Wyoming's Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative: An Evaluation of Phase 1 Institution-Based Reentry Programming for Adults & Juveniles
By Laurel Parker West, Ph.D., Principal Investigator Tiffany Comer Cook, Graduate Research Assistant Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center University of Wyoming WYSAC Technical Report No. CJR-510 September 2005 Wyoming Survey & Analysis Center
710 Garfield · Suite 320 · Laramie, WY 82072 (307) 742-2223 · e-mail: wysac@uwyo.edu WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 Table of Contents
List of Figures & Tables_______________________________________________________ - 3 FIGURES _______________________________________________________________ - 3 TABLES ________________________________________________________________ - 4 APPENDICES ___________________________________________________________ - 4 Report Overview ____________________________________________________________ - 5 Review of the Reentry Research Literature_________________________________________ - 5 DEFINING THE PROBLEM ____________________________________________________ - 7 CHALLENGES _____________________________________________________________ - 9 BEST PRACTICES: FEATURES OF SUCCESSFUL PRISONER REENTRY PROGRAMS ___________ - 12 REENTRY INITIATIVE PROFILES ______________________________________________ Break the Cycle (BTC), Maryland ___________________________________________ Chicago's Safer Foundation _______________________________________________ The Urban Institute's "Reentry Portfolio" ____________________________________ - 19 - 19 - 20 - 21 - An Overview of the Wyoming SVORI Program & Evaluation Activities _________________ - 22 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY _______________________________________________ - 29 DATA SOURCES __________________________________________________________ - 30 Characteristics of SVORI Participants ___________________________________________ - 34 TARGET GROUP SELECTION & DEMOGRAPHIC DATA _____________________________ - 35 CRIMINAL HISTORY DATA __________________________________________________ - 46 PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT DATA __________________________________________ - 55 The Adult Male SVORI Program _______________________________________________ - 68 ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ADULT SVORI MEN _______________________ - 68 OFFENDER ASSESSMENTS OF PHASE 1 SVORI PROGRAMMING ______________________ - 80 The Adult Female SVORI Program _____________________________________________ - 86 The Juvenile SVORI Program _________________________________________________ - 89 Predicted SVORI Outcomes _________________________________________________ - 109 Assessment of SVORI at the Administrative Level ________________________________ - 115 Conclusions & Recommendations _____________________________________________ - 125 References _______________________________________________________________ - 128 Appendix A: SVORI Logic Model & Planning Documents___________________________ - 131 Appendix B: List of Juvenile Reentry Services for SVORI Counties ____________________ - 135 - -2- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 List of Figures & Tables
FIGURES Figure 1: Trends in Prisoner Releases and Returns.........................................................6 Figure 2: Evaluation Chart Color Coding for SVORI Target Populations..............................34 Figure 3: Age of Phase 1 Juveniles Surveyed...............................................................41 Figure 4: Reported Income of Phase 1 Adult Men Surveyed.............................................42 Figure 5: Highest Level of Education Completed by Phase 1 Adult Men Surveyed....................42 Figure 6: Grade Level of Phase 1 & 2a Juveniles Returning to Campbell & Sweetwater Counties...43 Figure 7: Marital Status of Phase 1 Men Surveyed.........................................................44 Figure 8: Race of SVORI Target Populations...............................................................45 Figure 9: Offense Types for All Adult SVORI Men & Women.......................................... 46 Figure 10: Primary Convictions of Phase 1 Adult Men Surveyed........................................50 Figure 11: Reasons Reported for Why Surveyed Juveniles Were Placed in Facility................... 52 Figure 12: Family Substance Abuse & Criminal History of Adult & Juvenile SVORI Participants...53 Figure 13: How Easy or Hard Will It Be To (Substance Abuse & Health)............................. 53 Figure 14: Most Common Drugs Used During the Six Months Before Prison by Adult Men Surveyed............................................................................................. 54 Figure 15: LSI-R Overall Risk Assessment Scales for SVORI Adult Men & Women................ 57 Figure 16: LSI-R Risk to Community Scales for SVORI Adult Men & Women........................59 Figure 17: Readiness to Change (URICA) Stages of Active SVORI Men...............................62 Figure 18: Readiness to Change (URICA) Stages of SVORI Women....................................62 Figure 19: Selected TCU/CJ CESI Pretreatment Survey Findings for Active SVORI Men & SVORI Women................................................................................................63 Figure 20: How Surveyed Adult & Juvenile SVORI Participants Rate Their Overall Physical Health.................................................................................................66 Figure 21: How Surveyed Adult & Juvenile SVORI Participants Rate Their Overall Mental Health.................................................................................................66 Figure 22: How Phase 1 Adult Males Supported Themselves in the Six Months Before Prison......70 Figure 23: Expected Primary Source of Income for Phase 1 Adult Males After They Leave Prison..70 Figure 24: Phase 1 Adult Males' Expected Sources of Income in the First Month Following Release................................................................................................70 Figure 25: How Easy or Hard Will It Be To (Employment & Finances)................................72 Figure 26: How Easy or Hard Will It Be To (Housing & Food)......................................... 