Diese Präsentation wurde erfolgreich gemeldet.
Wir verwenden Ihre LinkedIn Profilangaben und Informationen zu Ihren Aktivitäten, um Anzeigen zu personalisieren und Ihnen relevantere Inhalte anzuzeigen. Sie können Ihre Anzeigeneinstellungen jederzeit ändern.

Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica

316 Aufrufe

Veröffentlicht am

  • Als Erste(r) kommentieren

  • Gehören Sie zu den Ersten, denen das gefällt!

Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica

  1. 1. In an efforttoreduce the highratesof recidivisminMichiganthissociallyjust policyproposal forprisonerreentrybegins withreviewingcurrentliterature ondata supportingthe needforadditionally positive supportnetworksandcase managementservicesthatsupportformer inmatesandpromotessuccessful reentry of formerinmatesintotheircommunities. Thispolicyproposal hasa focuson communityparticipation,wellbeing,and social justice byaddressingthe barriersto successful reentry. Socially Just Policy: Prisoner Reentry in Michigan Prepared by: Erica Canady & Miriam Holbrook April 21, 2014
  2. 2. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 1 Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry in Michigan Literature Review Beginning with the start of Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” program in 1971 and the Sentence Reform Act in 1984, which established mandatory minimum sentences, national incarceration rates in the United States have climbed by almost two million. The U.S. now holds the highest incarceration rate in the world. Yet, we are no safer as a result; crime rates have remained relatively steady since 1970, and most of our prison inmates were not dangerous criminals to begin with. Prisoners in the U.S. do have some things in common, however. They are poor, uneducated, male, and disproportionately members of minority groups (Parkin, 2002). One significant problem is the revolving door of the prison system; in 2007, the national rate for recidivism over a three-year period was 43.3 percent (PEW Center on the States, 2011). This policy analysis will address the rate of recidivism in the state of Michigan and how we can work to further reduce it. In 2003, the state held over 51,000 inmates and released 9,000 under parole each year. Of those paroled, 44 percent returned to prison within two years (Association of State Correctional Administrators (ASCA, 2004). Michigan was spending 1.7 billion annually on corrections, one-fifth of its general fund (PEW Center, 2011). In 2003, Michigan was selected to receive two grants to help address their high recidivism rate. Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) was launched soon afterward and was expanded statewide by 2008. Michigan’s recidivism rate by 2008 was down to 31 percent, among the lowest in the country (PEW Center, 2011). The state’s number of inmates is currently at just over 43,000 and falling. Because more prisoners are being released from prison and fewer are returning, Michigan has been able to close 21 correctional facilities, saving the state $315 million annually. Supervising a paroled prisoner costs approximately $2,000 annually; the cost to keep one in prison is $34,000 (Dwoskin, 2011). Crime rates (violent and non- violent) have also continued to go down since MPRI’s implementation (MPRI Progress Report, 2010). foolocracy.com foolocracy.com
  3. 3. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 2 Creating MPRI forced policy makers affiliated with the Department of Corrections to see things from a completely different perspective- through science, rather than through their own experiences and pro-social belief systems. Corrections captain, Doug Hooley explained that we should not try to relate to criminals from our own perspectives; we need to learn to trust the scientific research rather than limiting our trust to our own feelings since most of our own experiences will not apply to most people in the prison system. Hooley argues the research shows several best practices proven to lower recidivism, which are used by MPRI (2010). As former Michigan Director of Corrections, Patricia Caruso recalled, “We had to change our entire culture to focus on success. It was challenging, but fortunately, it worked” (PEW Center, 2011, p. 22). According to Hooley’s research, science based strategies to reduce recidivism start with a collaboration of all criminal justice partners, with everyone in agreement on a program engaged in evidence-based practices. MPRI starts with a risk/needs assessment, which will be predictive of who is most likely to reoffend and find what motivates each offender on an individual basis. Recidivism is typically associated with “criminogenic” factors, which Hooley defines as internal factors in an offender’s life that contributed to their breaking the law, rather than environmental causes, such as a need for money or food. Criminogenic factors contributing to recidivism include having an antisocial peer group, a dependency on drugs or alcohol, lack of self-control, and an antisocial belief system. Hooley argues that we can provide for a person’s environmental needs, but if we do not address their criminogenic needs, this will not affect the risk of their committing another crime in the future (2010). MPRI assessed inmates from the time they first enter prison, so interventions