Recently in Rehabilitation Category

The Victims of "Smart Sentencing"

| 2 Comments
Over most of the past decade liberal groups, which originally opposed and have for years sought to eliminate the so-called  "harsh" habitual criminal sentencing policies adopted in the 80s and 90s, have launched collaborative efforts with libertarians and some Republicans to encourage alternative sentencing.  "Right on Crime","Smart on Crime" and "Smart Sentencing" advocates have been successful at changing policies in many parts of the country to reduce sentences for criminals categorized as non-violent, and placing them instead in community programs to help them become law-abiding members of society, with the promise of saving millions in state and federal prison costs.  At a time when crime rates are relatively low, and our European betters and Hollywood movie stars are constantly scolding America as the incarceration nation, the allure of an America where bright, dedicated government employees guide minor offenders off the criminal path is difficult for many to resist. 
Dan Walters had this post, with the above title, on the Sacramento Bee's Capital Alert blog last Friday:

Gov. Jerry Brown's "realignment" of criminal justice procedures, aimed at reducing overcrowding in state prisons by diverting more felons into local jails and probation, has not resulted in lower rates of new criminal activity among offenders, a study by the Public Policy Institute of California concludes.

New offenses by those released from custody are known as "recidivism" and putting felons under local control was supposed to include more drug treatment and other programs to reduce their criminal activity.

However, the PPIC study concludes, "We find that the post-realignment period has not seen dramatic changes in arrests or convictions of released offenders. In the context of realignment's broad reforms to the corrections system, our findings suggest that offender behavior has not changed substantially."

"Overall arrest rates of released offenders are down slightly, with the proportion of those arrested within a year of release declining by two percentage points," the authors of the study, Magnus Lofstrom, Steven Raphael, and Ryken Grattet, continue. "At the same time, the proportion of those arrested multiple times has increased noticeably, by about seven percentage points. These higher multiple arrest rates may reflect the substantial increase in the time that released offenders spend on the streets--a result of counties' limited jail capacity."

The PPIC study may provide new ammunition for the critics of realignment who contend that the state is solving its prison overcrowding problem under pressure from federal judges but in doing so is putting new burdens on local governments, particularly county jails, that result in more criminal activity.

The Wonders of Rehab

| 2 Comments
I have frequently posted about the joke called "rehab."  The unending story of Lindsay Lohan is a rehab lesson unto itself, see my posts here, here and here, among numerous others.  

"Rehab" is the defense bar's version of "sentencing."  Some judges buy it because they think the jails are overstuffed; some because they genuinely think the defendant could benefit; and many because they refuse to see reality, or prefer not to.

The latest rehab joke comes from Toronto's version of Hollywood silliness, Mayor Rob Ford. Like many in Hollywood, the Mayor likes his crack cocaine, and would like to convince his constituents that rehab is the answer.  And it is an answer, of sorts.

From USA Today:

Embattled Toronto Mayor Rob Ford says he is in rehab and enjoying it..."Rehab is amazing," Ford told The Toronto Sun....He compared it to the Washington Redskins camp he went to as a boy.

Would readers please take up a collection so I can go to rehab, too?





BJS Study Tracks Recividism

| 1 Comment
The Bureau of Justice Statistics has released a study tracking the rearrest rate of 405,000 felons released from prison in 30 states.  The BJS press release is here.  The study examines ex-convicts released in 2005 who were rearrested for a new crimes over the next five years.  More than 57% of those released were rearrested in the first year.   By the third year 68% had been rearrested.  After five years 77% had been rearrested at least one time, with many rearrested more than once.  In total, ex-convicts released from prison in 2005 were rearrested 1.2 million times for new crimes.   Property criminals, including burglars, car thieves, and identity thieves were rearrested at the highest rate of 82%.  77% of drug offenders, typically drug dealers, were rearrested over the five year period.  Recividism was highest among blacks, followed by Hispanics and whites.  Age and sex were also major factors with 84% of those 24 or younger rearrested.  The rearrest rate dropped to 69% for those 40 or older.  78% of males were rearrested compared to 68% of females. 

There will be two varieties of spin put on this study.  The first and most publicized will come from "Smart on Crime" advocates, which includes the ACLU, the Urban Institute, the Sentencing Project and much of academia.  They will point to these findings as proof that fixed and progressively severe consequences for criminals, such as mandatory minimums and habitual criminal sentencing have failed to rehabilitate criminals.  We will be told that the current transition to alternative sentencing featuring "evidence based practices" and treatment programs will help to reform the current racially biased system, lower the recividism rate, improve  public safety, and remove the stigma on America as the "incarceration nation."  