74 Figure 27: How Easy or Hard Will It Be To (Relationships).............................................78 Figure 28: "Closest Family Members" Before Prison of Adult Men Surveyed..........................79 Figure 29: How Adult Men Surveyed Rate the SVORI Program Overall...............................81 Figure 30: How Adult Men Surveyed Feel About Reentry Services and Time Spent with Coordinator.......................................................................................... 83 Figure 31: How Helpful Reentry Services Have Been According to Adult Men Surveyed............84 Figure 32: Comparisons of the Relative Difficulty of SVORI, Regular Probation/Parole, ISP, and ACC by Adult Men Surveyed........................................................................85 Figure 33: Location of SVORI Women......................................................................87 Figure 34: How Juveniles Feel about Their Treatment Plans............................................ 91 Figure 35: How Often Juveniles Report Being Praised or Get in Trouble with Teachers During Phase 1................................................................................................93 -3- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 Figure 36: How Juveniles Feel about the School Portion of SVORI Phase 1...........................93 Figure 37: How Juveniles Feel about the Amount of Phone Contact They've Had with Their Families............................................................................................... 94 Figure 38: How Juveniles Feel about the Number of Visits They've Had with Their Families.......94 Figure 39: How Often Family Members Call According to Juveniles Surveyed........................96 Figure 40: How Often Juveniles and Dorm Staff Meet with Family According to Juveniles Surveyed...............................................................................................96 Figure 41: Family Members who Contact Juveniles Most Often.........................................97 Figure 42: Other Individuals with Whom Juveniles Have Been Maintaining Contact..................98 Figure 43: Projected Residence of Juveniles from Campbell & Sweetwater Counties in Phase 1 & 2a...........................................................................................99 Figure 44: Amount of Contact Juveniles Report They Have Had with DFS Workers...............101 Figure 45: Ratings of Medical Staff at Facility by Juveniles Surveyed...................................102 Figure 46: Juveniles Ratings of "Group" Sessions........................................................103 Figure 47: Ratings of Institution Services by Juveniles Surveyed.......................................104 Figure 48: Reentry Service Snapshots for Phase 2 Juvenile SVORI Counties.....................106-108 Figure 49: How Easy or Hard Will It Be To (Recidivism)...............................................110 Figure 50: Will Your Participation in SVORI Phase 1 Help You Stay Free of Crime and Substance Abuse? ..............................................................................................111 Figure 51: Adult and Juvenile Opinions of How Their Lives Will Change When Released.........112 Figure 52: The Keys to Staying Out of Prison According to Adult Men Surveyed....................114 Figure 53: SVORI Steering Committee Assessment of Adult & Juvenile Program Activities.......119 TABLES Table 1: Total Adult SVORI Participants as of June 2005................................................36 Table 2: Planned & Current Phase 2 Reentry Counties for Adult Men & Juveniles SVORI Participants...........................................................................................39 Table 3: Average Length of Incarceration for Adult SVORI Participants as of June 1, 2005.........48 Table 4: Average Length of Incarceration for Phase 1 & 2a Juvenile SVORI Participants as of June 1, 2005....................................................................................49 Table 5: Risk Assessment Scores for SVORI Adult Target Populations.................................56 Table 6: Areas of Concern Identified by the LSI-R Risk Assessment....................................60 Table 7: Medication Usage Among Surveyed Adult and Juvenile SVORI Participants................67 Table 8: SVORI Steering Committee Ratings of Key Program Activities..............................120 APPENDICES Appendix A: SVORI Logic Model & Planning Documents.............................................131 Appendix B: List of Juvenile Reentry Services for SVORI Counties...................................135 -4- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 Report Overview
This evaluation report will begin with a review of the existing prisoner reentry research literature. This background information will then be followed by an overview of the Wyoming SVORI program and WYSAC's evaluation activities. The report will then provide detailed information about the characteristics of SVORI participants including demographics, criminal history, and other relevant background data. The next three sections will explore in greater detail the adult male SVORI program, the adult female SVORI program, and the juvenile SVORI program. These analyses will be followed by a section that explores predicted SVORI outcomes based on client surveys. In addition to these extensive individual-level analyses, the evaluation report will also examine Phase 1 of the SVORI program from an administrative perspective focusing on the activities of the multi-agency SVORI Steering Committee. The report concludes with a number of concrete conclusions and recommendations as Wyoming moves forward with full implementation of the SVORI program. A full list of references as well as appendices with the SVORI Logic Model, other key planning documents, and a list of juvenile reentry services are included at the end of this report to provide additional information on the SVORI program. Review of the Reentry Research Literature
