Specialized Discharge Planning
What Works in Criminal Justice
The Future of Oklahoma Corrections
Welcome to a special edition of Inside Corrections. Hopefully you will find
the time to read all the articles related to research, analysis, evaluation,
data collection and how that information is used in our profession. During
this time of a deepening recession, data driven decision making becomes more
critical.
I am obliviously bias when it comes to bragging on our DOC employees. Accolades
go out to Dr. Mike Connelly, Courtney Charish, Chris Hyde, Renee Phillip
and Bud Clark for being one of the finest evaluation and analysis units in
the country. The quality of work and responsivity to requests are unsurpassed.
The DOC has always strived for transparency and with increased demands to
quantify utilization of resources and every dollar appropriated the need
to maintain a quality unit of evaluation and analysis is paramount. Directly
and/or indirectly every employee in the DOC is impacted by this unit’s
work. Resources are garnered through the utilization of data analysis whether
it is justifying additional employees through workload data or decisions
on expanding or eliminating programs through survival analysis or a gamut
of other assignments.
The demand for data driven decision making was virtually nonexistent when
I started in corrections 32 years ago. Now data drives our business. Everyone
has data to prove their points and/or arguments. This is especially true
in corrections where data is utilized to demonstrate what works or doesn’t
work or to justify resources. Many times there is competing data where an
entity is subjectively providing or interpreting data to drive a political
agenda or to direct resources in an indefensible direction. In such cases,
it is critical to have a unit that itself uses best practices in the collection,
evaluation and interpretation of data. Also, as often stated, there are two
sides to every story. Such is also the case with data as many times only
providing a limited data set cannot represent the whole story. Again, this
is another example to have a scientifically and statistically correct unit
such as what we currently have.
Dr. Mike Connelly was directing the Wisconsin Sentencing Commission when
the director asked him to come create an Evaluation and Analysis (E&A)
unit. Director Jones saw a need for Evidence Based Practices (EBP), to make
the agency more data driven. The purpose of the E&A unit is to help management
with the development of evidence based practice, and encourage more data
driven decision making.
Dr. Connelly has been promoting his evaluation and analysis unit throughout
the department. He wants the department to know the purpose of the E&A
unit, its capabilities, and its successful project history involving every
division and unit in the agency. In addition, he wants to get people to start
thinking beyond the day to day, and start looking toward the future of the
department. Finally, he feels there has been a steady increase in their use
over the past two and a half years. The role of the E&A unit is evolving
to meet these increasing needs; the value they bring to the table will increase
with the future.
Dr. Connelly returned to the agency in 2006 when Director Jones appointed
him to create the E&A unit. He had previously worked for the agency in
the 1990’s when the Criminal Justice Resource Center (CJRC) was part
of DOC. Currently, he’s working on EBP and whitepapers dealing with
correctional issues. Whitepapers are specific research on a particular topic.
One day to day job responsibility is managing the assignment of new requests
to analyze so one analyst doesn’t have a more intense workload than
the others. He wants people to know the unit is there and can be helpful
to other units. He loves the challenges his job provides, and he is trying
to bring the Oklahoma Department of Corrections to the forefront of research.
Bud Clark has been with the Department of Corrections for 33 years and his
current job title is Data Analyst. Bud is in charge of responding to requests
from other divisions and fulfilling these requests by providing the information.
Currently he is trying to build a survival analysis model. Survival analysis
is very much like recidivism except it takes into consideration the amount
of time the individual was out. One of his accomplishments is he helped write
the Personal Computer side of the Consolidated Record Card (CRC). The CRC
was the former information system program that was used for over 12 years
by the Oklahoma Department of Corrections. Within a few years Bud plans on
retiring, he then plans to work for Barnes and Noble Bookstore.