can be designated right away with the correct cognitive behavioral strategies and skills individualized for each person. Research has shown that inmates who receive self control training plus behavioral rehearsal are less likely to recidivate; follow up support or booster sessions likely further reduces these rates (Dollard, 2001). Once the offender is released, MPRI collaborates with other service organizations to provide ongoing support in the community. Since peer groups have the strongest influence over whether a person will recidivate, particularly those who were previous gang members, a strong and positive and supportive parole and probation system provides the best chance of countering these influences. Reaching out for positive family support, offering in-home counseling and home visits initiated by the family service worker also reduces the likely hood of recidivism (Ryan, 2005). Other factors found to significantly reduce recidivism include drug and alcohol treatment, income, employment, and housing. MPRI works with landlords and housing managers in the re-entry community, promising to closely monitor those recently released. “The mission of prisoner reentry is to significantly reduce crime and enhance public safety by implementing a seamless system of services for offenders from the time of their entry to prison through their transition, community reintegration and aftercare in their communities.” (Michigan Department ofCorrections) Positive reinforcement is more effective than sanctions. “Human beings rapidly adapt to even the most negative environments…the sanctions that you can offer in a constitutionally-run prison quickly become meaningless to them” (Hooley, 2010).
  4. 4. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 3 MPRI staff also work to convince employers to hire reentering prisoners and offer ongoing voluntary mental health and substance abuse treatment services in the community. Community based substance abuse treatment has been shown to be effective in reducing both substance abuse and recidivism (Pimlott, Arfken, & Gibson, 2009). Length of treatment is also a predictor of recidivism, as is substance abuse by a significant other (Gibbs, 2000). The continuous availability of mental health and substance abuse treatment services is essential to maintaining a reduction of recidivism. Michigan needs to be able to provide the funding and offer easy availability of these services throughout the state. With the recent cuts, the treatment that did exist will now be more difficult for those in desperate need to find. Michigan State House Representative (Congressman) Fred Durhal, Jr. stated, “Michigan is actively working to reduce recidivism.” However, Michigan does keep prisoners incarcerated for longer periods of time than anywhere else. This is due to the Truth in Sentencing Act, which requires inmates to fulfill a minimum sentence of five years (personal communication, March 17, 2014). MPRI also does not extend community services to those who were imprisoned before the program began. Michigan also has one of the harshest policies for juvenile criminals in the country. There is clearly more work to be done. Unfortunately, however, Michigan’s current governor has recently chosen a huge step in the opposite direction instead. Despite MPRI’s success and significant savings, Gov. Rick Snyder has cut the MPRI program by half. Michigan’s House and Senate agreed last year to cut funding in 2014 for local services providers from $22.7 million to $13.8 million and to reduce funding for prisoner reentry programs from $23.5 million to $12.9 million (Michigan League for Public Policy (MLPP), 2013). MPRI used evidence-based practices to help its most desperate populations rehabilitate themselves to become participating and contributing members of the community. Michigan’s reentry program has showed significant progress reducing crime to create safer neighborhoods, and continued to save the state more money every year. MPRI should be a stepping-stone to a better, more inclusive, and culturally expanded program. Community Participation Community participation is the main force that drives this proposal for a socially just policy for prisoner reentry in Michigan. Eversole states that in order to achieve effective community participations across communities and organizations, workers need to become participants as well (2012). In addition, Congressman Fred Durhal, Jr. stated that “there is a need to formulate policies and programs from the executive level to create funding for jobs and cultural advancement” (personal communication, March 17, 2014). The need for community participation to effect policy change at the executive level is an essential force behind the proposal for the revision of the MPRI Policy. “The problem of participation is not that participation is impossible to achieve; but rather, that it is impossible to achieve for others. Future community development practice is not, in the end, about meeting the challenge of how to convince others to participate in our worldviews and institutions.Rather, the challenge of participation is about how to become participants in our own right: choosing to move across institutional and knowledge terrains to create new spaces for communities and organizations to ‘participate’ together” (Eversole, 2012, p. 37).
