs of incarceration.

Another notable benefit of DTC participation, besides cost savings, has been the effect of DTC programs on the community. Reductions in recidivism and substance abuse can remove stresses on community services like police and hospital services. Respondents also noted the creation of safer communities resulting from reduced crime. Some also noted that DTC participants gain a chance to be productive
members of their communities and, as a result of their increased self-esteem and improved physical health, are better able to find jobs, reconnect with family and friends, and take greater responsibility for their own lives.

The following excerpt was extracted from one of Volume II’s numerous tables that detail survey results for dozens of summaries (by country) of the impact of DTC’s on recidivism rates, cost effectiveness and community benefits. The U.S. response chosen, because of superior success, was for a January 2009 Rutland County, Vermont evaluation of the cost benefits derived from the drug court in that jurisdiction.

“Program investment cost was $19,405 per drug court participant; cost due to recidivism (rearrests, new court cases, probation, incarceration and victimizations) over 3 years was $48,277 per drug court participant vs.$64,251 per comparison group member, with savings of $15,977 per participant.

Total criminal justice system cost per participant during the program is $5,809 less thn traditional court processing ($9,749 if victimizations are included).

If the program continues to enroll a cohort of 26 new participants annually, savings per participants over 3 years will be $138,441 per cohort; after 5 years, the accumulated savings will be over $2,000,000.

Summary: $ criminal justice system cost savings of $15,977. Criminal justice system costs 59% less during program participation compared with costs for nondrug court participants. Projected 150% return on investment after 5 years; projected 300% return on investment after 10 years.

In conclusion, should Slammer readers wish to review either volume of the American University report, the following link will take them to the PDF versions:

LINK to Multinational Report (Click here)

Authorship of this effort is attributed to the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University, Washington, D.C., by Caroline S. Cooper, Research Professor and Director of the Justice Programs Office, and graduate research assistants Brent Franklin and Tiffany Mease.

This publication was drafted by the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), Secretariat for Multidimensional Security of the Organization of American States (OAS); the Justice Programs Office, School of Public Affairs, American University; the Institute for International Research on Criminal Policy (IRCP), Universiteit Gent; the Ministerio Público of Chile (General Prosecutor’s Office); and the International Association of Drug Treatment Courts (IADTC). It was developed in the framework of the EU-LAC Drug Treatment City Partnerships, an initiative coordinated by CICAD/SMS/OAS and funded by the European Commission. The content of this publication does not necessarily reflect the position of the EU or the OAS.

Establishing Drug Treatment Courts: Strategies, Experiences
and Preliminary Outcomes
ISBN 978-0-8270-5448-6

The vast majority of inmates, prison cells are not their permanent address. Most prisoners will serve their sentences and then return back into our communities. What kind of neighbors will they be?

If current trends continue, over half of them will be rearrested and back in prison within three years. These high failure rates represent a threat to public safety and increased cost to taxpayers. With more than 735,000 men and women coming home from state and federal prisons each year, making sure they are ready to be peaceful, productive citizens is a critical public safety concern.

That’s why Prison Fellowship, the world’s largest outreach to prisoners and their families, launched the Out4Life campaign back in 2007. Out4Life is a holistic approach to prisoner reentry that harnesses the strengths of both government agencies and nonprofit organizations to help offenders make a successful reentry into society. Out4Life is neither a reentry program nor an event, but is rather a long-term campaign to develop coalitions that will be able to reduce recidivism across the country.

Out4Life kicks off in each state with a conference attended by local and state government officials and community leaders and organizations—both faith-based and secular. The main goal of the conferences is to build lasting, self-sustaining coalitions to provide reentry services to ex-prisoners. By coordinating services and programs, the coalitions make sure that all offenders’ needs are met, and that no resources are wasted through duplication. As the coalitions develop, Prison Fellowship provides information and resources to strengthen their work, and channels of communication to increase their cooperation.