At mid-year 2004, 2.1 million people were incarcerated in jail or prison nationwide (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2004). This equates to 123 female inmates per 100,000 women and 1,348 male inmates per 100,000 men in the U.S. What is often overlooked in discussions of the rapidly growing prison population in the United States, is that the majority of these inmates will be released. In fact, nearly 600,000 inmates return to our nation's communities annually (Petersilia 2000). The Bureau of Justice Statistics reports that for a sample of 272,111 persons released from prisons in fifteen states -5- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 in 1994, an estimated 67.5 percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years. Forty-seven percent were reconvicted and 25.4 percent were re-sentenced to prison for a new crime. Moreover, a June 2001 report by the General Accounting Office entitled "Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs" estimated that the number of prisoners has increased three-fold between 1980 and 1998 (See Figure 1). Perhaps even more disturbingly, both the number of reincarcerated individuals and the overall rate of reincarceration has increased sharply; in 1980 the recidivism rate hovered around 20 percent, by 1998, the recidivism rate was nearly 40 percent for this sample of prisoners (GAO, 2001). Given these statistics, it is not surprising that researchers, corrections officials, and policymakers are starting to examine the prisoner reentry process more fully. Figure 1. Trends in Prisoner Releases and Returns 600,000 500,000 # of Offenders 400,000 300,000 209,782 200,000 100,000 0 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 Year
(Adapted from GAO Report "Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs" June 2001) Offenders Released Offenders Reincarcerated 532,136 148,867 28,817 -6- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 This `revolving door' effect--where inmates rotate regularly through the criminal justice system--has a substantial impact on communities, families, and victims of crime (Petersilia 2000). Indeed, "the outcomes of inadequate transition planning include the compromise of public safety, an increased incidence of psychiatric symptoms, relapse to substance abuse, hospitalization, suicide, homelessness, and re-arrest"(Osher, Steadman, & Barr 2002:1). A consensus has been growing among policymakers, researchers, corrections officials, and community-based organizations that holistic, structured reentry planning may be the most effective way to deal with this phenomenon. This review of the current research literature on prisoner reentry highlights the need for intervention beginning with in-prison programming and continuing with community supervision. It also highlights the challenges and barriers that impede or prevent such intervention. We will also explore effective solutions to this revolving door effect and illustrate some of the `best practices' found in reentry programming across the nation. We will also briefly highlight a few highlydeveloped reentry efforts to more vividly illustrate how reentry planning can affect both individual and community-level outcomes. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
As the rate of incarceration has increased dramatically over the past thirty years, there has been an accompanying increase in the rate of prisoners reentering the community (Visher & Travis 2003). In 2001 alone, about 592,000 state-level prison inmates were released to the community after serving time in prison (Hughes & Wilson 2003). Because the high number of returning prisoners is so integrally linked to the dramatic increase in incarceration as a whole, many researchers have focused on the broader public policies that have influenced this skyrocketing national incarceration rate. While most scholars and pundits attribute much of the rise in incarceration since the early 1980s to the punitive policies of the "War on Drugs," other researchers suggest that parole policies-- -7- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 where failures often result in re-incarceration--have also helped fill state prisons (Travis & Petersilia 2001). Solomon, Waul, Van Ness, & Travis (2004) suggest that intermediate sanctions should be administered for technical violations instead of putting violators back in prison as a way to better utilize criminal justice resources. Along with an increase in parole violations resulting in reincarceration, there has also been an increase in the number of offenders assigned to parole officers (Seiter 2002). In fact, most parole officers are responsible for approximately seventy parolees, which is about twice as many as is considered ideal (Travis, Solomon, & Waul 2001). This increase contributes, in part, to the emphasis on surveillance rather than "treatment supervision" in most community-based probation and parole programs across the country (Seiter 2002). This focus on surveillance over treatment goals contributes to the increase in violations which in turn, leads to an increase in the prison population overall. While the caseloads have gone up for probation and parole officers, many states appear to be dramatically limiting the scope of their community supervision programs. By the end of 2000, sixteen states had abolished discretionary release from prison by a parole board for all offenders (Hughes & Wilson 2003). Such policies have substantially reduced the number and power of parole boards leading to an increase in unconditional releases. Petersillia (2000) effectively summarizes the consequences of this policy shift: "When states abolish parole....they replace a rational, controlled system of `earned' release for selected inmates with `automatic' release for nearly all inmates" (2000:5 emphasis in original). Unconditional release policies do not take into account the level of offender rehabilitation, treatment needs, or risk to