  5. 5. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 4 The Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry included gathering information from the community by interviewing community seven members identified through a snowball sampling process of identifying key stakeholders to interview. The stakeholders are people who are actively involved in social action, social change, and advocacy for prisoner reentry policy revision and implementation within the community of Detroit, Michigan. Interviewees included politicians, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) elders and traditional teachers, Community Organizations whose clients are former prisoners, and AI/AN mental health and substance abuse workers who are currently working within prison systems (names of most individuals interviewed are confidential). Definition of Community and Identified Prisoner Reentry Needs An important aspect of community participation in policy is to first identify the community and the level of involvement and relationships between policy, community stakeholders, and the community being served (Arnstein, 1969; Bardach, 2008). Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation (Figure 1) shows that the level of community participation with the proposed policy is at the stage of Tokenism and is in the Consultation phase. Should this policy be approved and implemented the design will allow for community participation to climb to Citizen Power through the utilization of partnerships (Arnstein, 1969). The major themes identified during the seven interviews conducted with community stakeholders between January - April 2014 includes:  Case Management: providing services to help people learn how to access resources in their communities, develop realistic plans and goals through addressing: o Employment: Job training and placement to help former inmates obtain and retain meaningful employment o Education, training and certification: in order to increase job skills and employability we need a focus on trade work skills to obtain higher paying jobs o Housing: access to housing to prevent homelessness o Family and child resources: help families cope with the consequences of incarceration, provide parenting classes, and access to affordable child care o Substance abuse and mental health treatment: culturally integrated care to learn coping skills o Women: Programs specific to addressing the needs of women who have experienced domestic violence and are reentering their communities Figure 1: Arnstein’s Ladder ofParticipation
  6. 6. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 5 o Transportation: need for drivers licenses, bus passes, access to reliable and safe transportation o Veterans: assisting with and obtaining access to services through the VA  Minority groups: addressing unique cultural needs of minorities and natural supports within their communities o Traditional cultural teachings, ceremonies, and activities: need for programming that is culturally relevant and provides traditional teachings for AI/AN and other indigenous populations o Positive Support: utilization of natural supports available through AI/AN reservations and urban communities to provide positive support to former inmates; connections to other minority community supports providing access to cultural connections o Community Protection: need for culturally relevant programming to provide protection of victims and other community members in a culturally appropriate way. For example, utilizing AI/AN elders and traditional teachers, who are also “Gatekeepers”, are expected to fulfill their responsibilities in their role as members of the Bear Clan and as protectors of their community. Community Participation for Socially Just Policy Stakeholders for the Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry were included through interviews and the identification of common themes addressing the needs of former inmates as well as the needs of the community. The theories that support the approach to community involvement for prisoner reentry include the Healing Forest Model, which is the basis for supporting community change and healing within Native American or non-native communities for the Wellbriety Movement (Coyhis, 2008). Social support theories also show that focusing on using the natural support systems already in place within communities helps to reduce recidivism (Pettus- Davis, 2011). The Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry will support the following components of community participation: development of peer support groups; positive support networks; community based agreements with culturally appropriate programming for minority groups; a community collaborative to address community concerns regarding prisoner reentry; and provide opportunities to share resources through the development of a community collaborative. The implementation of this policy will provide opportunities for community based organizations to work in an urban setting with politicians, residential communities, cultural agencies providing access to traditional teachings for minority and indigenous groups, former inmates, and inmates preparing for release back into their communities from incarceration. The