The needs of released prisoners are overwhelming. A bus ticket and twenty dollars hardly suffice to get these men and women back on their feet. They must find housing, reliable transportation, jobs, medical care, education, and personal identification documents. Many need addiction and/or mental health treatment. Many need help reconnecting with their families and their children. And, many are trying to do all this with little grasp of the new technology that now saturates society.

Transitioning from prison to community is obviously more than just switching addresses. It’s also about crossing cultures. On the inside, men and women have very little control over their daily lives. But on the outside, they face a bewildering barrage of decisions about what to wear, what to eat, where to go, and how to spend their time. On the inside, being stoic and tough is often important to survival, but on the outside, offenders have to relearn social norms and manners that allow them to interact acceptably with others.

Out4Life unites the hands of government, nonprofit groups, and business in coalitions because the government alone cannot help offenders overcome these obstacles. Navigating the challenges of reentry requires a guide – a mentor who provides the counsel, accountability, and encouragement of an enduring, nurturing relationship in a supportive community. A study by Pennsylvania University of one of Prison Fellowship’s intensive reentry programs confirmed that having a mentor is the key factor in helping released prisoners avoid falling back into criminal behavior. Staff and volunteers from faith-based and nonprofit organizations are uniquely positioned to build these relationships of trust.

Out4Life draws together a broad range of community groups because the needs of returning prisoners are so numerous and diverse that no single organization can meet them all well. Teamwork helps ensure that no returning prisoner slips through the cracks.

In its early stages, the campaign is meeting with success in states across the country. Collaborating with the Department of Corrections and local groups, Prison Fellowship launched the first Out4Life initiative with a conference in Louisiana. This event has spawned five coalitions involving more than 300 organizations and agencies. Conferences have occurred during the past year in Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, and Minnesota, and more are planned for the coming months in Ohio, Virginia, Texas, and Oregon.

Leaders in these states have shared high praises for the Out4Life campaign. Larry Norris, Director of Arkansas’ Department of Corrections, believes that “successful prisoner reentry can only occur when government, business, faith and community leaders work together. The Out4Life conference is focused on developing ways we can all come together to make Arkansas communities safer.” And Gayle Ray, Tennessee’s DOC Commissioner, explained at the Out4Life conference in Tennessee that “groups like this – faith-based groups and other folks – can really be helpful in our efforts to lower recidivism even more.”

Lowering recidivism by helping men and women transform their lives is Out4Life’s mission. There is no simple solution to breaking the cycle of crime, but by relying on the strength of public-private partnerships we can make significant progress. The Out4Life campaign is self-explanatory, it hopes to help men and women make it out of prison cells for good – and permanently become contributing members of our communities.

Mark Earley, former State Senator and Attorney General of Virginia, became President of Prison Fellowship on February 1, 2002. As Presdent and CEO of Prison Fellowship, Earley oversees the national ministry founded by Charles Colson in 1976, which has since spread to 113 countries in addition to the United States.

For more information on Out4Life, visit here

For more information on Prison Fellowship, visit here

Over the past 20 years, various states started contracting with private companies to operate adult prisons. Florida joined in during the mid ’90’s when the state’s lawmakers, in direct opposition to public employee unions, followed advice from the private prison industry, and enacted supporting legislation. Four contracts for the construction and operation of private prisons were awarded in 1995.

Privatization was expected to operated at lower costs and to produce lower recidivism. While some cost savings have apparently been achieved, well over a decade of exerience has shown no evidence to substantiate that the state is getting the recidivism impact that it exected.

The statutes now on the books state that the private prisons must have programs “designed to reduce recidivism, and include opportunities to participate in such work programs as authorized ….” Although the private prisons are thus required to provide such services, the Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy maintains that “the contracts and contract monitoring are focused on inputs (e.g. inmate program participation requirements) and do not include any provisions to ensure the desired outcomes of reduced recidivism.”

In one report that compared the recidivism rates of inmates from comparable public and private prisons, the FCFEP discovered that “no statistically significant differences in recidivism rates were found between public and private inmate groups ….” and that there was “…no empirical justification for the policy argument that pivate prisons reduce recidivism better than public prisons.”