the community and consequently, leave offenders illprepared for the complexities of life outside of prison. It is somewhat ironic that unconditional release policies are so closely tied to the "tough-on-crime" mandatory sentencing laws that have -8- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 become so popular at the state-level, when scaling back discretionary parole and probation appears to increase rather than decrease crime. These trends in the field of corrections have led researchers, policymakers, and corrections officials to shift their focus to providing the comprehensive reentry planning and programming needed to help prepare and rehabilitate prisoners who are transitioning back to the community. The number of individuals leaving prison unprepared to live outside of a correctional facility is compromising public safety and putting a strain on community and government resources. These trends in correctional policy and practice, however, are not the only challenges that must be faced in developing effective reentry programs. We will explore these challenges in detail below. CHALLENGES
There are a number of different system- and individual-level barriers that can impede successful reentry programming. The sharp decline in prison programming participation by offenders nationwide, for example, poses a major challenge when attempting to provide more comprehensive reentry programming for prisoners. In fact, participation in all types of prison programming decreased from 1991 to 1997 (La Vigne, Kachnowski, Travis, Naser, & Visher 2003). Much of this decline in institution-based programming is likely attributed to the lack of incentives for offenders to actively engage with such programs; in some cases, participating in reentry programming may actually delay release further or place additional demands on prisoners without corresponding benefits for doing so (Petersilia 2001). The low program participation rates are particularly disturbing in the area of substance abuse treatment. It is estimated that between 70 and 85 percent of state prison inmates need substance abuse treatment and only 13 percent actually receive it (Petersilia 2000). In this case, many offenders are not "participating" in such programming -9- WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 because it is simply not offered to them. In Wyoming, for example, sex offender treatment programming was only recently made available to some offenders who fit this treatment profile. Petersillia (2003) outlines numerous policies and practices that hinder successful reentry. Publicly available criminal records, for example, are sometimes inaccurate and yet, "are shared with landlords, financial institutions, and employers" (108). These records can have long-lasting, detrimental effects on returning inmates as they strive to get ahead and are faced with the stigma of being an ex-convict. Criminal registration and sex offender community notification often have the same effect. In Wyoming, state criminal histories are available to the public. This includes arrests without final dispositions, which can still severely stigmatize an individual even if he or she was exonerated. Unlike many other states, however, Wyoming does not provide prisoner records to the public via the Internet. Low socio-economic status and corresponding financial needs are another challenge in providing effective reentry programming. It is difficult, sometimes impossible, for ex-convicts to have access to general financial assistance and welfare (Petersilia 2003). Much like other states across the nation, Wyoming has a policy that bans welfare for people convicted of drug felonies for life. This policy does not exclude minors or first-time offenders and "continues despite an individual's successful job history, participation in drug treatment, abstinence from drug use, or avoidance of recidivism" (Ibid :124). The parenting rights of former prisoners are also often restricted substantially even upon release. Petersilia (2003) clearly describes how the federal Adoption and Safe Families Act enacted in 1997 negatively impacts returning offenders: AFSA prohibits individuals with certain criminal convictions from being approved as foster or adoptive parents and requires state to terminate parental rights in cases where the parents have been found to have committed murder, voluntary manslaughter, or acts of serious violence against their children. Permanently separating children from their violent parents has merit. But ASFA also accelerates the termination of parental rights for children who have been in foster care for 15 of the most recent 22 months (2003:127). - 10 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 This means that a growing number of parents in prison will have their parental rights terminated, resulting in long-term consequences for both incarcerated parents and their children and families. Other barriers to reentry include employment and workplace restrictions, housing needs and homelessness, and restrictions on voting rights and democratic participation. In fact, Wyoming bars felons from voting after a single felony conviction. Current and former prisoners, parolees, and felony probationers cannot vote in this state (Solomon et al. 2004). One in four African-American men in Wyoming have lost the right to vote for life (Travis et al. 2001). As mentioned in a June 222, 2005 editorial in the New York Times, however, this trend is gradually reversing with many states recognizing the need to reinstate voting rights once an offender has successfully fulfilled his or her correctional obligations. Because the bulk of prisoners come from fairly low-income backgrounds, they often have minimal work experience and fairly low education levels and job skills. Even if they are fully prepared for productive employment, employers are more reluctant to hire former prisoners than any other group of disadvantaged workers (Petersilia 2003). In fact, many major corporations have an explicit policy of not hiring former felons for any positions within their companies. These employment