Christopher Hyde has been with the department for four years and currently
serves as the Data Management Coordinator. He graduated from Oklahoma State
University with a Bachelor’s degree in Management Science Information
Systems. He recently graduated in December with his Master’s degree
in Business Management Administration. His background in education and extensive
training make him an asset to the department. His main job responsibility
is to manage and coordinate offender data for requests from media, legislators,
and federal agencies. The information for these requests is frequently used
to monitor and evaluate the conditions of the offender population. Chris
is currently finishing up transferring the data collection for the Probation
and Parole (P&P) Diversion Program management to COMIT. This program
is a last resort for P&P offenders who are headed to prison. One of his
accomplishments is the implementation of a system to track all E&A’s
requests. It’s very common for someone to come in with a chart and
ask questions about it (e.g. what it is, where did it come from, etc.).The
system allows the analysts to pull the data and information on the request
for that chart. This enables them to explain differences between that chart
and another, and provide the requestor with detailed information about the
request. Chris enjoys his position because he values his co-workers, likes
networking with other DOC employees, and the day to day challenges.
Courtney Charish has been with the Department of Corrections for two years
and serves as Statistical Analyst. She is currently working on her Ph.D.
in Sociology with an emphasis in Criminology. She specializes in data related
to female offenders and mental health issues. These requests normally come
from the Female Offender Management group and the Department of Mental Health.
Currently she’s working on Labor Force Analysis for each facility to
determine whether the population will be large enough in certain areas of
Oklahoma to staff the prisons within the next 10 to 20 years. The data collected
on this project will determine whether certain facilities will remain open,
or if we will need to open a new facility and where? A recent accomplishment
is her involvement in the Mathematica Project with the Department of Mental
Health. This project was a major accomplishment for the E&A unit. Mathematica
even received national news coverage. The Mathematica Project goal was to
get Social Security benefits to inmates before they left the prison if they
needed disability because of mental illness. Another accomplishment of Courtney’s
was the employee survey project. This project was a challenge that used complicated,
in depth analysis. The goal of this project was a way to look into each facility
that would be an unbiased analysis to see where they needed assistance and
also to see which areas they were excelling in. She takes pride in her job
and chose to work for the DOC because she feels analysts who work for the
state can have a larger impact on policies and change.
Renee Philips is the most recent addition to the E&A unit and serves
as Statistical Analyst. She graduated in May with her Master’s degree
from the University of Oklahoma. Renee is a Statistical Analyst specializing
in probation and parole. The correctional field is nothing new to Renee.
She formerly worked with Drug Courts and drug offenders before pursing her
Master’s degree. Renee has been working on data requests dealing with
probation and parole. She has been evaluating their supervision practices
for EBP programs. She has also been working on program evaluations for training
and staff development. Renee is currently excited about getting her feet
wet in the statistical research world. She loves learning something new every
day. Renee looks forward to taking on a new project of her own and being
able to analyze it herself.
Some future goals of the E&A unit are that it would become second nature
for the department as a whole to understand the importance of EBP and data driven
decisions through documentation and data collection. Then use it within their
division to measure success and make improvements when needed. The E&A unit
wants this analytical process to become ingrained in the culture of the Department
of Corrections. Dr. Connelly also wants the Oklahoma Department of Corrections
to be at the forefront of research on a national level. The E&A unit’s
research can prepare us for the future. It can provide an environment for our
workers so they will enjoy coming to work and will allow us to provide for public
safety better.
EVALUATION & ANALYSIS UNIT CONTACT NUMBERS:
MIKE CONNELLY
Administrator
(405)962-6199
mike.connelly@doc.state.ok.us
The people who do the real work:
BUD CLARK
(405)962-6164
bud.clark@doc.state.ok.us
CHRIS HYDE
(405)962-6197
chris.hyde@doc.state.ok.us
COURTNEY CHARISH
(405)962-6194
courtney.charish@doc.state.ok.us
RENEE PHILIPP
(405)962-6088
renee.philipp@doc.state.ok.us
After new discharge planning processes were implemented by the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections (DOC), individuals with serious mental illnesses
were significantly more likely to be enrolled in Medicaid at discharge from
three Oklahoma prisons. The discharge planning processes are part of an initiative
called the “Mental
Health Reentry Program” that relies on collaboration among state agencies
and federal partners to help ensure that inmates with serious, disabling
mental illness receive services and disability support upon discharge from
prison.
