BALTIMORE, MD – I spent most of my professional life in law enforcement as a cop and then as the senior specialist for crime prevention for the Department of Justice’s clearinghouse and then as the director of information management for the National Crime Prevention Council.
When I became the director of public information for the Maryland Department of Public Safety (a combined law enforcement and correctional agency) I was introduced to advocates and criminologists who told me that programs for offenders worked to reduce recidivism.
They were well educated and passionate people who insisted that the state needed to do more to help people reenter from prison and to successfully complete parole and probation. The governor’s office wanted an end to escalating correctional budgets. Other parts of the justice system complained that corrections took too much of available funds.
So I started asking questions of our five correctional agency heads. “Why weren’t we doing more to rehabilitate criminal offenders,” I asked. “Because the programs touted by advocates are flawed,” they said. “They don’t reduce recidivism.”
Robert Magnus Martinson was an American sociologist, whose 1974 study “What Works?” concerning the shortcomings of existing prisoner rehabilitation programs, was highly influential, creating what became known as the “nothing works” doctrine.
His later studies were more optimistic, but less influential at the time. He served as chairman of the Sociology Department at the City College of New York, and then founded the Center for Knowledge in Criminal Justice Planning.
Martinson’s proclamation was startling and stalled interest in providing programs for offenders. “If nothing works, why spend the money?” asked legislators throughout the country.
Yet the advocates were undeterred, insisting that programs that didn’t work were fundamentally flawed or not properly implemented.
Throughout the decades, advocates kept insisting that educational, vocational and related programs were powerful tools to assist people in and out of prison. If programs didn’t work well, that was the fault of administrators or they were not properly funded or implementation was faulty.
Now we have another review of the literature (over 600 evaluations) funded by the National Institute of Justice of the US Department of Justice stating that most rehabilitation programs don’t work.
Some Programs Work-Most Don’t:
“There were no statistically significant reductions in recidivism found for other types of rehabilitation programs such as:
- work-related programs,
- academic programs,
- supportive residential programs,
- intensive supervision (such as reduced probation or parole caseloads),
- multimodal/mixed treatments (such as individual case management),
- and restorative interventions.”
“Programs that included:
- group work (structured via protocol or psychoeducational content),
- cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or CBT-like components,
- or that used drug court or other specialized court models
were associated with a statistically significant reduction in recidivism.”
Even when programs worked, the average reduction was only 20%. While a 20% reduction is progress and something to build on, it still means that the vast majority of program participants return to the justice system through arrest, prosecution, or incarceration.
Multiple decades after Martin’s proclamation that “nothing works,” we have a Department of Justice funded review stating that very little works and when it does, nothing works well, Rehabilitation Programs.
Yet ask the average advocate and many criminologists if programs work to significantly reduce recidivism, they will tell you that they do.
Examples Of Misrepensations:
Oregon: About 35% of people found criminally insane in Oregon and then let out of supervised psychiatric treatment were charged with new crimes within three years of being freed by state officials.
Between Jan. 1, 2008, and Oct. 15, 2015, the state freed 220 defendants who had been acquitted of felonies because they could not tell right from wrong or control their actions.
About a quarter of them, or 51 people, were charged with attacking others within three years. Twenty-five were charged with lesser crimes. Eighteen others were charged more than three years later, including 12 people for violent incidents.
They were charged with felonies about as often as people freed after serving prison terms — both 16%— according to our analysis and the Oregon Department of Corrections.
On its website, the board assures Oregonians that repeat offenses by people it supervises are exceedingly rare events, with only 0.46% of defendants committing new crimes each year, ProPublica.
Chicago Bail: The Bail Project and a second nonprofit — the Chicago Community Bond Fund — have paid to release nearly 1,000 pretrial defendants from Cook County Jail, the Chicago Tribune reports.
The groups are part of nationwide efforts to eliminate cash bail as a condition of pretrial release and ensure poor people are not jailed for criminal charges because they cannot afford bond.
The charities contend that the risk to public safety of releasing pretrial detainees is minimal. Many defendants they bailed out were charged with misdemeanors, and the two groups say they have near universal success helping released defendants stay out of trouble.
Yet the newspaper identified 162 people charged with felonies whom the charities have bailed out since February 2017.
Among them were three people charged with murder, 10 accused of attempted murder, 32 felons allegedly caught carrying a gun and 22 defendants charged with being an armed habitual criminal.
More than a fifth of these 162 defendants went on to be charged with new crimes while out on charity-sponsored bond, Chicago Tribune.
Landry College Preparatory School: The founder of T.M. Landry College Preparatory School described him as a “bright, energetic, compassionate and genuinely well-rounded” student whose alcoholic father had beaten him and his mother and had denied them money for food and shelter.
