From Incarceration to Community

From Incarcerationto Community

A Roadmap to Improving Prisoner Reentry and System

Accountability in Massachusetts

J U N E 3 , 2 0 0 4

P r e p a r e d b yGinger MartinCheryl Roberts

C r i m e a n d J u s t i c eI n s t i t u t e

Elyse Clawson, Executive Director

S p o n s o r e d b yThe Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundation

355 Boylston Street ◆ 5th floorBoston, MA 02116-3313

T: 617.482.2520 ◆ F: 617.262.8054www.cjinstitute.org

A division of Community Resources for Justice

Dear Colleague,

While there have been successes in reducing crime in Massachusetts over the past 10 years, the costof corrections has also significantly increased. Additionally, there has been a growing number ofpreviously incarcerated people returning to their communities without the resources to succeed intheir transition home. As a result, many of them will likely go back to their criminal lifestyles,putting our communities at greater risk. If we are going to sustain the gains we have made in reduc-ing crime in Massachusetts, we must act now. We need to come together for the good of the citizensof the Commonwealth to reform the system and work with communities to assure their safety.System reform will help people who are incarcerated and those released from prison/jail becomelaw-abiding members of the community.

There have been many good studies that have found successful techniques for reducing recidivism,and there is consensus on many of the significant issues. Thus, we know how to reduce re-offend-ing. We offer this report in the hope that it can guide policy development and provide useful infor-mation in the implementation of evidence-based practices. This report addresses policy areas relatedto reentry (from sentencing through post-release follow-up), with a specific focus on the state prisonsystem, houses of correction, and parole. It outlines a system focused on higher risk offenders thatreduces their risk to re-offend and re-victimize, and addresses the collaboration, organizationalchange, and performance monitoring necessary to implement systemic changes. Some importantissues such as women offenders and offenders who are mentally ill or developmentally disabled arenot covered in this report but must be the focus of future policy studies.

Development of collaborative partnerships in our most vulnerable communities is an essentialelement to a good reentry policy, and an important strategy for improving the safety in our commu-nities. Collaborative partnerships among police, probation, parole, human service agencies, busi-nesses, community members, and victims can create social controls and provide guardianship forboth communities and victims. This approach will help contribute to a system of reintegration thatpromotes positive behavior change in offenders living in those communities and provide opportuni-ties for them to contribute to the well being of society. There are examples of this type of collabora-tive work being done in communities in Boston, Lowell, and others which can be used as models forfuture partnerships.

Accountability is critical to any successful correctional system. To determine that we are imple-menting effective strategies, we must routinely evaluate our progress and measure our success inreducing risk, reducing victimization, and increasing safety. Strong leadership and broad collabora-tive support from all key stakeholders is needed to maintain focus and sustain system change efforts.It is only with this support that the Commonwealth will be able to improve community safety andprovide increased public value.

Sincerely,

Elyse ClawsonExecutive DirectorCrime and Justice Institute

Acknowledgments

The Crime and Justice Institute gratefully acknowledges the contributions of the following individualswho participated in interviews for this report. Their perspectives and expertise were vital to this project.

Patrick BradleyUndersecretaryExecutive Office of Public Safety

Christine ColeDeputy Chief of StaffExecutive Office of Public Safety

Frank CarneyExecutive DirectorMassachusetts Sentencing Commission

Thomas CouryExecutive DirectorGardiner Howland Shaw Foundation

Frank CousinsEssex County Sheriff

Edward DavisSuperintendentLowell Police Department

Kathleen DennehyCommissionerMassachusetts Department of Correction

Francisca D. FajanaAttorney at LawMassachusetts Law Reform Institute, Inc.

Bob HeardProgram AdministratorSTRIVE at Pine Street Inn

John LariveeChief Executive OfficerCommunity Resources for Justice

Stephan LoBuglioDeputy SuperintendentSuffolk County House of Correction

Joe MooreDirector of ReentryCatholic Charities South

Maureen WalshChairpersonMassachusetts Parole Board

The Crime and Justice Institute is indebted to Dale Parent and Liz Barnett of Abt Associates who have, in partnership withthe National Institute of Corrections, developed a national model for improving transition. This model, the Transition fromPrison to Community Initiative, provided guidance throughout this report. In addition, Mr. Parent and Ms. Barnettprovided invaluable advice and review for this project.

Special thanks for the contributions and support of Crime and Justice Institute staff, including: Lore Joplin and Ilene Kleinfor review and editorial suggestions; Kate Florio for production assistance; and Elspeth Slayter for her support.

The Crime and Justice Institute would like to acknowledge Brad Bogue, Bill Woodward, Nancy Campbell, Billy Wasson, andMark Carey for their work in promoting the application of evidence-based practices to corrections work and for the guidancetheir work continues to provide to the Institute. Additionally, we would like to thank Dot Faust from the National Instituteof Corrections.

We appreciate the assistance of the Department of Correction and other agencies in providing data for this report.