DOC estimates that about 1,000 individuals, of the 8,000 offenders discharged
each year, have some form of mental illness. All offenders identified as
having mental illness receive some form of mental health reentry planning;
the new program is targeted to help those individuals with the highest risk
of disability and recidivism. About 200 individuals each year receive the
intensive reentry planning services provided by the Mental Health Reentry
Program.
These are preliminary results of a study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc.,
to be released in April 2009 by the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health
Services Administration (SAMHSA). The results were presented at the 2008 SAMHSA/Center
for Medicaid Services Conference on Medicaid and Mental Health Services/Substance
Abuse Treatment, which took place September 23-24, 2008. The research started
in 2004. Mathematica researchers worked with Oklahoma to design, implement, and
evaluate a program to ensure that adults with serious mental illness had health
insurance coverage upon discharge from correctional facilities. Mathematica’s
evaluation was supported by SAMHSA. Ongoing program activities continue to be
supported by the state of Oklahoma.
With support from Mathematica, the program was collaboratively designed and administered
by DOC, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services
(ODMHSAS), the Oklahoma Department of Human Services (DHS), and the Oklahoma
Health Care Authority (OHCA). Three discharge managers were located in three
DOC facilities with mental health units. The discharge managers identify potential
Medicaid enrollees at least six months prior to release. About four months before
release, the discharge managers begin to work with the inmates to submit Social
Security disability applications. Medicaid applications are submitted about two
months before release.
About 60 days before an inmate is released, a collaborative community-based
Recovery Intensive Care Coordination Team (RICCT) starts working with the
offender. Each RICCT is composed of a certified case manager and a recovery
support peer specialist affiliated with a community mental health center
(CMHC). There are four RICCTs; two are based in Tulsa and two are in Oklahoma
City. RICCTs work with ex-offenders with serious mental illness to help them
transition to community living and receiving mental heath services from the
CMHC.
The program is co-managed by Bob Mann, RN, LSW, coordinator of clinical social
work services for DOC and Randy May, LPC, director of community-based services
for ODMHSAS. In an interview with Bob Mann, OPEN MINDS On-Line News learned
that the Mental Health Reentry program operates in the Joseph Harp medium
security men’s prison; the Mabel Bassett women’s prison, and
the Oklahoma State Penitentiary, a maximum security facility. Offenders identified
during intake assessments who are eligible for the program, but in other
facilities can be transferred to one of the three participating facilities.
Mr. Mann said that when the project started in 2004, it built on the state’s
growing interest in providing better transition services for offenders with
mental illness. In 2004, at the project kick-off, the executive leadership
of DOC, ODMHSAS, DHS, and OHCA met to support the project and agree on goals
for the project outcomes. This consensus at the executive level translated
into regular meetings among agency staff to build trust and share information
to implement the program. The information sharing has continued and in July
2008, DOC and ODMHSAS signed a robust information-sharing agreement that
will allow both DOC and ODMHSAS unprecedented access to clinical information
from records of state-funded treatment provided to mental health services
consumers involved with DOC. The system will go live in December 2008.
The first step to implementing the program was developing understanding among
the agency executives, so that policies would be congruent when implemented.
Mr. Mann said the benefits of congruent policies and information-sharing
has become especially evident in securing Social Security disability benefits
for the participants. Nationally, about 39.7% Social Security disability
applications are accepted without need for further information or revision.
As of September 2008, about 89.6% of the Oklahoma program participants’ Social
Security disability applications are accepted on the first submission. The
end result is that inmates with mental illness leave prison and are immediately
eligible to receive treatment and disability benefits. If the approvals are
delayed, the community-based RICCT’s have access to flexible funding
to help the ex-offender meet basic needs as a stop-gap measure while waiting
for final approval.
