Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity
Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium
Prepara tus exámenes
Prepara tus exámenes y mejora tus resultados gracias a la gran cantidad de recursos disponibles en Docsity
Prepara tus exámenes con los documentos que comparten otros estudiantes como tú en Docsity
Los mejores documentos en venta realizados por estudiantes que han terminado sus estudios
Estudia con lecciones y exámenes resueltos basados en los programas académicos de las mejores universidades
Responde a preguntas de exámenes reales y pon a prueba tu preparación
Consigue puntos base para descargar
Gana puntos ayudando a otros estudiantes o consíguelos activando un Plan Premium
Comunidad
Pide ayuda a la comunidad y resuelve tus dudas de estudio
Descubre las mejores universidades de tu país según los usuarios de Docsity
Ebooks gratuitos
Descarga nuestras guías gratuitas sobre técnicas de estudio, métodos para controlar la ansiedad y consejos para la tesis preparadas por los tutores de Docsity
Material de lectura para aprender de la terapia cognitivo-conductual
Tipo: Guías, Proyectos, Investigaciones
1 / 73
Esta página no es visible en la vista previa
¡No te pierdas las partes importantes!
Acknowledgments
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report i
Tables and Graphs
Table 1: Length of Time Served Between Intake and Extended Sentence Date for the Total Sample and Released Inmates ......................................................................................... 27
Table 2: Distribution of Inmates Receiving Services by Number of Programs and Time Served in a WVDOC Facility .................................................................................................................. 29
Table 3: Institutional Programs Provided to the Total Sample and Released Inmates ........................... 31
Table 4: Number and Percentage of Prisoners Provided Various Types of Skill-Based Programming .............................................................................................................................. 33
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics for LSI-R Total Score and Subcomponents by Gender ........................... 36
Graph 1: Number of Programs Provided to Total Sample of Inmates ...................................................... 26
Graph 2: Number of Programs Provided to Released Inmates .................................... ........................... 26
Graph 3: Mean Number of Programs Provided to Inmates by Length of Time Served ............................ 28
Graph 4: Percentage of Prisoners Receiving Substance Abuse Treatment ............................................ 32
Graph 5: Percentage of Prisoners Receiving Transitional Services ........................................................ 34
Graph 6: Distribution of Total LSI-R Scores for Male and Female Inmates ............................................. 35
iv Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home
Figures
Figure 1: Eight Principles of Effective Intervention ................................................................................... 20
Figure 2: LSI-R Assessment and Treatment Matching of Substance Abuse Programs in Prison and Post-Prison Community Contacts ........................................................................... 37
Figure 3: LSI-R Assessment and Treatment Matching of Educational and Vocational Services in Prison and Post-Prison Community Contacts ....................................................................... 39
Figure 4: Organizational Culture ............................................................................................................... 42
Figure 5: Program Implementation/Maintenance ...................................................................................... 43
Figure 6 Management/Staff Characteristics ............................................................................................ 44
Figure 7: Client Risk/Need Practices ........................................................................................................ 46
Figure 8: Program Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 47
Figure 9: Core Correctional Practice ........................................................................................................ 48
Figure 10: Inter-Agency Communication .................................................................................................... 49
Figure 11: Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 51
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report v
Executive Summary
The U.S. prison population continues to grow at startling rates each year. Over the past decade, the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails rose from 1.6 million in 1995 to over 2.1 million persons by midyear 2005 (Harris and Beck, 2006). According to a recent publication released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails reached a record high of 2,186,230 inmates by midyear 2005 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). This record number of persons in our nation’s prisons and jails has resulted in more prisoners than ever before being released from incarceration. In 2004, 672,202 sentenced inmates were released from state prisons in the U.S., resulting in an increase of 11.1% since 2000 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). West Virginia’s prison population also continues to grow at high rate. In fact, WV had one of the fastest growing prison populations in the nation in recent years. According to a recent report published by the BJS, WV was ranked third in the nation with an average annual growth rate of 8.2% between 1995 and 2004 (Harrison and Beck, 2005; 2006). As a result, WV's state prison population reached 5,312 inmates at the end of 2005. Moreover, the state's prison population is forecasted to continue growing at a rate of 3.3% per a year on average, reaching 6,192 inmates in 2010. Such increases in the number of released inmates has coincided with a record number of offenders being released from our state correctional facilities. In 2005, the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) estimated that 2,157 inmates were released from West Virginia Division of Corrections (WVDOC ) custody, up from 1,278 in 2000. As a result, the state of WV experienced a 68.8% increase in the number of prisoners released from WVDOC custody between 2000 and 2005 (Lester and Haas, 2006). Moreover, both parole grant rates and the number of prisoners being released from state prisons in WV have increased in recent years. In a single year, the number of offenders released from WVDOC custody to parole services increased by 35.6%. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of inmates paroled in WV increased from 773 to 1,048 inmates. Thus, nearly one-half of the 2, inmates released from WVDOC custody in 2005 were released on parole (48.6%) (Lester and Haas, 2005).