  7. 7. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 6 next section will discuss well-being by addressing issues that contribute to recidivism, community safety, and quality of life for prisoner reentry. Well Being Reducing recidivism rates through wrap around services that include: employment, housing, mental and substance abuse training will increase the chance that former inmates will be able to successfully transition to self-sufficiency in their communities. They will be less likely to commit new crimes, which will increase public safety. Access to child care, education, and employment will contribute to the tax base and allow the new community member to support others and lead to stronger families, all of which result in more stable communities. One of the most notable exclusions to MPRI is the failure to address the state juvenile corrections policies and the school-prison pipeline. Michigan is currently among the top four states with prisoners sentenced as juveniles serving life sentences without parole. Juveniles who are sentenced to adult prisons are more likely to recidivate than those sentenced to juvenile correction facilities (Schill, 2013). Children are put in jail before they learn many of the skills necessary to overcome recidivism and usually lack outside support. They are also more likely to be released back into the community lacking the education and skills to obtain employment. The goal of this policy change is to reduce juvenile incarceration by 30 percent and to stop sending juveniles to adult prisons. Many have argued that releasing more people from prisons is more dangerous for our communities, and this would be true if we did not provide services for them, as they would be more likely to commit new crimes. However, providing services which address the needs of those transitioning back into society reduces and prevents crime. MPRI has safely increased the number of prisoners paroled while the recidivism rate and crime rate have both gone down (MLPP, 2013). Our families are most at risk, particularly in African American homes. One in every three African American males will go to prison in their lifetime, making paternal imprisonment fairly commonplace. One of every four African American children born in 1990 had a father who went to prison (Wildeman & Western, 2010). Reducing recidivism will ensure that once an offender has been released, he will have the services necessary to ensure he will stay out of prison and stay with his family. Washtenaw County resident, Harry Hampton had been in Office of Legislative Support (www.cga.ct.gov) michiganradio.org
  8. 8. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 7 prison four times. When he was released the first three times, he received no help. “I didn’t know what to do but go back to what I was used to,” he explained. The fourth time he was released from prison, MPRI had been implemented; he received help getting a place to stay and a job. He now runs his own transportation service, helping others who have no way of getting around. “I’ve got a life. I’m living the American dream” (Graham, 2013). It is possible to create new lives from those thought hopeless; to bring families back together and contribute to a stronger community, all while saving money and reducing crime. ( Social Justice Recidivism is a racial issue, as people of color are considerably overrepresented in our prison system. The War on Drugs allowed prejudicial police practices to make matters far worse, as the number of African American males in prison increased fivefold in the two decades following 1980 (Butterfield, 2002). People of color are much more likely than whites to be stopped by police while driving. Since minorities are typically poorer than whites, they often have to depend on court appointed public defenders and are more likely to be convicted (Sentencing Project, 2013). Incarceration rates remain significantly biased along racial lines in the state of Michigan; almost sixty percent of the state’s prisoners are African American, while they make up only 14 percent of the total population. (PEW Center, 2011) Social workers must understand the forms and mechanisms of oppression and discrimination (Council on Social Work Education, Competency 5.1). Social justice involves providing equal opportunities for employment and enhancing quality of life through reduction of collateral consequences that increase the risk for recidivism. To deny mental health and substance abuse treatment to prisoners and wrap around services at the time of reentry to the community is to deny along racial lines. Programs that work to decrease recidivism rates are programs that keep minorities free. As a country that passed the civil rights act in 1965, just five years before the prison population began to rise, we have essentially allowed the bigotry of segregation to continue through the façade of our prison system. The Sentencing Project advocates for better racial impact awareness in the policy change process. Prior to legislative deliberation, racial impact statements can show legislators how a Police arrested black youth for drug crimes at more than twice the rate of white youth between 1980 and 2010. Yet a 2012 study fromthe National Institute on Drug Abuse found that white high school students were more likely to have abused illegal drugs than black students. thesentencingproject.org