The Crime and Justice Institute is grateful to Tom Coury and the Gardiner Howland Shaw Foundationfor their support of this project and for their continued interest and investment in improving the publicsafety systems in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Table of ContentsExecutive Summary ......................................................................................... i

1. Prison to Community Reentry in Massachusetts:The Challenge of System Reform ................................................................. 1

2. A Map for Reforming the Transition Continuum ....................................... 4

2.1 Applying Principles of Evidence-Based Practices ................................... 5

Assess Risk to Re-Offend and Target Higher-Risk Offenders ........... 5Assess and Target Criminal Risk Factors (Criminogenic Needs) ....... 6Match the Learning Styles and Abilities of Offenders (Responsivity) 7Design Effective Corrections Treatment Programs .......................... 8

2.2 Applying a National Model for Reentry ................................................. 10Sentencing ....................................................................................... 10Incarceration and Reentry Planning .................................................. 12Correctional Programs ...................................................................... 16

Alcohol and Drug Treatment ......................................................... 16Post-release supervision and follow-up ............................................ 18Responding to Non-Compliance ...................................................... 21Information Sharing ......................................................................... 23Community Integration ................................................................... 24

Housing ........................................................................................ 24Employment .................................................................................. 25 Legal and Structural Barriers to Employment of Ex-Offenders ... 27

Community Participation and Support ............................................ 30

3. Managing for Results and System Accountability:State-Level Performance Measurement ......................................................... 31

4. Leading System Change: The Role of Collaboration .................................... 34

5. Organizational Change ................................................................................ 37

6. Drawing Conclusions ................................................................................... 39

7. Summary of Recommendations .................................................................... 42

References ......................................................................................................... 47

Appendix .......................................................................................................... 51

iCrime and Justice Institute

Executive Summary

With the tremendous growth in incarceration inMassachusetts, inmates are returning to communi-ties in record numbers. More than 20,000 prisonand jail inmates are released to Massachusetts’towns and cities each year. Nearly everyone whogoes to prison returns to community living at somepoint. Policymakers have become increasinglyconcerned with how the corrections system shouldmanage the reentry process to best protect thepublic and how communities can absorb andreintegrate returning prisoners.

The entire reentry process must be strengthened inorder to protect the public more effectively. Al-though more offenders are being incarcerated forlonger periods of time, fewer offenders are receiv-ing the benefit of institutional programs that canreduce the likelihood that they will commit newcrimes after release. In addition, fewer offendersreceive supervision, services, or interventions oncethey return to community living; this reduction insupervision is due to changes in Massachusetts’sentencing laws and practices that eliminated orreduced eligibility for parole. In 2002, 72 percentof state prisoners released from high and mediumsecurity prison settings were released directly to thecommunity with no parole supervision.

Given the large number of prisoners releasedwithout adequate supervision and services tosupport their successful reintegration, it is nosurprise that they re-offend at high rates. InMassachusetts, 41 percent of inmates released fromprison in 1997 were re-incarcerated within threeyears of release. The societal costs associated withhigh rates of re-offending are enormous, includingan increase in crime victims and the financialburden on citizens who must pay for the criminaljustice system’s response to those new crimes. The

Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation estimates thatin 2004, the state will spend more on prisons andjails than on public higher education.

Within the Commonwealth, there is growingrecognition that the laws and practices must bechanged to improve the effectiveness and efficiencyof the reentry system. The Crime and JusticeInstitute seeks to contribute to this growingmomentum and build on analyses that precede itby offering a roadmap for implementing many ofthe reforms now being considered. This reportaddresses areas of policy that have a significanteffect on reentry, from sentencing through post-release follow-up, with particular focus on the rolesof the state prison system, houses of corrections,and parole. It outlines a proven and comprehen-sive model for prisoner reentry in Massachusetts,drawing from the national research literature ofevidence-based practices and interviews withexperts, officials, practitioners, and community-based service providers.

Sentencing

The reentry process begins with sentencing, whichdictates the consequences for the commission andconviction of a crime, including who goes toprison and the terms of release. Sentencing lawsand practices drive the prison population and ledto the dramatic growth in this population over thepast ten years.

Changes in the 1993 sentencing laws have resultedin a lack of post-release supervision for inmateswho pose the greatest threat to society, while thosewith the least need for supervision receive moresupervision and services. Almost half of the

Introduction

ii

From Incarceration to Community

Crime and Justice Institute

offenders sentenced to state prison are precludedfrom parole consideration due to their sentence.Mandatory minimum sentencing statutes for drugoffenders and the practice of sentencing a mini-mum and a maximum sentence one day apart pre-vent many offenders from participating in prisonpre-release programs and being released on parole.

Limiting the number of parolees does not limit thenumbers released; it only serves to limit the plannedand supervised transition from prison to commu-nity. In the last decade, there has been a three-foldincrease in the percentage of male state prisoninmates released directly from maximum securityprison settings with no supervision or support.

Recommendations:

• The state should adopt sentencing guidelines that: support parole; eliminate mandatory mini-mum sentences for drug crimes by incorporating them into sentencing guidelines; and supportintermediate sanctions for low-level, nonviolent offenders who can safely be managed in thecommunity. Prison beds should be reserved for those who pose a higher threat to public safety.

• The Parole Board should be granted the legal authority to require supervision of all offenders afterincarceration; however, the Board should rely on an objective risk assessment to prioritize andorder supervision for those most likely to re-offend. Low risk offenders should be put on inactivestatus.

• Prisons and houses of correction should have some form of discretionary release that is morebroadly available to serve as an incentive for inmates’ good behavior and program participationwhile incarcerated.