SUMMING UP:
We hope it is clear from this issue of Inside Corrections that much has been
and can be done to promote the use and success of data, research, evaluation,
and analysis in DOC operations and programming. It should also be clear that
we know a great deal about what works and how to do it, given the proper support
and resources from policymakers and the public. With these efforts, we can and
will not only be more effective in administration but also more successful in
meeting our public safety goals as well.
We also hope that you have had numerous lightbulbs go off over your head
as you have read this issue, with ideas and concerns about how the Evaluation & Analysis
unit might be able to help you answer questions you have been having about
how well you are doing, how well you can show it, and what else might still
be done. And, as you document successes or run across practices that look
promising, please let us know as well so we can help you spread the word
within the department and around the country. Together, we can make the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections the premier corrections department in the U.S.
on every positive measure that any of us can create.
Thanks for taking the time to read this issue. We will look forward to working
with you.
Any organization wanting to base its practices on actual evidence obviously
needs to know what the research and data say about those practices. Professional
associations such as the American Correctional Association, the American
Probation and Parole Association, and the Association of State Correctional
Administrators have websites with tons of information. In the last decade,
academic journals in criminal justice began to apply theory more to practice,
and journals such as Criminology & Public Policy and Justice Research
and Policy specifically oriented their work to policy and practice. The National
Institute of Justice strongly supported applied research and analysis at
the federal level as well. In addition, researchers and media outside criminal
justice but in related fields such as mental health, health, public policy,
education, psychology, and juvenile development contributed to the quickly
growing literature.
Most of that literature, however, focused on cases or programs specific to
one or just a few jurisdictions that might be significantly different from
what you face daily. So, while interesting, it might not fit what you are
interested in doing or accomplishing. Fortunately, while the problem of relating
what you do to the published studies may never go away, some research and
reporting has been done pulling the respectable studies together into “meta-analyses” that
combine the data and findings into much more useable results that apply across
more boards. From this, within the last dozen years or so, we have been able
to say with much more certainty “what works” and what does not.
The following four reports pinpoint what works in corrections and criminal
justice more definitively along with their major conclusions along with their
websites for you to read more if you choose (and find their bibliographies
of the individual studies).
This first really full-scale meta-analysis report, funded by the National Institute of Justice in 1996, investigated evaluations across virtually every major area of possible criminal justice practice, including corrections. Some of its findings have been challenged but most have been affirmed. Here are their conclusions regarding what the research at that time showed about what worked, what did not, and what still appeared to have promise across most criminal justice areas (you might even find the non-corrections related conclusions interesting!).
Programs For Offenders With Co-occurring Disorders: Jail diversion (pre- and post-booking programs)- 0.0%.
Programs For The General Offender Population: General and specific cognitive-behavioral treatment programs- 8.2%.
Programs For Domestic Violence Offenders: Education/cognitive-behavioral treatment- 0.0%.
Programs For Sex Offenders
Intermediate Sanctions
Program Areas In Need Of Additional Research & Development
(The following types of programs require additional
research before it can be concluded that they do
or do not reduce adult recidivism rates)
http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/pub.asp?docid=06-10-1201
Regarding community corrections specifically, in 2007, nationally known researcher Joan Petersilia discussed what works in community corrections for the Pew Center on the States’ Public Safety Performance Project as part of an interview in Report Three.
Q: Would you describe a few of the most effective community corrections
programs and the results they deliver?
A: First, it is important to note that probably 99 percent of all community
corrections programs in the U.S. today have not been scientifically evaluated.
So, identifying which ones are most effective is impossible. I suspect there
are many excellent programs operating today (such as faith-based mentoring,
etc.), which if subject to evaluation, might be effective. But the corrections
literature includes evaluations mostly of large federally-funded programs,
and most of those are services for drug-addicted felons. From that literature,
we know that intensive community supervision combined with rehabilitation
services can reduce recidivism between 10 and 20 percent. Some drug courts
have also had similarly encouraging results.
