Of course, like you, I thought that unfair and wondered – perhaps there might be some effective communication if I can avoid using loaded words that stir up defensiveness and unconstructive responses. For instance, the OAM that I mention in the post is a fairly comprehensive document that addresses six components that the DOC actually has at least some control over. Kind of like links in a chain – you evaluate the links, find the ones that seem to be failing to perform to expectations, and work on each problem link to improve its performance. Each of these six components is further examined for component parts based largely on existing sociological research (though there is some psych research as well). The six elements of the OAM are:

1. Criminal Risk Factor Assessment and Case Planning
2. Staff-Inmate Interactions
3. Work and Programs
4. Children and Families
5. Reentry
6. Community Supervision and Programs

In a really great book, @Thinking, 3rd Edition, Gary Kirby and Jeffery Goodpaster highlight some of the difficulties in evaluating or troubleshooting some systems:

Chaotic Systems

Much of science has been dominated by the great laws of nature, concerning motion, thermodynamics, nuclear periodicity, and relativity. These laws work well when applied to simple movements such as those of a planet, an airplane, or a baseball, producing such accurate predictions that the universe appears to be determined. However, other areas of nature seem to be impossible to determine. These areas are called chaotic systems. According to chaos theory, chaotic systems are extremely sensitive to “initial conditions,” meaning that any uncertainty or error in the measurement of the system’s variables at a given time (initial condition) will eventually lead to conditions that were not foreseeable. Changing weather, liquid turbulence, and the branching of trees, blood vessels, and neurons in the brain are examples of chaotic systems. Even economics and human behavior can be seen as chaotic systems.

In chaotic systems, or even just sufficiently complex systems, it is common during the trouble shooting process to flowchart the system and troubleshoot manageable pieces of that system. The OAM identifies six elements of the process that are worth trying to improve. I’ll try to avoid the myth of perfection and work toward a workable and achievable solution. So rather than coloring “each actor” I don’t know as defensive (though some maybe) and unconstructive (some are), I’ll work toward the best and seek solutions to that small portion of the pond I happen to swim in. Who knows, maybe a change for the better might occur by having just a few people seeking solutions to problems in their own part of the flow chart!

Cheers.

What we have to do is consider all parts of the system; this would include everything from our efforts to deter crime (locked gates, warning signs, visible cameras), to the things we do to detect it (police, more cameras, drug testing, tip lines), to things we do to investigate it, establish culpability, and then, finally, the things we do to respond to those found culpable for lawbreaking, whether that be diversion or aggressive prosecutions etc.

Every part of that flow helps contribute to the overall result we have today, a fantastically expensive system that is permeated with pervasive racism, class bias, and which is proficient at destroying families, creating the next generation of miscreants, and turning low-level miscreants into really scary incorrigibles. Trying to focus only on the prison piece of that is foolish. Every part is a link in the chain.

You’re right though, ultimately the fault lies with the person making the choices. That this is true is demonstrated by Powder River’s intake prerequisites – the inmate desiring admittance to the program had to demonstrate a positive motivation to complete the program and abide by the follow up requirements. I don’t know how well the Powder River facilities are now performing, but in the first five years of operation it was considered a model for other institutions.

Thanks for the comments John.

Isn’t making the corrections system accountable for recidivism kind of like blaming the AA when one of their members falls off the wagon? I’m not suggesting we don’t try, but some people don’t want to be helped and ultimately the blame lies with them.

Hmmm, accountable? “…responsible to somebody or for something (responsible to somebody for something). Capable of being explained” works for me. I think the penalty for failing in the assigned responsibility could range anywhere from dismissal to demotion, unless the failure is able to be explained in terms of reasons outside the control of the administrator(s). Much the same way New York City uses COMPSTAT to hold police management accountable for crime statistics in their precincts. As for the rates, here in Oregon we are now tracking one, two, and three year rates as a percentage of the total release cohort. We define a release cohort as inmates released to post prison supervision or probation during a given six month period. I think a three year periodicity is a good starting point, but no matter what might be decided, I also think the rates should be standardized nationally for purposes of comparison and interstate research cooperation.

As to the rest of your comments, I agree with virtually all of the suggestions and really liked the connection of recidivism to judges/courts – it’s an observation that is right under our noses, and yet it goes largely unnoticed. The program you work on for juvenile offenders… YIKES.

I visited our juvenile facility, our women’s facility, and a few men’s facilities. I chose to work with men because the comments and unstated policies seemed to be skewed unfavorably in terms of male staff. I avoided juvenile corrections for a variety of reasons, and primary among those reasons is I am unsure how I feel about the juvenile corrections system. There is a growing body of research that demonstrates the teenage brain is a work in progress – even in to the very early twenties in some cases. This makes me think that if cognitive behavioral therapy is used, then it needs to be carefully tailored to a changing pattern of adolescent cognitive development. Scares the hell out of me! Less important, but only marginally so, are the rules of engagement for violence – especially when some of the “kids” between 16 and 21 are man sized and just as dangerous.

“Recidivism reduction begins with judges and continues after incarceration with support programs (not charity, mind you, but support).”

I whole heartedly agree. With current events, I think letting the public know the role of the courts/judges in recidivism would be manageable. Unfortunately, unless there is a concerted effort to not only educate the public, but also to involve the public (in terms of communities and targeted organizations) with inmate re-entry, I don’t think support programs will get much… well, support. With respect to the buzzword “re-entry,” you might like to check out Ten Steps Corrections Directors Can Take to Strengthen Performance from the PEW Center on the States. The first step addresses this very issue in terms of getting the agency mission right!

Good grief! I should have made this a post !!! Thanks for the great comment – it should make for an excellent argument starter at work… hehehe

Yes, recidivism should be studied by institution. It should be one of the prime concerns of a prison. If one institution has a much higher rate than the average, that institution should be studied closely to see why. The same is true for an institution with a very low recidivism rate.

Recidivism isn’t just an institutional problem, though. It’s a judge problem. When a judge sentences a child molester to 3 months in prison, no institution in the world is going to fix him and he’ll come back through a little while later. When judges take it upon themselves to amend charges or ignore statutes, it further affects recidivism.

Personally, the program I work on for juvenile offenders isn’t supposed to take violent offenders, they’re supposed to be sentenced to 6 months, and they’re supposed to have a suspended commitment to DJJ hanging over their heads. I don’t know that a single kid on my 15 kid unit meets all those requirements right now. The judge either reduced charges, ignores the suspended commitment, and in over 50% of the cases, simply sends the kid home if he doesn’t successfully complete the program.

Recidivism reduction begins with judges and continues after incarceration with support programs (not charity, mind you, but support).

It’s late and it’s been a long weekend. Thanks for sending me the email to the new Skald’s lair. Hope I haven’t peppered you with bad spelling, half-formed thoughts, and grammar errors too badly.