For Full Report, and references cited, click here.

Since 1996, the study shows, the Sunshine state has added more than 20 new categories of financial obligations to those accused and convicted of a crime. The fees are levied even on those who have no money and cannot pay. Increasingly, the result is a self-perpetuating cycle of debt — and sometimes further incarceration — for those re-entering society after prison.

The new study shows that the Florida legislature increasingly relies on “user fees” paid by indigent defendants to finance not just the criminal justice system but other state operations as well.

“As unemployment hovers around 10 percent, it is time to consider whether heaping more debt on those unable to afford it is a sensible and moral approach to financing state functions,” said Rebekah Diller, author of The Hidden Costs of Florida’s Criminal Justice Fees. “For many reasons, this is simply bad public policy.”

The report also raises key questions about the efficiency of the practice. Many of these fees are uncollectible, leaving the court system underfunded. In some places, collection costs are borne partly by counties and court clerks, and the adjudication of fee payments incurs even more costs.

Among the findings:
1. The Florida Legislature has eliminated payment exemptions for the indigent, thus demanding revenue from a population unable to pay;

2. In Leon County, collection practices resulted in more than 800 arrests for failure to appear at debt hearings and more than 20,000 hours of jail time alone in one year.

3. Florida routinely suspends drivers’ licenses for failure to make payments, a practice that sets the debtor up for a vicious cycle of “driving with a suspended license” convictions;

4. Florida allows private debt collection firms to add up to a 40 percent surcharge on unpaid debt.

Among the recommendations:
1. The Legislature should exempt those unable to pay criminal justice fees from legal financial obligations;

2. Payment plans should be tailored to an individual’s ability to pay, as state law already requires;

3. Florida’s Supreme Court should adopt court rules to end the new debtors’ prison;

4. Counties can save money by eliminating debt-related arrests for failure to appear and resulting incarceration in already crowded jails.

Florida’s increasing reliance on fee revenue coincides with a rising concern about policies that affect massive numbers of Floridians with a criminal conviction. Florida has the third-largest prison population of any state. Nearly 90 percent of the more than 100,000 people currently in Florida’s state prisons will be released, and, if past trends persist, nearly one-third will be re-incarcerated for a new crime.

The report also offers longer-term reforms, such as reconsidering legal financial obligations in felony cases.

For more information, contact Susan Lehman at 212-998-6318 or susan.lehman@nyu.edu .

According to the Public Relations Director, “We want to get up to a staffing level that’s consistent with the number of inmates we have in the prison system.” While no one will actually be hired until July 1st, the DOC has already kicked off the process of finding the right people.

For more details, read the complete announcement according to a 3/09/10 report by KWQC.

According to a 3/7/10 article by Michael Lollar appearing in The Commercial Appeal, Tennessee’s DOC claims recidivism rates of 51 percent when studied for a three-year period; this compares to national studies that average 65 percent over the same time period. But the 20-year study by Correctional Counseling, Inc., a Memphis-based behavioral therapy firm, followed 1,381 inmates that first did time between 1987 and 1991. Their psychologists found that the recidivism rate numbers keep going up over time, and they’re higher because most other studies don’t count incarcerations after the three-year basis, nor do they count subsequent incarcerations that take place in other states, nor arrests followed by probation or parole in any locale.,

According to the 20-year study, which was designed to compare inmates that received “moral reconation therapy” versus inmates that received only standard counseling, 94 percent of the latter group had been rearrested and 82 percent of them wound up behind bars. For those getting the new therapy, 81 percent had been rearrested and 61 percent were re-incarcerated.

For full story, click here.