challenges, coupled with social and political stigmatization, substance abuse issues, and a decrease in available prison programming, all impede an individual's success in reentering society after incarceration. Moreover, some offenders have a difficult time adjusting to post-prison life because of the psychological costs and pains of prison itself (Haney 2002). In addition to these individual-level challenges, there are also a number of bureaucratic and administrative policy-level barriers to developing and implementing an effective reentry initiative. Basile (2002), for example, suggests that there is not enough collaboration occurring between agencies when it comes to reentry programming. In particular, he urges criminal justice agencies to build coalitions with non-criminal justice entities to more fully meet the needs of the transitioning - 11 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 offender. The criminal justice field simply cannot be expected to create a holistic program alone, especially when there are other agencies better suited to addressing specific needs such as health care or employment training The reentry research literature has also found that gender can pose a considerable challenge in reentry programming. While more than 70,000 women are released from state and federal prison annually and nearly 90,000 women are currently on parole, female offenders are often overlooked in the development of reentry programs (WPA 2003). Women offenders often have different needs from male offenders and might require special programming. Research has found that, for example, "women offenders have histories of sexual and/or physical abuse that appear to be major roots of subsequent delinquency, addiction, and criminality" (Covington 2002:128). Women also put a heavy emphasis on relationships. An estimated 70 percent of women offenders have young children and not surprisingly, "separation from and concern about the well being of their children are considered to be among the most damaging aspects of prison for women (Ibid :131)." BEST PRACTICES: FEATURES OF SUCCESSFUL PRISONER REENTRY PROGRAMS
Given these formidable challenges, what then can be done to help facilitate the successful reentry of offenders back to the community? The scholarly and applied research literature reveals several components or "best practices" that have been associated with successful reentry programs and ultimately, lower recidivism rates. The following section describes what works in helping offenders succeed after release. According to a recent Bureau of Governmental Research report, the key elements of successful reentry programs include the following individual, program, and system-level features: (Taxman, Young, Byrne, Holsinger, & Anspach 2002) Systematic multi-agency collaboration Comprehensive, integrated, and flexible support services - 12 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 A focus on long-term outcomes by assuring continuity of interventions Providing the proper dosage of interventions Use of informal social controls Offender accountability Moreover, criminal justice scholars Travis and Petersilia, call for a reentry perspective that focuses on the timing of the release decision, the procedures for making the release decision, preparation of the prisoner, the prisoner's family, and the community for release, supervision after release, and linkages between in-prison and pos-release activities (2001). The most critical element of prisoner reentry is the link between in-prison services and community-based aftercare (Travis et al. 2001). This essential link is, to some extent, a defining feature of any true prisoner reentry effort. When provided both before and after release from prison, medical care, substance abuse treatment, work experience and job training, medications, and mental health therapy all help reduce recidivism (Hammett, Roberts, & Kennedy 2001; Solomon et al. 2004; Travis et al. 2001). Because the majority of prisoners who enter prison eventually leave, starting a reentry plan at conviction, instead of a few weeks before release, will better prepare prisoners for reentry (Travis 2000; Wilkinson 2001). This key linkage between institution-based treatment and community-based aftercare services is especially critical in the months right after release from prison, the time frame when offenders are most likely to re-offend (Travis 2003). Another element of successful reentry is to involve victims during the sentencing, parole decision, and community supervision phases of reentry. According to Herman & Wasserman (2001), "parole-related victim participation can help the criminal justice system take advantage of victims' critical knowledge about offenders" (435). Working closely with victim organizations can also be helpful. Victim organizations are uniquely attuned to victim needs and offender behavior, which is helpful in designing effective reentry initiatives. - 13 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 Along with victim involvement, community involvement should be a priority. The research literature on the role of the broader community in reentry has "consistently shown that informal social control agents are more powerful than formal agents of control in achieving and maintaining behavior change" (Young, Taxman, & Byrne 2002:9). In other words, the community has substantial power to uphold offender accountability while also communicating to offenders that society has a vested interest in their success. Bryne, Taxman, & Young (2002) argue that a successful reentry program involves three essential characteristics: leadership, partnership, and ownership. Effective leadership is defined by the ability of managers to articulate their "vision" to reentry staff, offenders, and the community. There must be strong individual organizational leadership as well as strong leadership within the collective partnership. Partnership requires individual organizations to rethink their mission in light of the public safety goal and then redefine roles and responsibilities accordingly. Ideally, partnership