It is the job of the corrections system to protect thepublic by reducing the risk that offenders pose tothe community. Risk assessment tools can helpclassify offenders according to their relative likeli-hood of committing new offenses. Some riskfactors, such as criminal history, are static andunchangeable. Others, such as substance abuse,lack of educational achievement, and antisocialattitudes, are dynamic and can be changed ormitigated through effective intervention programs.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, research indicatesthat high and medium risk offenders benefit most

from correctional interventions; therefore, supervi-sion and treatment resources should focus on thisgroup to achieve the greatest reduction in recidivism.

The Commonwealth does not use systematicassessment of risk to determine levels of supervi-sion, sanctioning, or correctional programs.Although some programs exist that target riskfactors (e.g., employment skills and addictiontreatment), in general, correctional interventionsare not systematically focused or designed tointervene on the criminal risk factors of higher riskoffenders.

Assessment and Targeting

iii



Recommendations:

• All offenders returning to the community should be objectively assessed for risk to re-offendusing a valid and reliable instrument. Ideally, all partners in the transition process (e.g., stateprison system, houses of correction, parole, and probation) should use a common instrumentto predict the probability of future criminal behavior.

• Following an assessment of offenders’ level of risk, a valid and reliable offender needs assess-ment should be administered to high and medium risk offenders to develop interventionplans.

• Offender incarceration case plans, reentry plans, and parole and probation case plans shouldaddress the criminal risk factors found in the assessment.

Program design. The most effective programs usea risk assessment to identify higher risk offenders;they also target interventions toward offenders’dynamic criminal risk factors that can be changedthrough intervention. Effective programs adjusttheir approach to accommodate characteristics ofindividuals that influence their responsiveness tointerventions. Some of these characteristics are:cognitive ability; learning styles; stage of motiva-tion for change; gender; ethnicity; developmentalstage; beliefs; and personal temperament.

Research shows that the very best programs reducerecidivism by 32 percent. Unfortunately, onlyabout 10 percent of programs reviewed in nationalstudies attained the highest levels of effectiveness.Massachusetts has no systematic processes orprocedures in place to ensure that correctionalprograms are designed using the existing researchon effective programs.

Alcohol and Drug Treatment. To have a mean-ingful and measurable impact on recidivism, it isessential to deliver offender-based alcohol and drugtreatment programs throughout the correctionssystem. The Massachusetts Department ofCorrection reports that 86.5 percent of stateinmates committed in 1999 would have benefitedfrom alcohol and drug treatment; however, only 33percent of the state prison population participatedin treatment while incarcerated. Treatment capac-ity in the community—already inadequate—hasbeen further eroded with reductions in statefunding. Because drug and alcohol use is soclosely linked to recidivism, treatment for addic-tion must be available in the corrections systemand the community to meet the goal of reducingcrimes committed after release from prison.

Correctional Services

iv



Recommendations:

• Programs delivered to offenders in correctional institutions and in the community should be de-signed according to the scientific evidence regarding effectiveness in reducing recidivism.

• The corrections system should institute a protocol to certify that correctional programs are deliveredin a way consistent with the research.

• Gender-responsive strategies and approaches to managing female offenders should be developed.

• All correctional programs that aim to reduce criminal behavior and recidivism should target criminalrisk factors, not other problems that offenders might have.

• The availability and capacity of prison and community programs, including drug and alcohol treat-ment, should be sufficient and appropriate to intervene with the criminal risk factors of higher riskoffenders.

Reentry Planning

Massachusetts operates 18 state prisons, including4 pre-release programs in which minimum custodyinmates preparing for release can begin working inthe community. The Department of Correction(DOC) assesses all inmates at intake to createindividual plans based on risk factors. The DOCalso encourages all inmates to attend transitionplanning workshops prior to release; however,participation in reentry planning is not mandatory.Approximately 60 percent of offenders complete arelease plan. The current custody classification

system poses a significant barrier to reentry prepa-ration because it over-classifies inmates at thehigher security levels, making them ineligible formany programs and all reentry facilities.

Inmates with sentences of less than two-and-a-halfyears typically serve their time at the sheriff-operated houses of correction. Several sheriffs’offices and police departments have some type ofreintegration program in place for at least somegroups of offenders.

Recommendations:

• A reentry plan should be mandatory and universal for every inmate released from incarceration. Itshould be a collaborative, multi-disciplinary plan that addresses preparation for release, terms andconditions of release, and post-release supervision and services (e.g., housing, employment, andsubstance abuse and mental health treatment).

• Pre-release/work-release facilities should be expanded, and the number of inmates eligible for thisform of transition should be increased. The custody classification system of the Department ofCorrection should be changed to shift resources from unnecessarily high levels of security to reentryprogramming and half-way out/pre-release settings.

v



Currently, the majority of inmates in Massachu-setts receive no supervision in the communityfollowing their prison sentence. Moreover, theparole system does not use risk assessment toprioritize or target supervision and interventions.In 2002, one-third of sentenced prisoners released

Post-Release Supervisionand Follow-Up

Recommendations:

• The level of risk to the community, based on an objective assessment instrument, should determinethe intensity and length of supervision and correctional programs. Although all offenders should belegally eligible for post-release supervision, offenders with low risk of re-offense should not receivesupervision or should be considered for early case closure.

• An inmate who received treatment while in custody should receive coordinated aftercare in thecommunity to maintain changes and protect the programming investment.

• Correctional agencies should take a balanced approach to supervision. An effective approach re-quires a balance of: supervision; correctional programs and support services; and positive andnegative consequences applied based on offender behavior.