  9. 9. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 8 certain policy change may affect racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. Legislators can then see ahead of time if a proposal is projected to have a disproportional impact and vote to support it or consider other options (Sentencing Project- 55). A Racial Equity Impact Assessment will work in much the same way, which is recommended here. MPRI relied on research from studies using samples of predominantly male inmates, since they make up the bulk of the prison population. However, according to Schram and Morash (2002), it is important to customize skills programs to address the special needs of female inmates (support from family/friends, employability, coping and stress, parenting, and childcare services), which are different than those of male inmates while in prison and after reentry in their community. More research is needed in order to develop more customized interventions for women and other minority groups, such as the American Indian and Latino populations. Vocational and technical training and other educational services need to be offered so that those reentering the community may have the skills that can help them compete in a world that changes faster now than it ever has. A community collaborative will need to be developed or strengthened, which will include all stakeholders: community employers, school administrators, housing managers/landlords, trainers, counselors, parole, corrections, and court officers, county health and food service workers. Through collaborative partnerships with state and local agencies, stakeholders will work together with previous inmates and their families to provide wrap-around services to those returning to their communities. Previous inmates’ suggestions and concerns must be addressed throughout their transition and the proper support services ready to work with them, remaining as customized as possible in order to best serve the individual and their families. It is important that the former inmate is a major participant and decision maker in his or her own transition. While we must be sure our prison system punishes, we also must provide full opportunities for rehabilitation (ASCA,2004). Recommendations Prior to implementing the proposed policy revision for prisoner reentry, there should be a Racial Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) of the proposed policy to ensure policy effectiveness and minimize any adverse consequences of the policy. Conducting an REIA prior to implementation of this policy will help to support the effectiveness of the policy and programs the policy will support (ARC, 2013). The policy revision of MPRI will incorporate the highest possible level of service (represented in Appendix B) where former inmates will work hand-in-hand with stakeholders within the community. Bazemore & Stinchcomb state that the goal is “to plan and execute tasks that build collective efficacy” (2004, p. 19). The model for Civic Engagement Model of Reentry appears to be the most practical evidence-based practice for effective community-based prisoner reentry. prisonpolicy.org
  10. 10. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 9 Gaynes, Lalley, Lubow & McDaniel state that there are three components that need to be part of effective prisoner reentry: economic opportunities, social networks within the community, and formal and informal services and supports (2005). The following goals for the revision to the MPRI policy have been determined based on evidence suggesting that civic engagement, social support, and community-based programming for prisoner reentry has the highest possibility for successfully reducing recidivism: Proposed Policy Goals The primary goals of the MPRI policy revision from the start of 2015 and end of 2016 Fiscal years is:  to reduce recidivism of adult/juvenile offenders by 30%; and  to reduce juvenile incarceration rates by 30%, therefore making youth ineligible for incarceration on the “front-end” (Congressman Fred Durhal, Jr., personal communication, March 17, 2014). The secondary goals for the proposed MPRI policy revision will include:  development of a community-wide collaborative that includes community stakeholders (workforce development, MDOC, agencies supporting traditional and cultural treatment for minorities, family members of former inmates, former inmates, public school system administrators, parents of children in public school systems, court systems, institutional facility administrators, etc.); and  establish wrap-around case management services through agencies identified as primary service providers for community-based prisoner reentry by the collaborative. Recommendations for MPRI Policy Hamilton and Campbell also emphasize the need for continued exploration of the added and varying risks for failure of prisoner reentry programs associated with community corrections interventions, the primary failure being a return to prison (2013),(see Appendix A for a comprehensive list of predictors of prisoner reentry failure). The following two recommendations for policy revision and implementation to the MPRI address the multifaceted issues surrounding prisoner reentry through identifying natural, positive, community support to reduce former inmate risk of recidivism. Equally emphasized is the importance of community and civic engagement of the reentry process of former inmates. The community involvement should be grounded in a theoretical framework and propose solutions to prisoner reentry through Restorative Practice, Skill Building, and Collective Efficacy (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004). The need for community-based prisoner reentry interventions is great, according to Congressman Fred Durhal (personal communication, March 17, 2014). During the interview Congressman “Ultimately, in a theoretically grounded restorative justice framework, democratic participation, civic service, and informal social control and support should be mutually reinforcing elements. For example, enfranchisement and democratic participation would make possible a variety of gateways to prosocial connections.Civic service, along with restorative processes that engage communities in decisionmaking, social control, and support may, in turn, increase prospects for public acceptance of felon enfranchisement and an overall change in the public image of persons undercorrectional supervision” (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004, p.22).