The sheer number of offenders released from correctional institutions each year has underscored the need for effective offender programs and transitional services. As a result, the WVDOC developed a comprehensive offender reentry program with the anticipation that it would significantly reduce the number of barriers that offenders will have to face upon release and thereby increase their chances for successful reintegration. Thus, the primary goal of the WVORI is to develop a case management system that ensures the continuity of services and programming from the time the offender enters secure confinement until the offender is ultimately reintegrated back into society. The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) became fully operational in July 2005. The WVORI is comprised of two core components and three general phases. The core components provide a foundation for all of the activities that take place in each of the three WVORI phases. These core components include the establishment of a prescriptive case management systems (PCMS) and the use of the Level of Service Inventory- Revised (LSI-R) to assess inmate’s risk and need levels. The PCMS was developed and implemented to structure reentry planning. Services provided via the PCMS include assessment, reentry program plans, substance abuse programs, primary treatment services, transition preparation, parole services, and a parole release plan (WVDOC, 2006). The LSI-R was adopted by the WVDOC to serve as a foundation for the PCMS. Based on the accurate assessment of an inmates level of risk and needs, the LSI-R can help correctional staff identify appropriate institutional programs and services and assist in the development of reentry case plans. In addition, the WVORI is comprised of three primary phases—an institutional phase, a transitional phase, and a community reintegration phase. These three phases are characterized by extensive institution-based programs, enhanced relationships between institution staff and parole personnel, and strong offender ties with community support systems. The primary objective for the institutional phase, or Phase 1 of the WVORI, is to gain greater consistency in the application of initial diagnostic and classification systems
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report 1
2 Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home
across WVDOC facilities. In addition, this phase includes efforts to revise case management practices in a manner that allow for the appropriate matching of offenders to specific programs based their needs. Phase II, or the transitional programming phase, focuses on preparing offenders for making the transition from the institutional setting to parole supervision in the community. As such, this phase includes an array of pre-release services to assist offenders with reentry. These services include reassessment and development of an aftercare plan, an infectious disease course, a parole orientation course, and the scheduling of regular contacts with case managers and parole officers. In addition, this phase serves to link the offender to various community programs such as educational and/or vocational training programs, substance abuse treatment, employment services, and religious or faith-based services. All WVDOC inmates participate in transitional planning prior to release. Phase III of the WVORI, or the community reintegration phase, emphasizes assisting offenders in achieving and maintaining stability in their life situations (including housing and employment) while sufficiently monitoring ex-offenders in order to protect public safety. This phase is characterized by efforts to increase the autonomy of offenders prior to release from parole while assisting the offender in building relationships with community agencies and establishing a strong social support system. Key components of this phase include monitoring and supervision of parole officers and ensuring ex-offenders adhere to the individual reentry program and aftercare plans developed prior to release. Monitoring progress on aftercare plans and conducting post-release follow-ups is a primary function of parole officers during this phase.