members are involved on three levels: policy development, operational practice, and staff decisionmaking: "Strategic planning must be integrated at all [three of these] levels to ensure that the partnership moves from `paper' to practice"(Ibid :5). Ownership requires those involved to accept the notion that offender reentry problems are everyone's problem. Combining these three components effectively on the management and operational levels results in an effective and wellrun reentry program. Academic and applied researchers interested in what works to reduce recidivism have identified several components of successful reentry programs that are correlated with lower recidivism. For example, Seiter (2002) surveyed 114 parole officers in Missouri to gather opinion data on what factors help reduce recidivism. This sample of parole officers identified maintaining steady employment, staying drug free, receiving support from family and friends, and developing - 14 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 stable patterns of behavior as the most critical aspects of an individual's success in the reentry process. Studies have also shown that treatment interventions such as cognitive skills development, drug treatment, and vocational/educational programs are successful at reducing recidivism (Travis et al. 2001). Cognitive therapy is based on the social learning model which suggests criminal behavior is learned. Consequently, these programs focus on interpersonal and coping skills along with alternative ways of thinking. Such interventions are most effective when matched to prisoner risks and needs, are managed and implemented effectively, are combined with surveillance techniques, and are supported through post-release supervision and treatment. Because prisoners have unique needs related to health, including a disproportionately high rate of substance abuse, addressing these health needs is another key feature of a successful reentry program. Alcohol abuse, for example, is linked to 80 percent of crimes committed by incarcerated persons in the United States (Solomon et al. 2004). The rate of communicable disease (such as HIV and AIDS, Hepatitis C, and Tuberculosis) is much higher for the incarcerated population than the general population. Treatment for these issues after release is critical. When released, a prisoner is more likely to stay actively engaged in the treatment process if he or she has the following (Ibid): Medication to cover any gaps before medical benefits are obtained after release A copy of the prison medical summary Scheduled follow-up appointments (not just referrals; Hammett et al. 2001) Assistance completing applications for medical benefits Connections to other reentry services such as housing assistance, cash benefits, and treatment for mental health and substance abuse problems Hammett et al. (2001) list the following types of health-related services that are necessary for a successful transition: Discharge planning, community linkages, and continuity of care Adherence to treatment regimens Availability of housing Quick access to benefit programs Particular needs of dually and triply diagnosed individuals - 15 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 The amount of family involvement also greatly influences a prisoner's success in transitioning back to the community. As we would expect, research has found that offenders with strong family ties typically recidivate less (Visher & Travis 2003). Continued contact with family members during and following incarceration can reduce recidivism and foster reintegration (Solomon et al. 2004). Since former prisoners may also be a destabilizing force on a family, family connections can be maintained and strengthened through family-oriented in-prison programming such as marital workshops, family education, and parenting skills (Solomon et al. 2004; Visher & Travis 2003). One of the most prevalent components of successful reentry in the literature is work programs during prison and solid employment after prison. Research shows that having a legitimate job substantially reduces the chances of re-offending and the higher the wages, the less likely one is to recidivate (Solomon et al. 2004). Vocational training and/or work release programs can also help prepare prisoners for the workplace by improving job readiness skills. One study found, for instance, that work programs have a significant impact on employment outcomes and recidivism rates of males who are over the age of 26 (Seiter & Kadela 2003). As with other reentry components, employment-related follow-up after release is critical (Solomon et al. 2004). Criminal justice researchers have also examined how education programs factor into the reentry equality. A recent study by Seiter & Kadela (2003) that reviewed evaluations of a number of prisoner reentry programs found that education programs increase education achievement scores but do not appear to directly reduce recidivism. Given the strong link between educational achievement and employment, they argue that education programs that link prison programs to community-based resources after release are needed. Offering education can be useful in ultimately increasing offender qualifications to help them become more marketable in the job market and thus, reduce the likelihood of recidivism. - 16 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 Faith-based programming is also a frequent feature of successful reentry programs. In fact, prisoners who identify themselves as religious tend to have fewer health problems overall than those who do not (Solomon et al. 2004; Urban Institute 2004b). In one study, inmates who attended ten or more prison fellowship ministries bible study sessions in one year were nearly three times less likely (than a matched comparison group) to be rearrested during the twelve months after release (Urban Institute 2004b). Additionally, some studies have found that prisoners who participate in religious programming while incarcerated receive fewer disciplinary infractions than those who do not (Solomon et