  11. 11. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 10 Durhal expressed that the issue of incarceration and recidivism “should be addressed through prevention programs for youth to make them ineligible for incarceration in the first place” (Congressman Fred Durhal, Jr., personal communication, March 17, 2014). Implementing prevention programs for youth as a form of intervention will address the “front-end” to reduce incarceration rates and in turn reducing recidivism by breaking the cycle of incarceration. This can be accomplished by bringing programs into elementary, middle, and high schools or partnering with community-based organizations and schools. Listed below are two recommendations for reinvesting and enhancing the MPRI policy for reducing recidivism through 1) implementing prevention programs for youth, and 2) providing community-based prisoner reentry programming: 1. “Youth for Success” Implements funding from the state to provide community prevention programs to minority youth to stop the school-to-prison cycle as a form of intervention to reduce recidivism by making youth ineligible for incarceration in the first place. This policy will provide opportunities for community based agreements to be funded by the state and allow community organizations to partner with school systems to engage youth in positive extracurricular activities, learning life skills and soft skills to prepare them for their futures and provide stable positive and supportive environments that promote youth well-being. 2. “Prisoner Reentry for Community-Supported Wellbeing” Community-wide allocation of funding for the state prison budget provides prisoner reentry programming to current and former inmates to allow for case management services that assist inmates during the first year of transitioning back into their communities. The prison-to-community policy will establish a positive social support network that links natural support with case management services to address and reduce current and former inmate risk of recidivism. The next section will discuss the Evaluation Plan for the MPRI policy revision recommendations by defining the Evaluation Questions, Activities, Outcomes, and Data Source/Indicator. Evaluation Plan The recommendations and evaluation plan suggested for the revision of the MPRI policy focuses on evidence-based research that emphasizes the utilization of positive community supports to reduce high rates of recidivism. Petersilia states that for prisoner reentry programs to be effective the policy should be driven by evidence-based research and vice-versa (2004). The Evaluation Plan developed for the revision of the MPRI utilizes the evidence-based research described in the Literature Review and is designed to incorporate the common themes identified from the interviews of key stakeholders within the community regarding the needs of effective prisoner reentry programming, initiatives, and policy. “Interest in prisoner reentry has brought a new- found enthusiasmfor rehabilitation programming. Correctional practitioners are working hard to identify and implement programs that reduce reoffending after prison. At the same time, academics are trying to amass a body of literature that will guide practitioners' choice of programs. Yet, when one looks closely at the two enterprises, there is little evidence that research is driving policy, or that policy is driving research” (Petersilia, 2004, p. 8).
  12. 12. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 11 EVALUATION PLAN Goals Evaluation Questions Activities Outcomes Data Source/Indicator Primary Goal 1 1.1 Was recidivism reduced for adults/juveniles by 30% for institutional facilities in Southeast MI? 1.1 Were inmates contacted prior to release to develop case-management plans incorporating wrap-around services? 1.1 75% of participants will successfully complete the “Prisoner Reentry for Community-supported Wellbeing” program. 1.2 Re-arrest of adults/juveniles will be reduced by 30%. 1.1 Program service coordinators will monitor, track, and report participant arrest status during service delivery, at 3, 6, 9 mo., and 1 year after release to measure recidivism rates of participants enrolled in the program. 1.2 Participant rearrests will be monitored through the MDOC inmate locator available on their website. Primary Goal 2 2.1 Were juvenile arrests reduced by 30% for institutional facilities in Southeast MI? 2.1 All 5th - 12th grade students in public schools will have the opportunity to participate in the youth prevention program designed by the collaborative. 2.1 75% of 5th - 12th grade public school students will successfully complete the “Youth for Success” program. 2.2 Arrests of 5th - 12th grade students will be reduced by 30%. 2.1 All schools participating will report the number of students who were referred and signed up for the program on a quarterly basis. 2.2 Program service coordinators will document and report: -the number of youth who have successfully completed the program -the number of participants who were arrested during service delivery, and after program completion at 3, 6, 9 mo., and 1 year intervals. Secondary Goal 1 3.1 The MPRI will establish a community-wide collaborative of key stakeholders (mentioned in Recommendations section) 3.1 At least one person from each key stakeholder will represent their community in the collaborative. 3.2 During the first three months of 3.1There will be at least 12 active members representing their community for the MPRI Collaborative. 3.2 90% of collaborative meetings will be held and 3.1 All collaborative meetings will be documented and reported to the MPRI quarterly and at the end of the Fiscal Yr. 2016. 3.2 A sign-in sheet will be present at each