Q: And what does the research say about ineffective programs?
A: We know more about what doesn’t work than what does. Research has
shown that boot camps, house arrest, and routine probation and parole supervision
do not reduce recidivism. But again, the majority of community corrections
programs have never been scientifically tested so you have to view these
results cautiously as well.
Q: In your view, what are the principles or themes that run through effective
community corrections programs?
A: At the core of any good community corrections program is the use of an
objective risk and needs assessment. Assessments allow correctional agencies
to assign offenders to the programs that will most likely benefit them. The “risk” part
of the assessment instrument assesses risk to reoffend, and that information
is critical to assigning probationers or parolees to levels of surveillance
and supervision, such as specialized caseloads, frequent drug testing or
electronic monitoring.
The “need” portion of the assessment instrument
identifies the subset of the offender population that research has shown
will benefit from being in rehabilitation treatment programs. Research has
shown that for high and moderate risk offenders, participation in treatment
programs and services has high payoff, but for those with a low risk to reoffend,
life skills programs are more appropriate. This is the most efficient use
of scarce correctional resources as well as the best way to increase public
safety. Of course, the next core principle is to make certain that the rehabilitation
programs are of sufficient quality to make a difference.
There are now several
scoring methods that rate the quality of rehabilitation programs along such
dimensions as staff qualifications and training, use of a tested curriculum
or program model, and use of cognitive-behavioral or social learning methods.
These and other program characteristics have been shown to increase success.
In short, effective corrections programs must get the right offender in the
right program. And then of course, we must continually evaluate costs and
program outcomes and revise accordingly. Research over the last several decades
also reinforces the importance of the community and familial supports as
sources of informal social control.
Effective programs involve family and
community members in a very real and proactive way. Effective programs recognize
that government programs ultimately end, and the hand-off between the formal
and informal systems is ultimately what determines success. In my opinion,
community corrections agencies that collaborate closely with non-profits
and other community organizations, who in turn work to integrate the offender’s
family and social support system, will have the most success.
http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=31180
http://cdpsweb.state.co.us/cccjj/PDF/WW08_022808.pdf
The process of determining and showing whether your programs, existing
or new, are accomplishing what you want from them can seem overwhelming.
Public policy courses and professional evaluators can make everything so
formal, general, and abstract that it may not seem like it is worth it to
go to the trouble, even assuming you have the time and resources. But the
process is not as bad as “experts” can make it sound.
Actually,
there are only a few simple questions for you to answer to get yourself in
position to do and provide a very good analysis of those programs and activities.
Negative, ambivalent, or confused answers do not mean you have to give up,
just that they need more work. Your first question, of course, is, well,
what are those questions?
Here you go:
Okay, so it really was not just a few simple questions. Depending on what
you are doing or want to do, they can be pretty daunting, even crippling
or terminating. But these questions can all serve as a kind of checklist
for your thoughts and planning.
If/when you are required to justify what
you do or want to change, if you have already answered these questions
to yourself, you should be prepared for just about anything the folks you
are working with may want to know.
And keep in mind that, in the Oklahoma
Department of Corrections, you do not have to answer all these things by
yourself. You have colleagues across the department on the same team, you
have Quality Assurance to help with the process questions, and, of course,
you have us, the Evaluation & Analysis unit. We’re from the government and we’re
here to help. Seriously.
Predicting where Oklahoma corrections will go in the future may be harder
than predicting Oklahoma weather. Who in 1970 saw all the prisons and offenders
under DOC supervision that we have today? Who could have predicted that the
state would not build a new prison for 30 years? With all the demands on
state revenue from infrastructure, medical care, education, mental health,
pensions, and other concerns, you wanna bet what DOC’s share of that revenue will be 20, 30 years from
now? Or how we will be supervising offenders? Or where? More electronic (satellite?)
monitoring and fewer cells? Tasering from space if a bracelet breaks its zone?