• As Massachusetts expands parole supervision, state leaders should look for ways of enhancing super-vision quality according to evidence-based practices.

from state prisons were supervised by the ParoleBoard. For maximum security inmates in stateprisons, 83 percent were released without parolesupervision in 2002, posing a serious public safetythreat.

Offenders under parole supervision must be heldaccountable for their actions through a system ofgraduated, community-based sanctions for violat-ing the conditions of supervision. Massachusettslacks intermediate sanction tools and guidelines foroffenders. When no intermediate sanction toolsare available, the parole officer must either ignoretechnical violations or return the parolee back toprison for the remainder of his or her sentence.This means, for example, that an incident of drug

Responding to Violations

use or a failure to report could result in 18 monthsin prison. The use of expensive prison bed dayswould not be necessary if other meaningful re-sponses were available. Proportionality of responseand consistency from officer to officer throughoutthe state can be accomplished through the estab-lishment of sanction and revocation guidelines thattake into account the severity of the violation andthe criminal history and risk of the offender.

vi



Recommendations:

• Massachusetts needs to increase the availability of graduated, community-based sanctions as a re-sponse to non-criminal violations of the conditions of supervision. Use of pre-release work settingsshould be expanded as an intermediate sanction tool.

• The state should develop revocation/sanction guidelines that: support the use of graduated, commu-nity-based responses to violations; provide swift and certain responses to violations; and provide adecision-making structure for statewide consistency in responses to violations.

All stages of the reentry process—supervision andmonitoring, case management, service delivery andcontinuity of care, and response to violations—require the sharing of information among multiplepublic and private agencies. Information sharinghelps agencies better manage and track offenders,intervene in social and legal problems, and carryout their public safety mission.

Information Sharing

Massachusetts does not currently have an inte-grated data system for tracking and communicat-ing about offenders; however, the Department ofCorrection is in the planning stages of creating asystem that would include both state and countylevel data.

Recommendation:

• Massachusetts should support efforts to develop an integrated data system. In the absence of anintegrated data system, each agency involved in offender reentry should prioritize the sharing of datain whatever form is most expedient.

Offenders typically leave prison with little or nomoney and face many barriers to communityreintegration, including how they will meet theirbasic needs. Access to a well organized web ofservices and pro-social community connectionsgreatly enhances an offender’s ability to success-fully reintegrate in the community. It is criticalthat offenders with substance abuse issues andserious mental and medical problems have access

Community Integration

to treatment in the community. Other essentialneeds include:

Housing. Homelessness and housing instabilityincrease the risk of recidivism. In Massachusetts,lack of housing is one of the most serious barriersfor inmates transitioning from prison. Affordablehousing is scarce, and offenders have few financialresources to pay rent at any price. They also face

vii



potential discrimination from landlords due totheir criminal records, as well as some restrictionsfrom public housing and federally-assisted housingprograms. It is estimated that 20-25 percent ofstate prison inmates who complete their sentenceare homeless at release.

Employment. Studies have shown that having ajob with adequate pay is associated with lower ratesof re-offending. Job training and employmentassistance for offenders is important to addressnumerous barriers to employment, including: lackof education and job skills; time out of the laborforce due to incarceration; and discriminationbased on having a criminal record. Through theCriminal Offender Record Information law,

employers have access to varying levels of criminalhistory information; however, Massachusetts doesnot have standards prohibiting employmentdiscrimination against ex-offenders as a group bypublic or private employers or occupationallicensing agencies.

Community Support. Informal social controlssuch as family, peer, and community influenceshave a more direct effect on offender behavior thanformal social controls. Within the Common-wealth, the community’s role in successful reentryhas not been considered in a systematic way bythose responsible for the transition from prison tocommunity living.

Recommendations:

• Through public and private collaborations, Massachusetts should create a “web” of services and pro-social community connections around offenders released from incarceration.

• Massachusetts should facilitate community involvement in helping offenders reintegrate, includingsuch supports as offenders’ families and faith-based institutions.

• Transitional and affordable housing opportunities for returning offenders should be expanded tosupport offenders’ successful transition to community living.

• Massachusetts should develop comprehensive job programs for offenders that address vocationalskills, motivation and attitude, and employment assistance. Job programs must be delivered as partof an integrated approach to dealing with other criminal risk factors (e.g., substance abuse or impul-sivity).

• The state should remove legal and structural barriers to employment that are not necessary for publicsafety purposes and change Massachusetts’ law to explicitly protect ex-offenders from discriminationbased solely on having a criminal record.

viii



Carrying out these reforms requires a shift inpublic resources from incarceration to communitysupervision and correctional programming. It isimportant that the benefits of this change ininvestment be measured over time. Ongoingperformance monitoring is essential to systemimprovement and ensuring effective use of publicresources.

Performance Measurement andSystem Accountability

In Massachusetts, the National Governor’s Associa-tion Prison Reentry State Policy Academy has beenestablished to provide leadership for system reformin the reentry process and in using evidence-basedpractices.

Recommendations:

• The Governor’s Office should expand the National Governor’s Association (NGA) MassachusettsLeadership Team to include other stakeholders beyond state agencies; this group should be chargedwith defining state-level performance goals, including a specific goal for reduction in recidivism.

• The NGA Leadership Team should identify and monitor performance measures to gauge progress inachieving goals and report data to all stakeholders (i.e., policymakers, practitioners, and citizens).

• Individual agencies should develop program/agency-level performance measures that support thestatewide goals and performance measures.