  13. 13. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 12 program implementation, collaborative will meet bi-weekly and at least once a month for the remainder of the fiscal year. 3.3 The collaborative will organize and facilitate at least 4 community-wide outreach events throughout the fiscal year: 2 for “Youth for Success” and 2 for “Prisoner Reentry for Community- supported Wellbeing”. attended by at least 75% of collaborative members throughout the fiscal year 2015 and 2016. 3.3 The collaborative will organize and facilitate 100% of the required community- wide outreach events. collaborative meeting and turned in with the MPRI reports. 3.3 The collaborative will provide a report for each event stating the activities planned; action items for each collaborative member; date, time, and location of event; the number of attendees; number of potential program participants recruited; and advocacy and awareness materials distributed during the event. Secondary Goal 2 4.1 The MPRI will assign a primary service provider to facilitate contracted case management wrap-around services for program participants. 4.1 The primary service provider will develop community based partnerships through the assistance of the collaborative to provide resources that meet the needs of former inmates. 4.2 Primary service provider will facilitate at least 10 weeks of group sessions 4times throughout the Fiscal Yr. 2015-2016 for all program participants and will incorporate positive social support and social networking within their group curriculum. 4.1 At least 20 partnerships will be established to assist primary service provider with open access to housing, employment, education, medical, mental & behavioral health, cultural/traditional services, and transportation services. 4.2 Primary service provider will meet the goal of facilitating 100% of required group sessions for program participants. 4.3 Primary service provider will create and implement a curriculum for group sessions based on positive social support networks and social identity development models. 4.1 The primary service provider will be responsible for recruiting and managing partnerships through Community Based Agreements; which will be provided to the MPRI Collaborative via reports. 4.2 Primary service provider will monitor and track all group session dates,times, and maintain attendance record for MPRI reports. 4.3 Primary service provider will be present a thoroughly developed curriculum designed after evidence-based practice for prisoner reentry for 10 week group sessions and present to the MPRI Collaborative within 60 days of assignment as Primary Service Provider.
  14. 14. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 13 References Applied Research Center (ARC) (2013). Racial equity impact assessment toolkit. Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation. Retrieved on April 16, 2014 from https://www.raceforward.org/practice/tools/racial-equity-impact-assessment-toolkit Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 35(4), 216-224. Retrieved from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry- arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2004). Correctional best practices: Directors’ perspectives. Middletown, CT: Reginald Wilkinson, Ed. Bardach, E. (2008). A practical guide for policy analysis (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press. Bazemore, G., & Stinchcomb, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of reentry: Involving community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68(2), 14-24. Butterfield, F. (2002, Aug. 28). Study finds big increase in black men as inmates since 1980. New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/.../28PRIS.html Coyhis, D., & Simonelli, R. (2008). The Native American healing experience. Substance Use & Misuse, 43(12/13), 1927-1949. doi:10.1080/10826080802292584 Dollard, K. M. Impact of self control training on re-offense rates of rural county jail inmates. Dissertation Abstracts International. 62(2). 1074B. Dwoskin, E. (2011, Dec. 1). Michigan lets prisoners go and saves a bundle. Bloomberg Businessweek Magazine. Retrieved from www.businessweek.com/magazine/11_50.html Eversole, R. (2012). Remaking participation: Challenges for community development practice. Community Development Journal, 47(1), 29-41. Gaynes, E., Lalley, J., Lubow, B., & McDaniel, M. (2005). Reentry - Helping former prisoners return to communities: A guide to key ideas, effective approaches, and technical assistance resources for making connections cities and site teams. Baltimore, MD: The Annie E. Casey Foundation. Gibbs, T. (2000). Substance abuse treatment and recidivism: An assessment of predictive factors from a residential program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1174A. Graham, L. (2013, Sept. 9). Snyder administration to cut program that has saved hundreds of millions in prison costs. Retrieved from http://michiganradio.org/ Hamilton, Z., & Campbell, C. (2013). A dark figure of corrections: Failure by way of participation. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 40(2), 180-202.