Will extension of DNA testing to frequent non-violent offenses like Burglary
II, as is now occurring in some states, bump our populations even higher? Will
the advancements being made in pharmaceuticals and bioengineering allow us to
break addictions or stop them from ever occurring, with the dramatic impact on
crime and corrections that would have? Or something no one has even thought of
yet? This is why most prediction is left to bookmakers.
Like the weather, though, the closer to the present we keep our predictions,
the closer to the data whose trends we are using to predict, the closer we
will likely be in foreseeing what the next few years hold for the department
and for the state. With that in mind, let’s close this issue with a quick look
at what near-term projections seem to tell us about special populations that
may pose particular issues for us—specifically, aging offenders, female
offenders, and Hispanic/Latino offenders.
Aging Offenders
Now consider this: Corrections Today in
August 2008 published a report on a national survey including older prisoner
health (Sterns et al., 2008). Among the authors’ findings:
Formal analysis of the aging offender population in Oklahoma extends to the mid-1990s. In 1995, Southwestern Oklahoma State University researchers examined DOC offender data from 1980 to 1994, breaking down increases in the 50 years of age and older population by race, gender, offense type, and percentage of total offender population. The authors concluded that Oklahoma and its DOC needed to pay greater attention to the growth of that age group:
More recently, in 2005, the Oklahoma Criminal Justice Resource Center produced
a report on “The Aging of the Oklahoma Prison Population: Implications
for Health Care Costs.” That report used 45 as the threshold age for “aging” offenders,
making it less comparable to other research on the topic which generally
uses the 50 and over threshold. However, its detail of the increase in the
45 and over population and projections of future growth paralleled that of
national and other state research. The report reviewed literature that indicated
high continuing rates of increase in health care costs and thus overall correctional
budgets due to the aging offender population. It also detailed statistics
showing that “the health care expenses for persons age 55 to 64 are
more than twice as much as those for the 19 to 44 age group” in Oklahoma’s
DOC. It further demonstrated that the increase in aging offender population
was due both to increased receptions within the age category and to longer
time served for offenders, particularly violent offenders. The average
age of prison receptions in Oklahoma had increased from 30.0 in 1990 to
32.9 in 2004. Finally, the report projected an increase in the 45+ population
from 5,651 in FY 2005 to 9,147 in FY 2015.
Finally, consider that an even faster growing offender population is those
convicted of crimes for which they must serve 85% of sentence before receiving
earned credits. 85% offenders have increased 114% over the last five years
and project out to another 87% increase in the next five years if their
numbers continue at past rates. This may not be realistic, given a possible
plateauing effect on their intake which is often seen in these situations,
but their extended time served before release will pile them up and keep
their numbers a large percentage of the offender population. They have
increased from 9% of the total offender population in FY 2004 to 17% in
FY 2008. Given the length and public popularity of their sentences, these
offenders will very likely maintain the high levels of aging offenders
in DOC facilities for years to come.
Clearly, the offender population 50 years of age and older will concern
correctional officials and government policymakers in Oklahoma for the
foreseeable future. This will require greater attention to training, programs,
materials, facilities, and care oriented specifically to this population
and to its subgroups, such as female offenders, noted on the next page.
This in turn means greater costs, perhaps 2-3 times those of the general
offender population. Thus, even if general population growth plateaus or
decreases in coming years, the costs of the “aging” offender
population will keep necessary overall expenditures at current or higher
levels. Oklahoma correctional officials and government policymakers need
to continue planning for this future with the blueprints laid out by the
research and analysis put forward in this paper. Failure to adjust appropriately
will likely mean even higher eventual costs.
Female Offenders
Oklahoma is known widely for its large per capita female offender population.
Projections for its female offender population through FY 2013 indicate
that ranking will remain high, if past rates remain the same.