al. 2004). Hercik (2004) argues that faith is the forgotten factor in reducing crime and that services provided via faith-based organizations are vital to increasing public safety. Because faith-based organizations have a high degree of credibility within the community, establishing these connections and garnering support for reentry programs often meets minimal resistance when such organizations serve as stewards for these efforts (Solomon et al. 2004). Visher & Travis (2003) suggest that those who can fall back into functional roles already in place prior to prison fare better than those who cannot. They also suggest that the individual's longterm post-prison reintegration is dependent upon an individual's pre-prison circumstances (such as demographic profile, work history, job skills, criminal history, substance abuse involvement, family characteristics), in-prison experiences (such as length of stay, participation in treatment programs, contact with family and friends, prerelease preparation), immediate post-prison experiences (moment of release, initial housing needs, transition assistance, family support), and post-release integration experiences (employment experiences, influence of peers, family connections, social service support, criminal justice supervision). Some of these characteristics, of course, cannot be changed through reentry programming, such as demographic profile and criminal history (men, younger prisoners, African-Americans, and those with longer prior criminal histories are more likely to return to prison). Most other characteristics, however, can be influenced and changed by - 17 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 effective programming and thus, breaking the cycle of criminality that is so common among prisoners in the United States. Another innovative practice that is gaining support among both researchers and practitioners is the use of specialized reentry courts to implement a system of sanctions and incentives that would encourage and help offenders (Basile 2002; Wilkinson & Bucholtz 2003). By providing a combination of surveillance, supervision, and rehabilitative treatment, it is predicted that these courts will help ex-offenders stay crime free. There is also a growing body of research on what works in reentry specifically for the female offender population. One study recommends, for example, that women are provided with appropriate and immediate in-prison planning along with tools, skills, and resources to successfully reintegrate into the community (WPA 2003). A particularly innovative study was conducted by Galbraith (1998), who interviewed ten women who have had experience with the criminal justice system along with ten leaders/innovators in systems that work with women to discover what factors help transitioning women succeed. Nine women were living in the community and had successfully transitioned from correctional to community settings and one woman was still incarcerated at the time of the interviews. Some of the key themes that emerged from these interviews included: Proper assessments of substance abuse issues, mental health, and medical histories are necessary in understanding what can and needs to be provided for a woman in prison. Providing women with proper medication helps them overcome the difficulties of mental illness and appropriate medication can reduce the symptoms of psychosis and enhance the quality of life. Medical examinations and strip searches can often re-traumatize victims of abuse. Consequently, having female guards and staff communicating about exactly what is occurring can help reduce fear and re-victimization. The institutional use of seclusion and restraint for women in crisis can often lead to retraumatization, lower self-esteem, a heightened sense of shame, and feelings of humiliation and rage. - 18 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 In sum, Galbraith argues that "Prior planning, availability of alternatives for expression, active participation by the [inmates]...in developing that plan, awareness of crisis protocols, and adequate oversight regarding the implementation of the protocols...make everyone safer" (1998:98). Creating a safe environment in correctional institutions and in treatment is another factor of success for women. Women offenders typically need a place where they can talk, ask questions, be honest and not be judged. Being respectful of women's physical and emotional space provides them with the safety and security to make better choices. Women also reported that supportive relationships, job training, education, substance abuse and mental health treatment, parenting programming, and financial resources have helped them succeed once released from prison (Covington 2002). Understanding what the research says about "what works" in establishing a reentry program is invaluable to implementing effective strategies in order to ease the transition from prison to community. The next section illustrates more concretely how specific programs are implementing these factors of success. REENTRY INITIATIVE PROFILES
Break the Cycle (BTC), Maryland Break the Cycle (BTC) has been implemented in seven jurisdictions in Maryland and it targets offenders who have been convicted of drug-related crimes (La Vigne et al. 2003). "BTC uses a combination of drug testing, substance abuse treatment, and a system of sanctions and rewards to reduce substance use among parolees [and]...the Division of Parole and Probation is responsible for administering drug testing and delivering appropriate sanctions" (Ibid :22-23). The primary objective of BTC is to reduce drug use among probationers and parolees. They accomplish this by using "frequent drug testing and...immediate sanctions for violations of drug conditions in an effort to - 19 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 encourage abstinence and participation in treatment" (Harrell, Roman, Bhati, & Parthasarathy 2003:1). An outcome evaluation of the BTC program found that, as a result of BTC participation, probationers and parolees with drug conditions had a