  15. 15. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 14 Hooley, D. (2010). Six evidence based practices proven to lower recidivism: Learning to trust the research. Retrieved from www.correctionsone.com/writers/columnists/doug-hooley/ Mauer, M. (2009). Racial impact statements: Changing policies to address disparities. Criminal Justice, 23(4). Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI). (2010). Progress Report: Making strides in public safety. Retrieved from http://www.publicpolicy.com/upload/pdfs/Publications/MPRI_ 2010_Progress_Report.pdf Michigan League for Public Policy. (2013). Michigan house and senate reach agreement on fiscal year 2014 corrections budget. Lansing, MI: Lanthrop, Y. M. Parkin, J. T. (2002). Throwing away the key: The world’s leading jailer. International Socialist Review. 21, Jan-Feb. Retrieved from http://isreview.org/issues/21/prisons.shtml Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(2), 4-8. Pettus-Davis, C. (2011). Incorporating naturally occurring social support in interventions for former prisoners with substance use disorders: A community-based randomized controlled trial (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill. PEW Center on the States. (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons, public safety performance project. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts. Pimlot, K. S., Arfken, C. L, & Gibson, E. S. (2009). Departments of corrections as purchasers of community based treatment: A national study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. 36(4). 420-427. Ryan, J. P. (2005). Family contact and recidivism: A longitudinal study of adjudicated delinquents in residential care. Social Work Research, 29(1), 31-39. Schill, R. (2012, Jan. 27). Youth transfers to the adult corrections system more likely to reoffend. Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved from http://jjie.org/ Schram, P. & Morash, M. (2002). Evaluation of a life skills program for women inmates in Michigan. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(4), 47-70. Sentencing Project. (2013). Report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system. Washington DC: Mauer, M.,Ed. Wildeman, C. & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children. 20(2). Retrieved from future ofchildren.org/publications/docs/20_02_ 08.pdf
  16. 16. SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 15 Appendix A Table 1: Predictors of Prisoner Reentry Failure (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013, p. 188)  Age – Age at time of release measured in years Continuous – Range 19 to 60  Children – Does the participant have children?  HS/GED – Possesses a high school diploma or GED at time of release  History of education problem – History of grade repetition, learning disorder, or expulsion  Total number of arrests – Total number of prior arrests Continuous – Range 1 to 22  Family deviance history – Immediate family member has prior conviction and/or substance abuse history  Prior treatment – Participated in substance abuse treatment prior to current incarceration  Prior incarceration – Two or more prior incarcerations  Drug age – Participants’ age of first drug use Continuous – Range 7 to 22  Daily use – Prior to incarceration participant was using substances daily  LSI-R – General recidivism risk score computed with the Level of Service Inventory– Revised Continuous – Range 0 to 54  ASI – Score on the Addition Severity Index Continuous – Range 1 to 10  Prior felony – Convicted of a felony prior to the current incarceration  Prior juvenile – Convicted as a juvenile prior to the current incarceration  Companion risk – Rated as high risk on the LSI-R subscale  Instant offense – Conviction type for current incarceration: drug, violent, weapon, property, or parole violation  Primary substance – Preferred substance of choice reported: heroin, cocaine/crack, marijuana, alcohol, or other drug  Sentence length – Duration of incarceration in years: Continuous – Range 1 to 7  Co-occur – History of co-occurring mental health issue  Treatment benefit – Participant reports he or she would benefit from further treatment  WPT – Wonderlic Personnel Test rating of vocational aptitude
  17. 17. Appendix B Table 2: A Continuuum of Community Work Service Based on Different Levels of Stakeholder Involvement and Impact (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 20)