There’s a right way and many wrong ways to solve most problems, including the problem of how to reduce high offender recidivism rates. Scholarly researchers have identified the approaches that do work, and revealed those that don’t.-ED

“What works” is not a program or an intervention, but a body of knowledge based on over thirty years of research that has been conducted by numerous scholars in North America and Europe. Also referred to as evidence-based practice, the “what works” movement demonstrates empirically that theoretically sound, well-designed programs that meet certain conditions can appreciable reduce recidivism rates for offenders. Through the review and analysis of hundreds of studies, researchers have identified a set of principles that should guide correctional programs.

Target high-risk offenders for greater success
The first is the risk principle, or the “who” to target: those offenders who pose the higher risk of continued criminal conduct. This principle states that our most intensive correctional treatment and intervention programs should be reserved for higher-risk offenders. Risk in this context refers to those offenders with a higher probability of recidivating.

Why waste our programs on offenders who do not need them? This is a waste of resources, and more importantly, research has clearly demonstrated that when we place lower-risk offenders in our more structured programs, we often increase their failure rates (and thus reduce the overall effectiveness of the program). There are several reasons this occurs. First, placing low-risk offenders together with higher-risk offenders only serves to increase the chances of failure for the low risk.

For example, let’s say that your teenage son or daughter did not use drugs, but got into some trouble with the law. Would you want them in a program or group with heavy drug users? Of course you wouldn’t, since it is more likely that the higher-risk youth would influence your child more than the other way around.

Second, placing low-risk offenders in these programs also tends to disrupt their prosocial networks; in other words, the very attributes that make them low risk become interrupted, attributes such as school, employment, family, and so forth. Remember, if they do not have these attributes, it is unlikely they are low risk to begin with. The risk principle can best be seen from a 2002 study of offenders in Ohio who were placed in a halfway house or community-based correctional facility (CBCF). The study found that the recidivism rate for higher-risk offenders who were placed was reduced, while the recidivism rates for the low-risk offenders that were placed in the programs actually increased. We recently replicated this study with over 20,000 offenders, and once again saw the same effect; overall there was a 6 percent increase in recidivism rates for low-risk offenders and a 10 percent reduction for high risk.

Target factors that correlate with crime
The second principle is referred to as the need principle, or the “what” to target: criminogenic factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. The need principle states that programs should target crime-producing needs, such as antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs, antisocial peer associations, substance abuse, lack of problem-solving and self-control skills, as well as other factors that are highly correlated with criminal conduct. Researchers such as Andrews, Bonta, Gendreau and others have identified a major set of risk factors:

1. Antisocial/procriminal attitudes, values, beliefs and cognitive emotional states
2. Procriminal associates and isolation from anticriminal others
3. Temperamental and antisocial personality patterns conducive to criminal activity including:

o Weak socialization
o Impulsivity
o Adventurous
o Restless/aggressiveness
o Egocentrism
o A taste for risk
o Weak problem-solving/self-regulation and coping skills

4. A history of antisocial behavior
5. Familial factors that include criminality and psychological problems in the family including:

o Low levels of affection, caring and cohesiveness
o Poor parental supervision and discipline practices
o Outright neglect and abuse

6. Low levels of personal, educational, vocational or financial achievement
7. Low levels of involvement in prosocial leisure activities
8. Substance abuse

Although these eight domains constitute the major set, the first four are considered the most important and are often referred to as the “big four”. If you successful target and change these four, the others often follow.

When recidivism treatment fails, why?
A recent study conducted by the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections confirms the importance of these risk factors. This study examined men and women on parole, and looked at who failed and who succeeded: Failures were:

• More likely to hang around with individuals with criminal backgrounds
• Less likely to live with a spouse
• Less likely to be in a stable supportive relationship
• Less likely to identify someone in their life who served in a mentoring capacity
• Less likely to have job stability
• Less likely to be satisfied with employment
• Less likely to take low-end jobs, and work up
• More likely to have negative attitudes toward employment and unrealistic job expectations
• Less likely to have a bank account
• More likely to report that they were “barely making it”
• More likely to report use of alcohol or drugs while on parole
• Had unrealistic expectations about what life would be like outside of prison
• Had poor problem-solving or coping skills
• Did not anticipate long-term consequences of behavior
• Failed to utilize resources to help themselves
• Acted impulsively to immediate situations
• Felt they were not in control
• More likely to maintain antisocial attitudes
• Viewed violations as an acceptable option to situation
• Maintained general lack of empathy
• Shifted blame or denied responsibility

Interestingly, successes and failures did not differ in difficulty for finding a place to live after release, and were equally likely to report eventually obtaining a job. The most important factors centered around attitudes, whether they be about work, or behavior, social support systems, peers, and temperament and skill deficiencies.