His transcript “speaks for itself,” the founder, Tracey Landry, wrote, but Mr. Sassau should also be lauded for founding a community service program, the Dry House, to help the children of abusive and alcoholic parents.
He took four years of honors English, the application said, was a baseball M.V.P. and earned high honors in the “Mathematics Olympiad.”
The narrative earned Mr. Sassau acceptance to St. John’s University in New York. There was one problem: None of it was true.
“I was just a small piece in a whole fathom of lies,” Mr. Sassau said. In reality, the school falsified transcripts, made up student accomplishments and mined the worst stereotypes of black America to manufacture up-from-hardship tales that it sold to Ivy League schools hungry for diversity, NY Times.
Maryland: Across Maryland, dozens of inmates convicted of violent crimes — carjackings, shootings and attempted murder — are using a state law intended to help addicted offenders get drug treatment to win early release, sometimes years before they are eligible for parole. Now some officials are objecting.
In the last fiscal year, 152 people convicted of violent crimes were released early through the program. The offenders are supposed to remain in treatment for up to a year, and then released under state supervision.
In the past five months, 47 of 164 individuals placed into treatment facilities went missing. Prosecutors cite a litany of violent convicts, including an armed carjacker that left his victim bloodied and a young man who beat a homeless man in a “vicious assault,” who were allowed to leave prison for treatment, Baltimore Sun.
Virginia: Virginia claims the lowest rate of recidivism in the country but their practices, based on discredited programs, make this claim doubtful, Virginia.
Council Of State Governments: There is a report that offers reductions in recidivism from 11 states, CSG Justice Center. Most cited strategies have little documentation as to reducing recidivism. They cite the Second Chance Act, a bipartisan bill Congress passed ten years ago, that supported some of these efforts to improve outcomes.
The problem is that the Department of Justice’s Second Chance Act evaluation showed no reduction in recidivism, Most evaluations, when there are reductions, cite small declines of less than 10%.
It highlights seven states in which recidivism decreased according to several measures. But if you look closely, the data is filled with massive flaws, see Council of State Governments.
Hawaii’s Project Hope: Project Hope was touted as a wonderfully effective program for supervising offenders in the community.
A study in Criminology & Public Policy concludes that neither Hawaii’s Opportunity Probation with Enforcement (Hawaii HOPE) program, nor the Swift, Certain and Fair (SCF) model of supervision achieved significant reductions in re-arrests of “moderate to high-risk probationers,” compared to standard probation programs.
In the study, Outcome Findings from the HOPE Demonstration Field Experiment, the authors randomly assigned more than 1,500 probationers to normal probation supervision or to a program modeled on HOPE, called the Honest Opportunity Probation with Enforcement, that emphasizes close monitoring, frequent drug testing, and swift and certain punishment for probation violations.
They found no real difference in outcomes. See Project Hope.
Inmate Education: From The Crime Report: “The “bizarre” White House meeting between Kanye West and President Trump, supposedly to discuss criminal justice reform, masks the fact that the Trump administration has “reverted to the failed ‘lock them up and throw away the key’ practices of the past,” former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates writes in the Washington Post.
“Research shows that inmates who participate in meaningful correctional education programs are 43% less likely to return to prison.” Why bring up Ms. Yates? She quotes data that “inmates who participate in correctional education programs are 43% less likely to return to prison,” which is a statistical quirk that most interpret as a 43% reduction in recidivism.
The program resulted in a 13% reduction in reoffending which dovetails with the observation that most rehabilitation programs either have no effect, make things worse, or reduce recidivism by small amounts, generally speaking, about 10%.
She criticizes President Trump for a failed crime policy using incomplete and fallacious observations. “Smart on crime” becomes disingenuous. She ignores the best available data; the literature summation mentioned above and several other reports discrediting offender educational programs.
Cut 50% of the inmate population: There are endless advocates who are calling for a 50% cut in the prison population. They insist that it will not have an impact on crime and victimization. But the data says otherwise.
“The most common understanding of recidivism is based state data from the US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, stating that two-thirds (68%) of prisoners released were arrested for a new crime within three years of release from prison, and three-quarters (77%) were arrested within five years.”
“Within three years of release, 49.7% of inmates either had an arrest that resulted in a conviction with a disposition of a prison sentence or were returned to prison without a new conviction because they violated a technical condition of their release, as did 55.1% of inmates within five years of release,” Offender Recidivism.
When considering that most crime is not reported, and most reported crime is not solved, and that prosecutors routinely dismiss 20-30 percent of cases, we understand that the above numbers are undercounts.
The Impact of Incarceration Is Demonized:
There are endless advocates who will tell you that incarceration has no impact as to future recidivism.