The success of the WVORI as well as many other programs or initiatives in the field of corrections is contingent upon successful implementation and service delivery. Prior research has clearly demonstrated that proper implementation is a necessary condition of correctional programs and services designed to reduce recidivism (Hubbard and Latessa, 2004;
Lowenkamp and Latessa, 2005). Thus, it is important for program planners to be informed of the extent to which their programs have been fully implemented. Therefore, the WVDOC commissioned a process evaluation in the spring of 2004 to examine the extent to which the WVORI had been implemented in accordance to the reentry program plan. A central goal of this process evaluation was to assess whether reentry services were reaching prisoners preparing for release and subsequently transitioning to the community. To achieve this goal, this process evaluation utilized multiple data sources and a resulted in a series of reports designed to provide a comprehensive view of the WVORI and its implementation. The first two reports produced under this process evaluation were based on survey responses from correctional staff (see Haas, Hamilton, and Hanley, 2005; 2006). A primary purpose of the first two reports was to examine the extent to which correctional staff attitudes where in-line with the mission of the offender reentry initiative. In addition to the assessment of correctional staff attitudes, however, the second study also explored the extent to which the WVORI and its related components had been properly implemented. In particular, the second report closely examined the two core components of the WVORI—the Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) and the Prescriptive Case Management System (PCMS). While the first two reports in this process evaluation mostly centered on the institutional phase of the reentry initiative, the third study in this process evaluation focused almost entirely Phase II of the WVORI (see Haas and Hamilton, 2007). A sample of soon-to-be-released prisoners was used to ascertain the extent to which transitional services were being provided to inmates prior to release. Of equal importance, this report also sought to examine how these services were being delivered. That is, whether core correctional practices were being applied in the delivery of these services. Additionally, this study assessed inmate perceptions of the quality of service delivery (as measured by the presence of core correctional practice) and the extent to which these perceptions were related to inmate self-appraisals of preparedness (or expectations) for release. Research has linked how services are delivered and inmate’s expectations for life after prison to program effectiveness and inmate outcomes, respectively. As the final report in this process evaluation, this report
management (including both the supervision and treatment of offenders) and underlies the WVDOC newly developed prescriptive case management system (PCMS). Furthermore, this process evaluation found important subgroup differences in level of support for the WVORI and its related components (i.e., PCMS and LSI-R). Consistent with results from previous research, the results demonstrated that staff with longer histories in the field of corrections and at the WVDOC had considerably lower levels of support for the WVORI as well as the PCMS and the use of the LSI-R. Correctional staff with 10 or more years experience either in the field of corrections or at the WVDOC were significantly less likely to report high support for the PCMS and the WVORI. In addition, parole officers were found to have the least favorable views toward the WVORI, the PCMS, and the LSI-R. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
and solicit these staff persons to develop strategies to further enhance intra- and inter-agency communication on EBP.
Based on the results of this process evaluation, it is not entirely clear that correctional staff are knowledgable of evidence-based practices in the field of corrections. Additionally, it appears that many of the key components of effective correctional intervention are not being integrated into service delivery and case planning. A key finding that was derived from this process evaluation is that correctional staff may not be utilizing the LSI-R as it was intended by the WVORI program planners. Based on the results of the correctional staff survey, for example, it was found that many staff were not referring to specific LSI-R assessment outcomes when developing treatment plans and were not committed to assessing offender progress. Nearly thirty percent of case managers (29.2%) and counselors (28.1%) as well as over one-half of parole officers (52.9%) report that they had never used the LSI-R to assess offender progress. It was also discovered that only a small proportion of inmates had more than one initial LSI-R assessment. The results also showed that nearly thirty percent of prisoners had never been assessed using the LSI-R, despite potentially being within 90 days of release. This suggest that assessment information is not being used properly to guide case planning decisions and monitoring offender progress. Only 4 out of every 10 correctional staff were found to be using the results of the LSI-R to develop reentry case plans. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
4 Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home
with EBP (e.g., link offender successes and staff demonstrated abilities to performance evaluations).