Which recidivism programs don’t work well
It is important to remember that programs need to ensure that the vast majority of their interventions are focused on these factors. Non-criminogenic factors such as self-esteem, physical conditioning, understanding one’s culture or history, and creative abilities will not have much effect on recidivism rates.

An example of a program that tends to target non-criminogenic factors can be seen in offender-targeted military-style boot camps. These programs tend to focus on non-criminogenic factors, such as drill and ceremony, physical conditioning, discipline, self-esteem, and bonding offenders together. Because they tend to focus on non-crime producing needs, boot camps have little impact on future criminal behavior according to most studies. It is also important to remember that high-risk offenders have multiple risk factors, which is why programs that tend to be one-dimensional are much less effective than programs that target multiple risk factors.

Effective treatments are behavioral in nature
The third principle is the treatment principle, or the “how:” the ways in which correctional programs should target risk and need factors. This principle states that the most effective treatments are behavioral in nature. Behavioral programs have several attributes. First, they are centered on the present circumstances and risk factors that are responsible for the offender’s behavior. Hanging around with the wrong people, not going to work or school, using drugs or alcohol to excess, are examples of current risk factors, whereas focusing on the past is not very productive, mainly because one cannot change the past.

Second, behavioral programs are action oriented rather than talk oriented. In other words, offenders do something about their difficulties rather than just talk about them. These approaches are used to teach offenders new, prosocial skills to replace the antisocial ones (e.g. stealing, cheating, lying, etc.) through modeling, practice, and reinforcement.

An example of behavioral programs would be structured social learning programs where new skills are taught, and behaviors and attitudes are consistently reinforced. Other examples would include cognitive behavioral programs that target attitudes, values, peers, substance abuse and anger, etc., and family-based interventions that train family on appropriate behavioral techniques.

Interventions based on these approaches are very structured, and emphasize the importance of modeling and behavioral rehearsal techniques that engender self-efficacy, challenge of cognitive distortions, and assist offenders in developing good problem-solving and self-control skills. These strategies have been demonstrated to be effective in reducing recidivism.

Non-behavioral treatments don’t work
Non-behavioral interventions that are often ineffectively used in programs would include drug and alcohol education, fear tactics and other emotional appeals, talk therapy, non-directive client-centered approaches, having them read books, shaming them, lectures, milieu therapy, and self-help. Likewise, programs (regardless of the model) that cannot maintain fidelity (i.e. constant staff turnover), or are vague and unstructured (i.e. counseling for everyone) are also ineffective. There is little empirical evidence that these approaches will lead to long-term reductions in recidivism.

Frosting the cake
Other supplemental considerations that do indeed enhance correctional program effectiveness include targeting responsivity factors, such as a lack of motivation or other barriers that can influence someone’s participation in a program. Making sure that you have well-trained and interpersonally sensitive staff, providing close monitoring of offenders whereabouts and associates, assisting with other needs that the offender might have, ensuring the program is delivered as designed through quality assurance processes, and providing structured aftercare.

If we put it all together we have the “who, what and how” of correctional intervention to cut recidivism rates, also known as “what works.”

Dr. Latessa has published over 110 works in the area of criminal justice, corrections and juvenile justice. He is co-author of seven books, including “Corrections in the Community” and “Corrections in America.” Professor Latessa has directed over 100 funded research projects, including studies of day reporting centers, juvenile justice programs, drug courts, intensive supervision programs, halfway houses and drug programs. He and his staff have also assessed over 550 correctional programs throughout the United States, and he has provided assistance and workshops in over forty states.