Projected Female Offender Population
The 3,028 projection for FY 2013 represents an expected 11% increase from
FY 2008, compared to a 10% increase expected for the total inmate population
in the same time period at current rates. In response, the Oklahoma Department
of Corrections (DOC) has created a Deputy Director position dedicated to
managing female institutions, facilities, and programs.
Research has shown that, as Oklahoma and other states attempt to deal effectively
with their incarcerated females and reduce their numbers and rate of increase,
they will have to face and overcome obstacles regarding “(1) treatment
for substance abuse problems; (2) health care; (3) mental health issues;
(4) violence prevention and post-traumatic stress disorder; (5) educational
and employment services; (6) safe, secure, affordable housing; and (7) child
advocacy and family reunification.” Fortunately, research and practice
can provide examples for possibly successful reentry in the face of the specific
needs of those offenders. Consider these examples:
• At the Maryland Correctional Institution for Women, officials created
a Female Offender Management Work Group. That workgroup led to “a new
risk assessment form specifically for female offenders, increased staff training
on trauma and gender responsive programming, an enhanced facility design that
fosters social and mental rehabilitation, and new visitation rules that allow
children to sit on their mothers’ laps. Other improvements include[d]
the banishment of partitions for family visits and transition services following
incarceration, including education services, substance abuse treatment, and
housing assistance.”
• New Mexico’s “woman-centered approach for female offenders” featured “intensive
gender-specific case management programming, a family literacy program designed
to help mothers read to their children, a therapeutic residential program that
focuses on a variety of female-specific issues, and Dolls Against Domestic
Abuse in which female inmates make dolls for children who were present at a
domestic violence scene and now live in a safe house. Other programs include
regular therapeutic visits with children, overnight visitation for incarcerated
mothers, creative writing and poetry for female classes, community work release,
reentry planning, and televisitation. . . . Staff for the New Mexico Department
of Corrections complete a 3-day training session on ‘Working with Female
Offenders’ in order to raise awareness of women’s unique needs
and issues.”
• Analysis of the Cameron neighborhood in Chicago, a poor but recently
proactive community developing initiatives including an employment and case
management program for female offenders, recommended the following for female
reentry: “(1) a comprehensive and multidimensional assessment of psychological,
social, and educational needs prior to release; (2) assistance with identifying
family issues for family conferencing and negotiation; and (3) closer attention
to job placement that enables women to gain income and gradual experience in
the job market.”
• Several states, including Connecticut, Iowa, Maryland, New York, and
Ohio, have considered development and use of “certificates of employability.” These
official certificates are issued upon release from correctional custody to
offenders who, through their performance in prison (treatment, training, and
behavior), can be certified as ready to perform productively in the workplace.
These certificates can be used to defer or eliminate application of laws prohibiting
felons from entering licensed or other credentialed professions. Since they
are most likely given to low risk and/or non-violent offenders, a description
that also applies to many female inmates, this policy option might prove most
suitable for the female population, especially if piloted for testing prior
to larger scale implementation.
• Research in 2008 indicated that outcomes for women in a prison therapeutic
community (TC) or in an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) “improved
significantly on all variables in each of the outcome domains (mental health,
substance use, criminal behavior, and HIV risk).” However, TC participants,
with less exposure to sexual violence and with fewer prior criminal arrests,
did better after six months on depression and posttraumatic symptom severity
and in trading sex for money or drugs.
• Other 2008 research found that counseling programs such as Trauma Affect
Regulation: Guide for Education and Therapy (TARGET) and Present Centered Therapy
(PCT), which “enhance women’s abilities to deal effectively with
current challenges and relationships,” successfully reduced drop-out
rates and levels of post-traumatic stress disorder for incarcerated females
similarly to long-term therapies.
• Finally, in 2006 the former director of the National Institue of Justice
called for a specific research agenda on these concerns “that is woman-centered,
not offender-centered, and not even woman-offender-centered. As important as
it is to understand the consequences of the increase in women in prison, and
the intersection of drug abuse and the war on drugs on women, the ripple effects
of this social experiment are far reaching and the research agenda must be
just as far reaching.” In other words, the development and application
of a top-flight research capability and Evidence-Based Practice for issues
concerning incarcerated females could pay substantial dividends.