     
Sasha Volokh has a couple of posts (here and here) at the Volokh Conspiracy on the question of whether faith-based prisons actually "work," i.e. produce a lower recidivism rate than the same prisoners would have had in regular prisons.  The difficulty in answering that question is the "selection bias" problem, as indicated by the title of the second post, "What if faith-based prison programs just attract better prisoners?"

"Evidence-based practices" has become a buzzword in corrections, but for the reasons Volokh points out, much of the "evidence" is nearly worthless.

After yesterday's introduction to the topic, today I'll talk about how the self-selection problem makes any evaluation of faith-based programs with regular programs problematic. I'll illustrate with some of the most problematic studies, which show the self-selection problem in its most naked form. I'll then show some of the better studies, which control for certain important variables, but I'll explain why even those are inadequate to solve the self-selection problem.
The problem is not by any means limited to faith-based programs.  It permeates the whole field.  As long as the "treatment group" and the "control group" are selected in a way that makes them different in their attitude toward going straight, the study is essentially garbage.  Random selection and large sample sizes are necessary to valid studies, but random selection is a tough sell.  Can we really assign people to rehabilitation programs in a lottery, denying the guy who wants it and assigning the one who doesn't give a damn?
Is that "navigator" who is supposed to help you through ObamaCare enrollment, and who gets lots of personal information about you in the process, an honest and trustworthy person?

Maybe not.  National Review Franklin Center Fellow Jillian Kay Melchior appears in this video interview with some disturbing findings.

The Latest Re-Entry Program

| No Comments
Kent has noted today's Senate hearing at which a couple of witnesses were sufficiently impolite to point out that incarceration works better to tamp down crime than a stern lecture and rehab (see, as to the latter, any number of posts I wrote about Ms. Rehab, Lindsay Lohan).

Still, at some point almost all inmates will be released, and we need to find constructive things for them to do.  The Administration has found one.  Here are the first few paragraphs of the story:

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius admitted Wednesday that it was possible convicted felons could be hired as ObamaCare 'navigators,' giving them access to personal information like Social Security numbers and addresses of anyone signing up for the program.

Sebelius made the admission in an exchange with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas., during a Senate Finance Committee hearing. It was the second time in a week Sebelius was on Capitol Hill, forced to defend the problem-plagued ObamaCare website.

"Isn't it true that there is no federal requirement for navigators to undergo a criminal background check," Cornyn asked her.

"That is true," Sebelius answered. "States could add in additional background checks and other features, but it is not part of the federal requirement."

Cornyn pressed, "So a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them?"

Sebelius answered, "This is possible."


I trust our readers do not include Puritanical dorks who might object to a felon's getting their Social Security numbers.  Don't you people believe in second chances?



What Rehab Actually Looks Like

| 1 Comment
Rehab is mostly a con, to the extent it's not a joke.  This is nowhere better illustrated than in the never-ending saga of Ms. Rehab herself, Lindsay Lohan.  I've put up so many posts about Ms. Rehab that I'm not going to try to link them, in part because today's post is about something very different.

The reason rehab is mostly a con is that it takes root in a fundamentally flawed premise  --  that, with the right prison counseling, government programs, employment opportunities, and generally a sufficient degree of Officially Mandated Compassion, wrongdoers will change.  

That is incorrect for the same reason much liberal thinking about crime is incorrect, to wit, it misconceives human nature.  Human beings can change, and they can be redeemed.  But it doesn't happen because of what the government does, no matter how elaborate, expensive or well-intended.  It happens, when it does, because some few people have the courage and honesty to face up to what they've done wrong, and the conscience and inner strength to do better.

That does not mean renting a sleaze-ball shrink to write a long report about how the miscreant has seen the light.  It does not mean taking a brief timeout from your shenanigans before holding a news conference to announce your latest bid to return to prominence, a' la Anthony Wiener, Elliot Spitzer and Mark Sanford.   What rehabilitation actually means is illustrated in today's piece in the Wall Street Journal.

Ms. Rehab Strikes Again

| 1 Comment
It didn't take even three months.

I wrote here about the latest stern talking-to by the judge directed to Ms. Rehab herself, Lindsay Lohan.  I also bet any reader who cared to take me up that Ms. Rehab, who has been given approximately 74 "last chances," would be back in trouble in less than a year.