Change requires the participation of many unre-lated governmental and private agencies, includinglaw enforcement, the judiciary, corrections, parole,community corrections, human services, and thecommunity at large. The reentry process is com-

Leadership and Collaboration

plex, and many public and private agencies haveresponsibility for parts of it, yet no single agencyhas responsibility for all of it. The only way tosuccessfully accomplish system change of thismagnitude is to establish collaborative partnerships.

Recommendations:

• The Governor’s Office and Executive Office of Public Safety need to provide strong leadership tofacilitate the necessary collaborative partnerships.

• The Governor should charge an expanded National Governor’s Association Leadership Team to takethe lead in establishing the collaboration needed to reform the prison reentry system. The Teamshould also be responsible for planning, developing, implementing, and overseeing the operation of areformed transition process.

ix



None of the changes and reforms can occur with-out a conscious and planned approach to organiza-tional change. Shifting the way an agency doesbusiness will require dynamic leadership andrethinking of agency mission and values. It will

Organizational Change

also require the development of new knowledge,skills, and abilities for staff, adjustment and en-hancement of an infrastructure to support thechanges, and transformation of the organizationalculture.

Recommendation:

• Leaders of public and private agencies affected by the planned improvements in prison transitionshould develop a strategy to address specific changes in the organization’s practices or role.

The Crime and Justice Institute strives to promotecorrectional practices and interventions that aremore effective and cost effective than currentpractices. Fortunately, there is a large body ofresearch on correctional interventions that providesthe knowledge base necessary to design and delivera corrections system that reduces recidivism; thisknowledge base allows policymakers and practitio-ners to invest in what works and shift resourcesaway from practices that are not likely to affectcrime. There are also national models that Massa-chusetts can emulate. Research has found that:

• properly designed, evidence-based correctionalinterventions reduce re-offending by as muchas one-third;

• increasing the incarceration rate for drugoffenders is not as effective or cost-efficient inreducing crime as providing drug treatment;

• for every dollar invested in alcohol and drugtreatment, seven dollars are saved in societaland medical costs. Taxpayers save $10,000 for

Conclusion

each person receiving treatment throughreductions in crime, victimization, health care,and welfare dependency; and

• community-based sanctions are more costeffective than incarceration for non-criminalparole violations.

The Commonwealth can and should achieve betterresults in reducing re-offending. Preventing newcrimes saves money currently invested in prisons,law enforcement, prosecution, defense, and thecourt system. It also saves the costs of victimiza-tion, including property loss, medical care, suffer-ing, and loss of life. Using the recommendationsfrom this report, Massachusetts can build animproved reentry process that provides greaterprotection to the public, higher levels of account-ability for offenders, and greater value for thepublic’s investment. A more effective system canonly be realized, however, through strong andsustained leadership that builds collaborativepartnerships with all the stakeholders.

1



1. Prison to Community Reentry

in Massachusetts:

The Challenge of System Reform

As a result of tremendous growth in incar-ceration in Massachusetts and throughoutthe nation over the past 20 years, inmates arereturning to communities in record num-bers. Nationwide, nearly everyone who goesto prison (97 percent) returns to communityliving at some point (Beck, 2000). Morethan 20,000 prison and jail inmates arereleased to Massachusetts’ communities eachyear. The vast majority of these offenderscome from county houses of correction—nearly 90 percent in 1998 (Piehl, 2002).Practitioners, policymakers, and researchershave become increasingly concerned withhow the corrections system should managethe reentry process to best protect the publicand how communities can absorb andreintegrate returning prisoners.

The dramatic increase in the prison popula-tion has been driven by increased rates ofincarceration and longer sentences, both atthe national level and in Massachusetts(Blumstein and Beck, 1999). While moreoffenders are being incarcerated for longerperiods of time, fewer offenders are receivingthe benefit of institutional programs that canreduce the likelihood that they will commitnew crimes after release. Existing programshave not expanded with the prison popula-tion, and budget reductions further de-creased available programming.

When offenders reach the end of an incar-ceration sentence, there is little continuity or

coordination between institutional andcommunity-based interventions and supervi-sion. Changes in Massachusetts’ sentencinglaws and practices have eliminated or re-duced eligibility for parole; thus, there are agrowing number of offenders who receive nosupervision, services, or interventions oncethey return to community living. Approxi-mately two-thirds of offenders released fromall state prisons in 2002, and half of thosereleased from county houses of correction in1999, received no parole supervision aftertheir release to the community–althoughsome may have been supervised by virtue ofa probation sentence (Mass. DOC, 2003 andMass. Parole Board, 1999). Nearly three-quarters of offenders released from high andmedium security prison settings in 2002were released directly to the community withno parole supervision (Mass. DOC, 2003).

Given the large number of prisoners releasedand lack of adequate supervision and servicesto support successful community integration,it should be no surprise that offenders whohave served time in prison re-offend at fairlyhigh rates. In Massachusetts, 41 percent ofinmates released from prison in 1997 werere-incarcerated within three years of release(Hoover, 2003). The societal cost associatedwith high rates of re-offending is enormous.The result is an increase in crime victims anda financial burden on citizens who must payfor the criminal justice system’s response tothose new crimes. Cost increases often

2



mean that limited public dollars are takenaway from other valuable governmentfunctions. The Massachusetts TaxpayersFoundation estimates that in 2004, the firsttime in decades, Massachusetts will spendmore on prisons and jails than on publichigher education.