There is data from the US Sentencing Commission stating that longer sentences create significantly less recidivism. In the two models with the larger sample sizes, offenders incarcerated for more than 120 months were approximately 30%less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group receiving less incarceration.
In the third model, offenders incarcerated for more than 120 months were approximately 45% less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group receiving less incarceration. Specifically, offenders incarcerated for more than 60 months up to 120 months were approximately 17% less likely to recidivate relative to a comparison group sentenced to a shorter period of incarceration, US Sentencing Commission.
Lack Of Support for Rehabilitation Programs:
The data seems consistent; only a small percentage of offenders in jails or prisons or parole and probation programs have access to well-designed and supported, individually based programs. Regardless of criteria, most do not have access to any programs at all beyond those run by clergy or volunteers (AA-NA).
In a day and age where governors are complaining that “corrections” takes way too much of state budgets, if programs were as effective as advocates make them out to be, you would think that state executives would be funding anything that reduces the fiscal or criminological impact.
Why are programs so underfunded? Because most believe that they either don’t work or that the impacts, regardless as to the statistical significance, are not large enough to be worthy of consideration.
The second reason is that the rate of return to the justice system per new arrests and incarcerations is very high, Recidivism.
Part of the problem as to gaining access to information on offender programs is that there are few sources of objective information. Beyond Crime Solutions.Gov and federally funded research, many (not all) publications have agendas or are beholden to their funders.
There are daily or frequent criminal justice-based media organizations that advertise themselves as participating in “award-winning journalism.” Yet research that doesn’t agree with a pro-program, pro-offender, pro-criminal justice reform approach is ignored or given cursory attention.
A recent literature review (mentioned above) on the effectiveness of programs carried the headline of “Rehab Programs Cut Recidivism” in several publications while ignoring the fact that the majority of the programs mentioned did not work. This is journalism?
It’s my opinion that one of the “award-winning” media organizations doesn’t meet the conventional criteria of “journalism.” Objectivity isn’t their objective. They proudly embrace preconceived notions about the justice system, a violation of every journalism code of ethics.
Questions of objectivity can apply to mainstream media outlets. The Philidelphia Inquirer offered a series of articles claiming that parole and probation was overly harsh with endless sanctions based on technical violations, Offender Accountability But there is national data stating that virtually all offenders revoked were involved in a new crime beyond violations of parole and probation supervision, Technical Violations. Why would it be different for the state of Pennslyvania?
“Almost all prisoners who were re-arrested (96% of released sex offenders and 99% of all released offenders) were arrested for an offense other than a probation or parole violation,” BJS.
There are many additional examples of failed programs including two landmark studies from The US Department of Justice (Serious And Violent Offender, Second Chance Act) that showed no reductions in recidivism, Nothing Works. Many additional studies offer the same conclusion or the reductions were small, 10% or less.
It’s not my intent to be disparaging of all programs or criminal justice reform. Most of us support change with the goal to make sure that the most dangerous offenders are incarcerated for an appropriate amount of time. Legalization or decriminalization of marijuana or longer sentences from rural areas or shortening the length of parole and probation supervision are three examples of issues that need examination. There are many others.
I have interviewed hundreds of former offenders for television and radio shows who were doing well. Many stated that programs helped them succeed.
Programs also offer a sense of sanity within correctional facilities. They make prisons safer for everyone. They provide a sense of hope to offenders. For these reasons alone, programs should be considered. This is more importance to institutional and employee safety than most realize. If you care about correctional employee well-being, you support programs.
And there is nothing wrong with a humanitarian approach to programs, just don’t advertise them as crime reduction ventures.
But we must do better as to figuring out the best modalities. We need a national commission and a massive series of evaluations. There is a possibility of protecting many citizens from criminal victimization and saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Why this isn’t a top priority for the country, it is confounding and is probably based on the over-promises as to program effectiveness.
And publications offering daily or frequent summations of crime and justice information need to review and report on all evaluations and research, not just those that fit their preconceived notions. We desperately need objectivity, not advocacy.
During my 35-year media relations career for national and state criminal justice agencies, discussions as to statistics and programs were common. Most of us understood that the misrepresentation of data was public relations suicide. Trustworthiness and objectivity were necessary components of a good public and media relations strategy.
Throughout my career and collegiate studies, I was told that transparency was vital to gain the trust of citizens, reporters, and oversight bodies.
Has that changed?
See more articles on crime and justice at Crime in America.
Most Dangerous Cities/States/Countries at Most Dangerous Cities.
US Crime Rates at Nationwide Crime Rates.
National Offender Recidivism Rates at Offender Recidivism.
The Crime in America.Net RSS feed (https://crimeinamerica.net/?
Contact us at [email protected]
Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.
Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!