I gave her too much credit.

Today comes the report:

Just when Lindsay Lohan seemed to be making progress in her court-ordered rehab, FOX411's Pop Tarts column has learned that the actress endured "several problems" while in lock down at California's Betty Ford clinic, and will now be getting help elsewhere.

Sources close to the situation tell us the District Attorney approved the change earlier this week, and on Thursday Lohan was being relocated to Cliffside Malibu.

In March, Lohan pleaded no contest to misdemeanor charges stemming from the June 2012 car accident; reckless driving and providing false information to a police officer. She was sentenced to 90 days in a lock down rehabilitation center, 30 days of community service, and 18 months of mandated psychotherapy.

Well gosh, at least she'll be getting that "mandated psychotherapy"  --  and at a tough-as-nails place like "Cliffside Malibu."



Study on Halfway Houses

| 1 Comment
In the 1960s, America made a terrible mistake.  We believed too easily in experts who supposedly had the answers for corrections.  They knew how to "fix" criminals who were, after all, sick and not evil.  When the fixes were actually subjected to scientific scrutiny to determine which of them worked, the stunning answer was that none of them did.  In the meantime, lax sentencing contributed to the horrific rise in crime, a rise that was brought back down only after we got tough.

Fast-forward 50 years, and those who do not remember this history are working to condemn the nation to repeat it, over the vehement objection of those who do remember.  One of the programs touted to rehabilitate criminals so we won't need to lock so many up is halfway houses.  Or maybe not.  Sam Dolnick has this story in the NYT:

The federal government and states across the country have spent billions of dollars in recent years on sprawling, privately run halfway houses, which are supposed to save money and rehabilitate inmates more effectively than prisons do.

But now, a groundbreaking study by officials in Pennsylvania is casting serious doubt on the halfway-house model, concluding that inmates who spent time in these facilities were more likely to return to crime than inmates who were released directly to the street.

The findings startled the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett, which responded last month by drastically overhauling state contracts with the companies that run the 38 private halfway houses in Pennsylvania. The system costs more than $110 million annually.

Pennsylvania's corrections secretary, John E. Wetzel, who oversaw the study, called the system "an abject failure."
Thanks to Michael Santella for the link.
Dana Nichols has this article on realignment in Calaveras County, California (locale of Mark Twain's first published piece of fiction).

The agencies charged with enforcing laws and supervising criminal offenders in Calaveras County aren't getting along with each other and are bungling key tasks required under California's 2011 criminal justice realignment, according to a county grand jury report.

Along with shifting a lot of incarcerated felons from state prison to county jail, the realignment bill also shifted the supervision of a lot of released felons from the state parole system to county probation offices.  Over the years, probation officers have developed a different culture from parole officers.  I'm sure this is due in large part to the differences in the criminal populations they have supervised.  The people supervised by probation officers in the past were, by definition, those that the judge thought were suitable for probation, largely based on the judge's assessment of their potential for rehabilitation.  Those who ended up being supervised by parole officers tended to be the hardened criminals.  Probation officers therefore tended to develop more of a rehabilitation viewpoint, while parole officers tended toward a viewpoint that their job was to protect the public from this still-dangerous criminal.

Ms. Rehab Gets More Rehab

| 2 Comments
If Lindsay Lohan didn't exist as an emblem of the unseriousness of criminal law in California, I'd have to invent her.  I mean, willy-nilly releasing criminals under what is, with intentional obscurity, called "realignment," is one thing, but Ms. Rehab is something else.

This is the latest:

Lindsay Lohan agreed to spend 90 days in a "locked in" drug rehab facility as part of a plea deal to settle criminal charges against her Monday.

The actress entered pleas of no contest on two misdemeanor charges relating to a traffic accident last summer, and she did not challenge the finding that she violated her shoplifting probation with those convictions.

This story is so chock full of goodies about the surreal nature of Hollywood justice that it should get some kind of award.  Here's one tidbit: 

She's spent 250 days in five rehab facilities since January 2007, including one long court-ordered stint after a failed drug test.

The actress has appeared in court at least 20 times before four Los Angeles judges who have now found her in violation of probation six times and sentenced her to a total of nine months in jail.

Lohan has spent about two weeks behind bars in six trips to the Los Angeles County jail, served 35 days under house arrest and worked about 67 days of community service at the county morgue.