Best known in the sports world as a former four-time All-Pro football player with the NFL’s Cleveland Browns, Bill Glass has continued to gain worldwide recognition over the decades as Founder and leader of the Champions for Life prison ministry. He is author of 11 books, including “Crime: Our Second Vietnam.” Today, Bill Glass is a highly sought-after speaker and motivator, with a packed schedule around the nation and overseas. The-Slammer is honored to have him as a guest commentator.

That’s right, “We’re losing.” I think that every time I walk into a prison. I’ve probably been in more prisons than anyone, about 400 per year. We’re losing. That thought haunts me. It’s one of the reasons I’ve spent the last 39 years of my life leading the Weekend of Champions. It’s why I’ve led our team into more than 3,000 prison units, often going back to the same prison where I’ve talked to thousands of inmates, officers and prison officials. What I see in all their faces is this: despair. What I hear in their voices is this: exhaustion.

What I know in my heart is this: we’re losing. Yes, this country is losing the war on crime. The police know it. The prison officials know it. The inmates know it. And recently, with the widespread problems of prison overcrowding and broken budgets, even the politicians know it. It doesn’t matter how many jails are built. It doesn’t matter how many criminals are put behind bars. It doesn’t matter how much money is spent on state-run rehabilitation, re-entry and other social service programs.

What does matter to inmates is this: someone that cares about them.

Fathers Not Doing the Job They Must
We conducted a Weekend of Champions in a juvenile prison in San Saba, Texas, for offenders ages 10 to 15. I asked the warden, “How many of these kids had visits from their fathers in the past year?” “One,” he said. I knew it would be bad, but one? Only one in a year? “For fifteen minutes,” the warden said. “One visit.” I said, “You’ve got three hundred kids in here.” “One visit,” he repeated. The truth is, the father got in an argument with his son and stomped out mad after fifteen minutes. Lots of mothers, grandmothers, and aunts came, but only one father, for only fifteen minutes.

I was at Mississippi’s Parchman Prison, which housed 44 men on death row. I walked up and down, from cell-to-cell. I asked all 44 men about their fathers. Some just shrugged, refusing to talk about it. Others raged. It was like taking a needle to a boil. Of the 44 men on death row, not one had a good thing to say about his father. Some were interested in hearing about the Lord, some were not. Some were white, some black. Most came from poor families, but not all of them.

As a group, they had little in common other than crimes. And, yes, their hatred of their fathers. They all said they loved their mothers and/or their grandmothers. You could even press them about it, and they might admit their mothers were prostitutes or did drugs. But they forgave their mothers. Why? Because their mothers made them feel loved. The mothers blessed them; their fathers should have.

80 percent of the children of inmates will go to prison also. The curse is passed down. Guess what happens? No one comes, not the family, not the friends, not the gang. Very few prisoners receive visits, and that’s probably part of the reason they’re in jail in the first place. No one cared about them.

Being Disowned Is a Recipe for Disaster
One prisoner told me, “You should have been here last week. I had this great visit.” I asked him about it, and he talked about his wife bringing along their kids. They had a picnic lunch. The sun was bright and warm, but not hot. The sky was blue. The ham sandwiches were great. The ice tea hit the right spot. The kids were happy, and they all played together. Frankly, all the detail was more than I wanted to hear.

But his friend asked me, “Was he telling you about the visit from his wife?” I said he was. “He hasn’t had a visit in ten years,” said the fellow inmate. I was stunned, because the story was told to me in such vivid detail. “Why would he lie to me like that?” I asked. “Well, to him, it’s real,” said the inmate. “When he doesn’t have a visit, he just goes to that fantasy and lives there for awhile.”