Based on the collective results of this evaluation, it is clear that correctional staff’s attitudes and orientations are a) directly related to their level of support for the reentry initiative and b) may be impacting the implementation of the initiative. The results of this evaluation demonstrated that as correctional staff became more human service oriented and less punitive toward inmates, they also became more supportive of the WVORI and its core components (e.g., PCMS and LSI-R). As a result, differing levels of resistance and support for the reentry initiative were tied to attitudes and orientations of correctional staff. In short, we found that staff who were more supportive of the notion of rehabilitation, liked to work with others, liked their job, and were empathetic toward inmates, were significantly more likely to indicate that they support the reentry initiative. Additionally, there is some reason to believe that such attitudes and orientations may be impacting the actual delivery of reentry services. For instance, parole officers tended to be more punitive and less human services oriented than other occupational subgroups. And, at the same time, the result of this evaluation consistently demonstrated that parole officers were less likely to support the WVORI and the PCMS and were significantly less likely to support the use of the LSI-R than case managers and counselors. Of the 22 parole officers that comprised the post-implementation sample of correctional staff, only 1 indicated that they highly supported the use of the LSI-R. Such results appear to translate into practice. This evaluation found that parole officers were less likely to use the LSI-R to formulate reentry case plans and to assess offender progress compared to other correctional staff. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
The results of our analysis suggest that staff may not be utilizing the LSI-R as it was intended by the WVORI program planners or the developers of the LSI-R. It also appears that correctional staff may not be referring inmates to appropriate post-prison services based on the assessment information and may not be correctly matching treatment services to the individual needs of offenders. A substantial amount of variation was found in how correctional staff use information to ascertain the risk and needs of offenders. Moreover, we found little agreement among staff in what to recommend as part of the reentry plan once an assessment was complete. These findings imply a weak link between the needs of inmates and the services
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report 5
The results of this evaluation illustrate that the WVORI could be improved through greater use of core correctional practices by staff in the delivery of programs and services. Our results show that when prisoners perceived receiving transitional services in a manner that was consistent with the use of CCPs, they reported being better prepared for life after release. However, the findings further suggested that the application of CCP is not as widespread as one might hope, at least from the perspectives of inmates. For example, while prisoners reported that they were often given the opportunity to practice new behaviors in prison, many did not feel that appropriate behaviors were demonstrated for them by correctional staff. Nor did prisoners feel that reinforcements for good behavior were provided by prison staff on a regular basis. Additionally, many inmates reported that staff did not advocate on their behalf to community program providers or engage in problem-solving activities with them. And the results further imply that many correctional staff were not developing high quality interpersonal relationships with inmates which have been found to be associated with successful service delivery in correctional settings. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
Based on the responses from the sample of soon-to-be released prisoners, many inmates did not believe staff had worked to identify referrals or speak on their behalf to community organizations or service providers. Only 6.4% of all inmates rated the effective use of community resources as high on the part of correctional staff. Likewise, over one-half of all inmates did not believe that staff were committed to generating referrals for them or lobbying community resources to help them transition to the community (51.4%). In addition, only a small percentage of inmates had made contact with community services providers and very few prisoners had services set up in the community for after release. This is despite being with 90 days of potential release from prison. Less than ten percent of all inmates stated that they had been given the contact information of a community services provider (9.0%) and fewer than five percent had actually scheduled an appointment (4.5%), regardless of institution type (i.e., work release versus general population). Our results further illustrated that many inmates who were in need of community services were not set up to receive them once released. In terms of drug treatment, for instance, approximately one-third of all inmates indicated that they had not been set up to receive treatment upon release. This was also the case for other service contacts in the community. As with drug treatment, roughly one-quarter of all inmates in need of treatment services for alcohol abuse were not set up to