More goodies follow the break.

Prof. Cecilia Klingele of Wisconsin Law School responded to my critical assessment of her SSRN piece (an assessment I discussed in my earlier entry) with this comment on Sentencing Law and Policy:

A small clarification. The paper does not suggest that community supervision (or any lesser sentence) should replace prison in cases where it is warranted for just punishment or public safety. The paper discusses the proper (and improper) use of community supervision in typical cases involving people whose crimes are minor, whose culpability is low, and/or whose threat to public safety is minimal; and for those who have served their sentences and are transitioning back to their communities. When community supervision is used, of course it should be thoughtful, well-resourced, and carefully executed. My point is that it is often used in ways and for people who would be better punished in differently, be it through jail time, fines, or unconditional discharge. If anything in the paper misleads on that point (or any other), I welcome suggestions for revision and clarification.

My response to her follows the break.  I hope this will turn out to be an extended discussion, because the actual plans and agenda of the "incarceration nation" critics  --  if those plans are implemented  --  are vitally important to any fair assessment of whether the rest of us should support or oppose them.  As readers will see, I continue to have considerable doubts.

The "Incarceration Nation" Shell Game

| 2 Comments
Hat tip to Doug Berman at Sentencing Law & Policy for pulling the curtain back on the actual agenda of the "incarceration nation" crowd.  This is the group, generally flourishing in academia, the media and (of course) the defense bar, that has been telling us for years that prison is vastly overused in this country, and that we would be just as safe, not to mention more frugal and more humane, to use community supervision instead.  In order to sell this idea, these folks have assured us that community supervision would consist of stringent and carefully monitored oversight of offenders.

OK.  That was then.  This is now.  I'll quote the operational part from the SSRN abstract of a paper written by Prof. Cecelia Klingele of the University of Wisconsin Law School:

To decrease the overuse of imprisonment, sentencing and correctional practices should therefore limit, rather than expand, the use of community supervision in three important ways.

First, terms of community supervision should be imposed in fewer cases, with alternatives ranging from fines to unconditional discharge to short jail terms imposed instead. Second, conditions of probation and post-release supervision should be imposed sparingly, and only when they directly correspond to a risk of re-offense. Finally, terms of community supervision should be limited in duration, extending only long enough to facilitate a period of structured re-integration after sentencing or following a term of incarceration.

Got it.   "Community supervision" was just a head fake. 

I have said for a long time that the end-incarceration crowd was an exercise in deception -- that it was just a mask for the end-punishment crowd. I very much appreciate Prof. Klingele's coming out of the closet to vindicate my assessment.

Social Impact Bonds

| No Comments
Now here is an interesting idea.  The Big Apple government has this press release.

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, Deputy Mayor for Health and Human Services Linda I. Gibbs and Correction Commissioner Dora B. Schriro today announced that the City will award a contract for the nation's first Social Impact Bond, an innovative way to fund promising new programs at no cost to taxpayers. As part of the Young Men's Initiative, this investment will support a new evidence-based program for young adults on Rikers Island. The program - the Adolescent Behavioral Learning Experience (ABLE) - focuses on personal responsibility education, training and counseling, with the goal of reducing the likelihood of reincarceration. In this new model, private investors fund the intervention through a nonprofit contractor and the government pays the contractor only if the program meets its goals. Goldman Sachs will provide financing, Bloomberg Philanthropies will provide grant support for the effort and MDRC, a leading non-profit, will oversee project implementation.
*                                   *                                 *
An independent evaluation, conducted by the Vera Institute of Justice, will assess the rates of reincarceration and determine the program's effectiveness over time. If the program does not meet its targets for reducing reincarceration, the City pays nothing. For Goldman Sachs to break even on its original investment, the program will need to reduce reincarceration by 10%.
I am deeply skeptical of the claims of "evidence-based" rehabilitation practices, because I know how easy it is for interested parties to produce "evidence" that is complete hogwash.  I also know how the amount of scrutiny that any research receives is strongly influenced by its Political Correctness quotient:  intense and hostile for research with conservative implications and vastly more lax for research with liberal implications.  But if Goldman Sachs' own money is on the line, they will surely examine the evidence of program effectiveness meticulously, and PC quotient be damned.
One flaw I see here is having the Vera Institute do the results evaluation.  That organization has a strong ideological interest in seeing rehabilitation programs declared "effective." A less interested evaluator would have been a better choice.

Monthly Archives