Inmates who will be returning to the com-munity are a group that should be consid-ered a priority if any corrections system is toreduce further victimization of the public.From a cost-efficiency standpoint, if thishigh-risk group is managed successfully andreturns to prison are reduced, this will resultin a minimum savings of $43,000 per yearper person in future prison costs alone(Governor’s Commission on Criminal JusticeInnovation, 2004). Reduced recidivism andcorresponding reductions in victimizationalso result in savings in court costs, prosecu-tion costs, property loss or damage, and thetreatment and health care costs of crimevictims.

Current reentry practices in Massachusettsare not likely to reduce recidivism, and mayactually increase recidivism; thus, they donot contribute to the public’s safety. There isgrowing recognition that the laws andpractices must be changed to improve theefficiency and effectiveness of the reentrysystem. The state has seen several recentcomprehensive reentry policy studies:Returning Inmates: Closing the Public SafetyGap published by Community Resources forJustice; From Cell to Street published byMassINC; and most recently the Governor’sCommission on Criminal Justice InnovationFinal Report. There has also been an emerg-ing focus on reentry planning within theExecutive Office of Public Safety and innova-

tive approaches developed by local jurisdic-tions and houses of correction.

Problems related to prison reentry processeshave generated national attention as well. Inresponse to the growing number of prisonreleases, poor transition processes, andresulting threat to public safety, a number ofnational initiatives have been launched toimprove the transition from prison to com-munity. Examples include the NationalInstitute of Corrections’ Transition fromPrison to Community Initiative, the Councilof State Governments’ Reentry Policy Coun-cil, the National Governor’s Association’sPrison Reentry State Policy Academy, theDepartment of Justice’s Serious and ViolentOffender Reentry Initiative, and the UrbanInstitute’s Reentry Roundtable. Massachu-setts is participating in both the NationalGovernor’s Association’s Prison Reentry StatePolicy Academy and the Department ofJustice’s Serious and Violent OffenderReentry Initiative.

This is a unique time. By virtue of thecomprehensive policy reviews recentlycompleted, policymakers in Massachusettsare more aware of issues related to reentrylaws and practices. There is an emergingconsensus about many of the specific policiesthat would improve the system. Policymakerscan draw on a wealth of knowledge fromresearch on effective corrections practices andnational reentry models. Perhaps mostimportant, there is leadership and politicalsupport at the highest levels of Massachu-setts’ government.

The Crime and Justice Institute hopes tocontribute to this growing momentum andbuild on the analyses that precede it by

3



offering a roadmap for implementing manyof the reforms now being considered. Thisreport outlines a proven and comprehensivemodel for prisoner reentry in the Common-wealth. It also addresses the collaboration,organizational change, and performancemonitoring necessary to successfully imple-ment the systemicchanges essential toaccomplish this reform.The reports draw fromthe national researchliterature of evidence-based practices andinterviews with experts,officials, practitioners,and community-basedservice providers. Itaddresses areas of policythat have a significanteffect on reentry, fromsentencing through post-release follow-up.Although the central focus is on the transi-tion from incarceration to the communityand the roles of the state prison system,houses of corrections (for sentenced offend-

ers), and parole, the principles outlined inthis report also apply to probation.

The corrections system can and shouldachieve better results in reducing the re-offending that creates new crime victims andenormous costs to society. Properly de-

signed, evidence-basedcorrectional interventionsreduce re-offending by one-third (Lipsey, 2003). Moreeffective correctionalinterventions represent notonly better public safety,but more responsiblestewardship of limitedpublic resources. Correc-tional resources should beprioritized so that theyhave the greatest impact oncrime and criminality.

Fortunately, there is much evidence—basedin solid research—that can act as a guide todesigning the most effective and cost-effec-tive prison reentry process.

Properly designed,evidence-based

correctionalinterventions reduce

re-offending byone-third.

4



2. A Map for Reforming the

Transition Continuum

professionals with guidance as to how toachieve the greatest reductions in recidivism.This body of knowledge has been called“evidence-based practices” (Andrews, 1994;McGuire, 1995). The appendix provides abrief and accessible summary of the keyprinciples of these evidence-based practices,along with definitions of terms.

In addition to a well-established body ofresearch that allows corrections systems toimprove effectiveness and reduce recidivism,there are national models that address thequality of prison reentry practices. TheNational Institute of Corrections, in collabo-ration with Abt Associates, has developed amodel for prison reentry as part of theTransition from Prison to CommunityInitiative (TPCI). This model serves as ahelpful guide to incorporating research-basedand proven approaches throughout thereentry process. Elements of this modelinclude: assessment and classification;transition and accountability planning;community supervision and services; re-sponses to adjustment and achievements onsupervision; and discharge from supervisionand community services.

It is the job of the corrections system toprotect the public by reducing the risk thatoffenders pose to the community. In theshort term, incarceration and communitymonitoring are intended to prevent thevictimization of the public by those alreadyconvicted of crimes. In the long term, futurecrimes and victimization are preventedthrough the application of effective correc-tional interventions that reduce the riskfactors or characteristics of offenders associ-ated with criminal behavior. As the riskfactors are addressed, the risk that a particu-lar offender will engage in criminal behavioris reduced—even after he leaves supervision.