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report 7
receive them upon release. Similar results were found for other types of community-based services. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
Research has consistently shown that the proper implementation of programs is critical for achieving positive outcomes. However, routine evaluation and performance monitoring is a critical tool for ensuring the successful implementation of any program. The failure to adequately monitor program implementation and staff performance is a common mistake made by many agencies or organizations
initiating a new program. Fortunately, these pitfalls in program implementation can be avoided with the establishment of rigorous quality assurance procedures to ensure program fidelity during the implementation phase. Such efforts can be enhanced by routine monitoring and evaluation. Agencies should work to build the internal capacity to perform routine evaluations or secure the services of a trained evaluator. Several meta-analytic studies have demonstrated that the involvement of an evaluator in program implementation and monitoring is a significant predictor of a program’s success at reducing recidivism (Andrews and Dowden, 2005; Dowden and Andrews, 1999; 2000; Lipsey, 1995). It is believed that an evaluator’s involvement enhances program integrity which, in turn, increases the therapeutic potential of appropriate correctional programs (Dowden and Andrews, 1999). In addition, as demonstrated by the current process evaluation, the use of an evaluator can also yield an abundance of information about the adequacy of a program’s implementation, the delivery of its services, and the characteristics of staff that either facilitate or hinder the capacity of a program to reach its desired goals and objectives. Moreover, trained evaluators can provide assistance to program staff in establishing meaningful quality assurance procedures to monitor staff compliance. Evidence-based recommendations (EBP) suggested by these findings include:
8 Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home
Introduction
The U.S. prison population continues to grow at startling rates each year. Over the past decade, the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails rose from 1.6 million in 1995 to over 2.1 million persons by midyear 2005 (Harris and Beck, 2006). According to a recent publication released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), the number of persons incarcerated in U.S. prisons and jails reached a record high of 2,186,230 inmates by midyear 2005 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). This record number of persons in our nation’s prisons and jails has resulted in more prisoners than ever before being released from incarceration. In 2004, 672,202 sentenced inmates were released from state prisons in the U.S., resulting in an increase of 11.1% since 2000 (Harrison and Beck, 2006). Of these released prisoners, approximately two-thirds will be re-incarcerated within three years of their release (Langan and Levin, 2002). Prior research has shown that upon release from prison, these ex-offenders will encounter many barriers to successful reintegration as they try to reenter society. These barriers to reentry can manifest themselves in seemingly basic or practical needs of offenders (e.g., having social security cards reissued, obtaining a driver’s license, securing social or veteran benefits, etc.) or more arduous problems associated with mental illness or substance abuse. Unfortunately, the extent to which these ex-offenders are successful in dealing with these known barriers to reintegration will ultimately determine whether or not they will return to the criminal justice system. West Virginia’s prison population also continues to grow at high rate and the inmates released from WV’s correctional facilities will face many of the same barriers as ex-offenders in other states. In fact, WV had one of the fastest growing prison populations in the nation in recent years. According to a recent report published by the BJS, WV was ranked third in the nation with an average annual growth rate of 8.2% between 1995 and 2004 (Harrison and Beck, 2005; 2006). As a result, WV's state prison population reached 5,312 inmates at the end of 2005. Moreover, the state's prison population is forecasted to continue growing at a rate of 3.3% per a year on average, reaching 6,192 inmates in 2010. As prison populations continue to rise, more and more
ex-offenders are making the transition from prison to the community every day. This is primarily due to the large number of prisoners being released into communities across the state every year. In 2005, the Division of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS) estimated that 2,157 inmates were released from West Virginia Division of Corrections (WVDOC ) custody, up from 1,278 in 2000. As a result, the state of WV experienced a 68.8% increase in the number of prisoners released from WVDOC custody between 2000 and 2005 (Lester and Haas, 2006). Such increases in the number of released inmates has coincided with a record number of offenders being released to parole supervision in the state. Both parole grant rates and the number of prisoners being released from state prisons in WV have increased in recent years. In a single year, the number of offenders released from WVDOC custody to parole services increased by 