This is so common, being basically disowned by loved ones, for men and women sitting in jail, knowing that they have no one waiting for them when they are released. When they are released, if they don’t have a family or friend waiting to take them home, the system hands them $50, or whatever is in their account, and a bus ticket to their home town or the place of their arrest. Not far from some of those prisons are the worst bars. The guys take that $50 (some states a little more), head straight for the bar, and drink it up. It’s a recipe for disaster.

They either get in a fight, or end up committing a robbery for more money. It’s all too common for a guy to be released on a Friday, and end up right back in the same prison by Monday. That’s why these guys need some sort of family structure. But research has shown only ten percent of all inmates receive regular visits. Most inmates are lucky to receive one visit a year.

Criminals think differently than we do. If we don’t understand this, then we have no chance of ever helping them. This is not to excuse their behavior. It’s just a fact. Most of us grew up with a sense of order. Dad had a job. Mom may have worked too, but she also took care of the kids. There was Little League, music lessons and soccer. There was church on Sundays. There was a family. Most of these guys have no families, at least not families as we know them. “Fear seemed to walk with me every day of my life,” said Ron. He was a black inmate who grew up in the inner city. You’ve heard the story before. No father was around. Mother had a drug problem. Grandmother was too old to cope with the young kids. “In my neighborhood, your only hope was to join a gang,” Ron said. “Outside the gang, you just weren’t gonna live.“

With Commitment, Lives Can Be Changed, One Person at a Time
The history of Christianity is filled with people who’ve committed the most heinous crimes. Chapter 11 of Hebrews is sort of a roll call of saints, a spiritual hall of fame! If you read closely, four women are mentioned. Three were prostitutes. One had an incestuous relationship. Check out your Bible. Moses was a murderer. Paul was a multi-murderer, killing Christians in cold blood. David had an adulterous affair, and arranged for the murder of his mistress’s husband. Almost any crime ever committed was committed by one of the people we now consider saints. This is not to say that sin is good, or that we must condone it. It’s to point out the redeeming power of Jesus Christ. The early church reached out to the pagan world in places such as Corinth. God wants us to do the same. He orders us to go into this very, very corrupt society and change it, even if it means doing it one person at a time in the prisons.

I remember a Weekend of Champions we had at Angola Prison in Louisiana. It was 105 degrees. I went into lockdown, and I saw our Teammates (volunteer counselors) squatting like baseball catchers in front of the cells. They were talking to the inmates through the holes that were used to pass the trays of food into the cells from the hallway. That was the only way to see the inmate from the outside. A big steel door covered the rest of the cell.

There were two hundred men in that lockdown unit. It wasn’t just hot, it was sweltering. Your shirt stuck to your back. Sweat rolled down into your eyes. The heat and humidity just sucked your energy, turning you into a human dishrag. Our Teammates witnessed to every one of those two hundred inmates. In another lockdown unit, the only way to see the prisoners, eye-to-eye, was to lie on your belly and talk to them under the door. When I first saw our Teammates doing this, I thought they had lost their minds. But this was the only way for them to make eye contact, the only way to truly hear the prisoners. You had prisoners on their bellies on one side of the door, our Teammates on the other. One officer walked in and screamed, “You can’t lie on the floor in my unit.” “But officer, I’ve been doing it all morning, and it works really well,” our counselor explained. “Well, you just can’t do it,” the officer said. “But it’s the only way we can see and hear each other,” the counselor said. “Is it breaking a rule to lie on the floor?” “Well…not really,” admitted the officer. And our men were allowed to continue to witness while flat on their bellies.

Our Christian Motorcyclists Association biker Teamates look like tough guys. They ride big, noisy, smoke-belching bikes right into the prison yards. Yet, they are sincere about their mission, caring enough to give up their weekends to go to prison and talk to inmates. That makes a far bigger impression on these men than some guy in a suit-and-tie with a huge Bible sitting in the chapel.