In addition, as mentioned above, consider the impact of combining the aging
of offenders with the growing female population. One in 2004 noted the tendency
of correctional officials to ignore gender differences, accusing them of “a
pattern of benign neglect” of their needs and “the unique living
environment, health care and programming needs of aging female inmates.” Likewise,
others discovered that as the numbers of women in prison have increased,
so have the number of older women behind bars. These older women present
unique problems for institutions trying to meet their health care needs.
We report findings from our national pilot study of federal and state prisons
for women. Prisons report basic services for physical and mental health care,
and most report having hospice services. However, those that house larger
percentages or that expect to house larger percentages of older prisoners
do not significantly differ in their approaches to assessing and providing
health care from their counterparts. By failing to anticipate the increase
in older women, prisons may be failing to provide for many of the health
needs of this vulnerable population.
Thus, although the female inmate population may not be growing at the same
rates as some of the other specific populations within DOC custody, they
will clearly continue to present needs and issues that will require acute
awareness and careful programming in the future.
Hispanic/Latino Offenders
The Sentencing Project in August 2003 published a report on a national survey
of Hispanics/Latinos in U.S. criminal justice, including their status as
offenders. Among the authors’ findings:
Hispanic Women Offenders
From the available research and recommendations, we can identify two basic
sets of needs for effective management and treatment of the Hispanic/Latino
offender population in Oklahoma corrections. First, because Hispanic/Latino
offenders may be identified as “white” or “black,” it
is clear that greater sensitivity must be paid to data collection and reporting.
Two chief means exist to denote Hispanics and Latinos: self-report and
intake officer determination. Neither is completely reliable. As a result,
some Hispanics and Latinos may end up classified as White or Black. Further,
categories of Mixed Race may not carefully enough distinguish those with
Hispanic/Latino heritage from others without that heritage. Special procedures
and sensitivity to this data problem should be developed if evidence-based
practice is to target this special population most effectively.
Second, along the same line, greater emphasis on bilingualism and on cultural
awareness may be required in the future. This would certainly apply to
correctional officers and case managers in institutions but could also
involve counselors and treatment providers, educators, health care (physical
and mental), and even top executive staff in the facilities. Reentry staff
and probation and parole officers may also be included.
In any case, the Hispanic/Latino offender population in Oklahoma prisons
is the fastest growing racial/ethnic population in DOC. While the numbers
are not a large proportion of the total offender population at this time,
their growth and rate of increase pose definite questions for effective
and efficient planning and management of department institutions. Among
the questions are (1) accurate and complete collection of data on their
actual numbers and (2) sufficient awareness and application of necessary
language and cultural needs to prevent inappropriate planning for and responses
to the day-to-day operations of facilities with growing numbers of Hispanics
and Latinos. DOC might address these concerns by assigning investigation
and recommendations of future concerns and needs to a committee with a
timetable for a report on the best ways to meet the challenges of this
increasing population. DOC’s
current Diversity Committee could be the platform from which this specific
need could be addressed.
Hispanic/Latino offenders in the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (DOC)
have increased 45% since FY 2005 and project out to another 86% increase
in the next five years if their numbers continue to increase at past average
rates. This will take DOC from 1,721 in FY 2008 to 3,199 in 2013. No other
racial or ethnic group of offenders is growing at this pace in DOC institutions.
It is reasonable, therefore, to ask what, if any, special considerations
and actions DOC might need to take to manage that population growth effectively.
Summing Up
We hope it is clear from this issue of Inside Corrections that much has been and can be done to promote the use and success of data, research, evaluation, and analysis in DOC operations and programming. It should also be clear that we know a great deal about what works and how to do it, given the proper support and resources from policymakers and the public. With these efforts, we can and will not only be more effective in administration but also more successful in meeting our public safety goals as well.