35.6%. Between 2004 and 2005, the number of inmates paroled in WV increased from 773 to 1, inmates. Thus, nearly one-half (48.6%) of the 2,157 inmates released from WVDOC custody in 2005 were released on parole (Lester and Haas, 2005). Additionally, with a recent increase in the number of parole board hearings as well as continued growth in the number of WVDOC commitments and admissions, these release trends are expected to continue for some time into the future. The sheer number of offenders admitted and released from correctional institutions each year, coupled with statistics on recidivism among released offenders, has renewed interest in offender reentry and reintegration programming across the nation and here at home. As a result, the WVDOC developed a comprehensive offender reentry program with the anticipation that it would significantly reduce the number of barriers that offenders will have to face upon release and thereby increase their chances for successful reintegration. The primary goal of the WVORI is to develop a case management system that ensures the continuity of services and programming from the time the offender enters secure confinement until the offender is ultimately reintegrated back into society. The West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) became fully operational in July 2005. In an effort to ensure the success of the newly developed WVORI, the WV Division of Corrections commissioned a process evaluation in the spring of 2004 to examine the extent
10 Preparing Prisoners for Returning Home
to which the WVORI had been implemented in accordance to the reentry program plan. The central purpose of the process evaluation is to systematically evaluate the WVORI in terms of both coverage and delivery. That is, to determine the extent to which the offender reentry initiative is reaching its intended target population and to assess the degree of congruence between the reentry program plan and actual services delivery. This process evaluation has produced three separate studies as well as the official data analysis contained in the present report. Multiple data sources, including correctional staff and inmate surveys and official records, have been used to arrive at a comprehensive view of the WVORI. As a result, this evaluation has provided information on the extent to which the WVORI has been implemented in accordance with the program plan developed by WVDOC administrators. In addition, this evaluation has been able assess whether the current practices under the WVORI are congruent with what research has determined to be effective at reducing recidivism in offender populations. As the last in a series of reports, the central purpose of this report is to examine the extent to which reentry services were provided to inmates and fill remaining gaps in the process evaluation. While previous reports examined such issues as correctional staff attitudes and service delivery from the perspectives of inmates, this report uses official data to assess whether pre-release programs and transitional services were provided to a sample of soon-to-be-released prisoners. In addition, this report seeks to assess a remaining issue related to the proper implementation of services based on the principle of effective services, namely, the question of whether programs and services were being properly matched to the needs of inmates. Finally, this report summarizes many of the key findings from the three previous reports and offers a series of evidence- based recommendations based on the results of the evaluation as a whole. As the final report in this evaluation, it is anticipated that the results will serve as a guide for WVDOC administrators and other policy-makes as they seek to improve the services provided to inmates nearing release, protect the public, and reduce recidivism. The current report begins with an overview of the West Virginia Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI).
Similar to reentry initiatives throughout the country, the WV Offender Reentry Initiative (WVORI) includes an institutional phase, a transition period from the institution to parole services, and a community reintegration phase. These three phases are characterized by extensive institution-based programs, enhanced relationships between institution staff and parole personnel, and strong offender ties with community support systems. The primary goal of the WVORI is to develop a case management system that ensures the continuity of services and programming from the time the offender enters secure confinement until the offender is ultimately reintegrated back into society. The WVORI required the West Virginia Division of Corrections (WVDOC) to develop and apply an entirely new prescriptive case management system. This new case management system incorporated the use of different classification instrument and a variety of newly-developed and innovative programs. As a result, the administrative staff of the WVDOC recognized the need for extensive training of personnel who would be given the responsibility of conducting the daily activities that comprise the WVORI (e.g., LSI-R, prescriptive case management system, Individual Reentry Program Plan, victim safety training, faith-based mentoring and other treatment programs). Training on the new reentry initiative and its components began in September 2003 and continued through December
Offender Reentry Evaluation, Final Report 11