Some of our biker guys rode their bikes all the way to Alaska for a Weekend of Champions. A year later, I was back in Alaska and some of the inmates were still talking about the bikers who rode all the way from Alabama to Alaska, a 9,000-mile round trip. That was commitment, and their red, raw, wind-burned faces proved it. Don’t ever think that the inmates weren’t impressed, and many of them had been changed from within.

When Hearts Are Changed, Lives Will Change
We are all infected with the attitudes of our environment. Many problems are systemic, and the whole system is polluted. It’s not just the criminal justice system; it is a problem of the entire culture, starting from earliest childhood. In 1972, when we started, and even more so today, prisoners and our entire culture need a whole new way of life. The prison sickness is only slightly more extreme than the virus in the “outside” world. It’s like an iceberg showing an ugly tip with the huge hidden problems of the total society being even more dangerous. Crime grows out of the total society.

In order to have the most effective impact, one must seek to change the hearts of criminals. This can best be accomplished in prison. It is the only place you can meet with them in large groups. Once they are released, they scatter all over the world. While incarcerated, they are hurting, open, and prone to hear, respond and grow spiritually. Eighty percent of all crime is committed by ex-cons. If they find a new way of life while in prison, and continue to grow spiritually when they get out, they don’t become repeat offenders. I doubt I can convince everyone of the reliability of my solutions to crime, but there is a value in discussing solutions. There is an even greater value in taking action, and that’s why we conduct Weekends of Champions! Instead of the national average recidivism rate of 70%, our experience indicates that under 10% is common among those inmates that incorporate our message into their lives.

The Weekend of Champions is designed to turn the evil of prison to the good, and to the redirection of thousands of lives. Our approach is dramatic. Bring in ten to twenty professional athletes, ex-cons, and other entertainers to appear on the platform or stage, along with two hundred to a thousand Teammates visiting all prisons within a fifty-mile radius. Each prison will have from fifty to seventy-five Teammates with free run of the “joint.”

A lot of people ask why we go to all the trouble and expense of putting on such a spectacular program for a “bunch of losers.” Simple, first we want a crowd. The inmates don’t have to come; it’s not compulsory. An athletic field or gym is usually better than the chapel because the majority avoid the prison church, much like many people do in the outside world. Second, this dramatic approach can change a prison’s entire social structure. A con’s lifestyle is always characterized by daily repetition of sleep, meals, yard, and counts. It’s Interrupted only by work (not usually available), school (not usually available), chapel (only about five to ten percent usually attend), visits (less than ten percent get visits), mail (few inmates get much), commissary (money is scarce), and medicine calls (they usually have to go line up).

Their normal dull schedule is changed for this one weekend. Routine work and recreation programs, even “The Count” and meal times are often altered. Our Teammates are allowed to eat with the cons, and visit them in their cells. In short, the sameness of their daily life is altered. Thirdly, I sincerely don’t believe they are losers. I know that many of them, who think they are losers, can be changed. As long as there is life, there is hope. Rebirth is still a possibility. Losing isn’t necessarily a permanent condition.

It Takes a Special Approach for Kids
An important new part of our ministry, which we call Ring of Champions, is a program where teens who are first-time offenders come to an all-day event led by our platform guests, usually great sports stars. The secret to its success is its mentoring program. All of us, at one time or another, have had a little help from someone that helped us be a better man, woman, husband, wife, father, mother or employee. Someone, who by his or her gift of time or insight, helped mold us into a better person. Someone who saw the potential in us at a time when we might not have been fully aware of it.

For the past several years, Ring of Champions has been providing such mentors to Youth at Risk Juveniles. The national average for juveniles returning to the system after their first arrest is 70%. Of the kids that Ring of Champions has mentored and lead to Faith in Christ, fewer than 8% have returned to the system. This dramatic impact on non-returning youth has saved taxpayers millions of dollars to date. I believe that the proven formula for Ring of Champions’ success with juveniles can even be tailored to fit into the adult prison system, with a similar positive impact on recidivism. Perhaps not too far in the future it will happen.

For more information about Champions for Life, go to: http://www.billglasscfl.org