This approach assumes that we are able topredict with some confidence who is mostlikely to re-offend (i.e., assessment of risk).It also assumes that we know the characteris-tics associated with criminal behavior (i.e.,risk factors) and ways to effectively interveneto affect those risk factors (i.e., application ordesign of intervention). Fortunately, weknow a great deal about each of these areas.To date, thousands of studies on the out-comes of correctional interventions havebeen reviewed and provide corrections

5



2.1 Applying Principles of Evidence-Based Practices

Assess Risk to Re-Offend andTarget Higher-Risk Offenders

Research has found that certain risk factorsare predictive of criminal behavior. Somefactors, such as criminal history, are staticand unchangeable. Others, such as substanceabuse, antisocial attitudes, and antisocialassociates are dynamic and changeable; theseare commonly referred to as criminogenicneeds. A validated assessment tool canidentify these static and dynamic risk factorsand allow classification of offenders accord-ing to their relative risk of committing newcrimes.

Application of evidence-based practicesrequires correctional systems to focus mostsupervision and treatment resources on theoffenders predicted to be at high risk ofcommitting a new crime. From a publicsafety perspective, this approach makes sense.When we know which offenders are mostlikely to engage in crimes, we can focus ourclosest monitoring on those offenders. Thishigher risk group should be prioritized for allinterventions.

In terms of cost-effectiveness, researchindicates that high and medium risk offend-ers benefit most from correctional interven-tions; in other words, the greatest reduction

in recidivism and risk to the public isachieved by intervening with this group.1 Infact, supervision and treatment resources thatfocus on lower risk offenders tend to producelittle if any positive effect with regard torecidivism. (Intervening with low riskoffenders can increase criminal behavior,especially when they are forced to associatewith higher risk and more criminal individu-als.) Finally, risk assessment allows correc-tions agencies to focus limited public re-sources where they can achieve the greatestpositive impact on public safety—with thosemedium and high risk offenders.

The Commonwealth does not use systematicassessment of risk in determining levels ofsupervision, sanctioning, or correctionalprograms. A risk and needs assessment isconducted at admission to the state prisonsystem, and many houses of correction alsoassess risk and needs using various methods.The parole system does not use risk assess-ment in prioritizing or targeting supervisionor intervention. Ideally, risk and need wouldbe assessed using a valid and reliable assess-ment tool at admission to incarceration totarget in-custody programs, and again at thetime of release, to determine levels of super-vision and community interventions mostlikely to reduce risk of re-offense.

1 Note that there is a very small percentage of the highest risk offenders who are unlikely to benefit from

treatment interventions and should have close surveillance.

6



Recommendations:

• All offenders returning to the community should be objectively assessed for riskto re-offend using a valid and reliable risk assessment instrument. Results shouldbe used to determine services and level of supervision.

• The level of risk to the community should determine the intensity and length ofsupervision and correctional programs. Offenders with a low risk of re-offenseshould receive no supervision or should be considered for early case closure.

• Ideally, all partners in the transition process should use a common instrument topredict the probability of future criminal behavior. The Department of Correc-tion, sheriffs, Parole Board, and Probation Department should review existing risktools and work toward agreement on using a single instrument.

Assess and TargetCriminal Risk Factors(Criminogenic Needs)

Many criminal risk factors can be changed ormitigated through effective interventionprograms. Addressing these dynamic riskfactors reduces the risk of future criminalbehavior, with clear benefits to the public.The first step in applying this principle is toaccurately identify these risk factors, alsocalled criminogenic needs, through a validand reliable needs assessment process. Thenext step is to provide programs that targetand reduce those particular risk factors.Examples of offender characteristics that aremost closely associated with criminal behav-ior are:• Antisocial attitudes and thinking;• Antisocial peer groups;• Alcohol and drug problems;• Anger/hostility;• Impulsivity and lack of self-control;• Poor social skills;

• Lack of educational achievement; and• Lack of vocational or financial achieve-

ment (Andrews, Bonta, and Hoge, 1990;Andrews, 1994; Andrews and Bonta,1994).

The Department of Correction’s policy is touse its risk and needs assessment tool totarget correctional programs and interven-tions while in prison, subject to resourceavailability and security classification. Mostcorrectional agencies in the state do not userisk and needs assessments for subsequentdecision-making in reentry planning, parolesupervision, or referrals to treatment. Ingeneral, available correctional interventionsare not systematically focused or designed tointervene on the criminal risk factors, al-though there are some in place that do (e.g.,programs for developing employment skills,cognitive and interpersonal skills, conflictresolution skills, and addiction treatmentprograms).

7



Recommendations:

• Following assessment of offenders’ level of risk, a valid and reliable offenderneeds assessment should be used systemwide for high and medium risk offenders.

• Lower risk offenders who will not be prioritized for correctional interventions donot require needs assessment if they will not be actively supervised or referredfor services. Therefore it is important that a risk assessment be applied first todetermine which offenders should receive a more thorough assessment of needs.Needs assessment is important only in so much as an active intervention to reducecriminal risk is desired and available.

• Offender incarceration case plans, reentry plans, and parole and probation caseplans should address the criminal risk factors found in the assessment.

• All correctional programs that aim to reduce criminal behavior and recidivismshould target criminal risk factors, not other problems that offenders mighthave. Existing programs should be redesigned as necessary to target criminal riskfactors. Resources invested in other types of interventions should be redirected.