slightly, but significantly lower likelihood of arrest for a drug offense and significantly fewer drug arrests overall. Additionally, the BTC sites that used more drug testing and sanctions in response to infractions experienced greater reductions in new offenses. The evidence from this program evaluation suggests that "reductions in arrest rates among offenders with drug conditions will occur when drug testing is widely used and accompanied by sanctions" (Ibid :iv). Chicago's Safer Foundation Chicago's Safer Foundation offers basic education courses to ex-offenders and incarcerated persons (Finn 1998). They teach basic employment skills such as how to complete a job application and prepare for interviews. Such work-related assistance is an important piece of the reentry puzzle, as the research has shown that consistent employment reduces recidivism (Petersilia 2003; Solomon et al. 2004). During and after the participating in the Safer Foundation course, "employment specialists" help students find employment and case managers then follow students for a year to help them maintain success (Finn 1998). The Safer Foundation also provides classes for youth that focus on continuing education. The courses are based on a peer learning model where students help each other in groups of 3 to 5 that are supervised by professional facilitators. This model puts the youth offender's susceptibility to peer influence to positive use. Chicago's Safer Foundation has also produced concrete positive results. Students participating in the youth program between 1995 and 1996 improved their basic skills test scores by an average of 12.5 percent. Moreover, 59 percent of Safer students were employed for thirty continuous days during the fiscal year ending June 1996. Even more impressively, after 180 days, 99 percent had no convictions on a new charge. - 20 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 The Urban Institute's "Reentry Portfolio" While the previous two best practice reentry initiatives highlight how specialized reentry programming can produce positive outcomes for offenders, the Urban Institute's "Reentry Portfolio" is a best practice in reentry research. The Urban Institute has made research on prisoner reentry one of its key criminal justice priorities and the organization has produced dozens of high quality studies on this topic (See the following website for the full list of Urban Institute-sponsored prisoner reentry research: http://www.urban.org/content/PolicyCenters/Justice/Projects/ PrisonerReentry/Publications/pubs.htm). This "Reentry Portfolio" also includes the facilitation of numerous "Roundtable" discussions of prisoner reentry issues and programs with national experts in the field (Urban Institute 2004a). The Reentry Roundtable meetings have brought together prominent academics, practitioners, community leaders, policymakers, advocates, and former prisoners about twice a year to advocate prisoner reentry research and practice. The Urban Institute Reentry Portfolio also focused on specific state experiences designing and implementing Reentry programs. In Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, and Illinois, the Urban Institute has examined the policies surrounding reentry, the characteristics and geographic distribution of returning prisoners, how prisoners are prepared for reentry, the process by which they are released, how they are supervised once released, and the social and economic climates of the neighborhoods that house the most retuning prisoners. "Snapshot" reports similar to those described above have been done in Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, and Virginia (Urban Institute 2005). Given the solid research foundation built by the Urban Institute, they have been able to provide researchers, corrections officials, and policymakers with the information they need to develop and implement more successful reentry programs. To incorporate some of this knowledge base into this SVORI process evaluation, for example, we sought and received permission from principal investigator Nancy La Vigne to replicate some of the offender - 21 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 interview questions they used in a recent Urban Institute report entitled, "Chicago Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home" (La Vigne, Visher, & Castro 2004). In this way, our evaluation will build on and expand some of the work the Urban Institute has begun on offender perceptions and experiences in the reentry process. A clear consensus has emerged among criminal justice researchers, corrections officials, and policymakers, that one of the most effective ways to stop the revolving door effect is to develop comprehensive individualized prisoner reentry services. Even though there are numerous challenges and barriers that impede reentry planning and implementation, the best practice research reviewed here reminds us that there are many ways state agencies and community-based organizations can help ease the transition from prison to the community. Victim and community involvement, individualized treatment planning, family and marital programs, and employment training and work programs have all been correlated with success. Helping offenders find housing, employment, and a positive social network can help break the vicious cycle of crime that so many prisoners continue to be stuck in. Wyoming's SVORI program has begun incorporating many of these elements of successful reentry programs into their pilot effort with serious and violent offenders. This evaluation will explore in detail where the Wyoming SVORI program is most effective and where there is room for improvement. An Overview of the Wyoming SVORI Program & Evaluation Activities
On July 16, 2002, the Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) formally announced that they would serve as the lead agency on a collaborative pilot reentry program funded with $1.8 million in federal funds. The WDOC press release described the program as follows: - 22 - WYSAC, University of Wyoming SVORI Phase 1 Evaluation 2005 "The Wyoming S