Match the Learning Stylesand Abilities of Offenders(Responsivity)

To effectively change offenders’ dynamic riskfactors, supervision and treatment interven-tions must be designed in ways that canreach and affect this group. The mostinfluential strategies are cognitive behavioral,which focus on changing thinking andbehavioral skills, are action-oriented, andreinforce appropriate offender behavior.These techniques are based on social learningtheory approaches, including modeling thenew behavior, step-by-step and directedpractice of new skills, positive and negativefeedback, and recognition of progress

(Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews, 1994;Andrews and Bonta, 1994).

There are also characteristics of individualsthat influence their responsiveness to inter-ventions. Such factors include cognitiveability, learning styles, stage of motivation forchange, gender, ethnicity, developmentalstage, beliefs, and personal temperament.Working effectively requires adjusting theapproach to accommodate these individualfactors.

Gender is one of the most important charac-teristics of individual offenders affecting howthey respond to correctional interventions.Women offenders differ from male offendersin the ways they become involved in criminal

8



Recommendations:

• Correctional interventions should be focused on the thinking or behavior ofoffenders and designed consistent with the concepts of social learning theory.

• Gender-responsive strategies and approaches to managing female offendersshould be developed.

behavior and in how relationships withothers shape their lives. A gender-responsivecorrections system acknowledges and targetsthe combined effects of substance abuse,trauma, mental illness, and economic mar-ginality on women and their criminal behav-ior. In addition, a gender-responsive inter-

vention considers women’s relationships,especially those with their children, and theirroles in the community (Bloom, Owen, andCovington, 2003). Procedures, programs,and services should be designed with thesefactors in mind.2

Design EffectiveCorrections Treatment Programs

The most effective programs are designedusing the principles of risk, dynamic criminalrisk factors (criminogenic needs), andresponsivity. They use risk assessment toidentify higher risk offenders, and they targetinterventions toward dynamic criminal riskfactors that can be changed through inter-vention. By mitigating these risk factors, therisk of re-offending is reduced. At least 80percent of the program’s services and inter-ventions should target criminal risk factors,and more intensive services should be pro-vided to higher need offenders (Gendreauand Andrews, 1994). Examples of targets forchange are:

• Recognizing and changing antisocialthoughts;

• Increasing self-control, self-management,and problem solving skills;

• Developing anger management skills;• Developing social skills such as

assertiveness, conflict resolution, empa-thy;

• Encouraging pro-social peer associationswhile reducing those that are anti-social;

• Treating addictions;• Providing basic education;• Improving employability; and• Planning for relapse prevention

(Andrews et al., 1990; Andrews, 1994;Andrews and Bonta, 1994).

2 For more information about designing correctional responses effective for women, see Gender Respon-

sive Strategies: Research, Practice, and Guiding Principles for Women Offenders, by Barbara Bloom,

Barbara Owen, and Stephanie Covington, National Institute of Corrections, 2003.

9



The most effective programs deliver inter-ventions that are responsive to offendercharacteristics and match the learning stylesand abilities of offenders. Some examples ofcharacteristics of these programs include:• Using written treatment manuals and

curricula;• Incorporating positive reinforcers/

rewards as well as effective punishers (4to 1 ratio);

• Teaching offenders to:• Monitor and anticipate problem

behavior,• Plan and rehearse alternatives to

problem behavior, and• Practice alternatives to problem

behaviors in increasingly difficultsituations;

• Basing program completion criteria onthe acquisition of prosocial skills;

• Referring clients to other services andagencies that help address their needs;

• Training family members to assistoffenders;

• Having substance abuse programs lastbetween 3 and 12 months in duration(not including aftercare);

• Providing aftercare;

• Having college-educated, experienced,well-trained, and well-supervised staff;

• Providing individualized treatment basedon individual client differences(Gendreau and Andrews, 1994).

In addition, ex-offenders themselves have avaluable role to play as peer mentors, work-ing in conjunction with staff. Offenders canmore easily identify with someone who hasbeen through similar experiences, and ex-offenders who have successfully reintegratedinto society provide effective role models.

Finally, the most effective programs evaluatetheir outcomes; this is the foundation ofevidence-based practice. Programs need toassess offender change in cognitive and skilldevelopment and evaluate offender recidi-vism if services are to remain effective.There are valid and tested tools available thatmeasure change in the dynamic criminal riskfactors and are quite predictive of futurerecidivism. These tools allow corrections andtreatment practitioners to determine if theinterventions they are planning and deliver-ing are having the desired effect on criminalrisk factors, and ultimately on recidivism(Gendreau and Andrews, 1994).

Recommendation:

• Correctional agencies and systems within the Commonwealth should, byclearly stated policy and practice, implement programs that are designed ac-cording to the scientific evidence available regarding effectiveness in reducingrecidivism. There is value in providing structured time for inmates while theyare incarcerated. Prisons and houses of correction are safer when inmates areengaged in productive activity. However when programs—distinct from othertypes of structured activities—are being delivered, they should be based onevidence-based principles.

10



The reentry process encompasses more thanjust moving from prison back to the commu-nity. It begins with sentencing and includeshow convicted offenders spend their timeduring confinement, how they are releasedfrom prison, and how they are supervisedduring their adjustment to life in commu-nity. This process is deeply flawed in moststates according to the work of Abt Associ-ates and the National Institute of Correc-tions, which developed the Transition FromPrison to Community Initiative (TPCI)national model. The entire reentry processmust be strengthened in order to protect thepublic more effectively.

Sentencing

The reentry process begins with sentencing,which dictates the consequences for thecommission and conviction of a crime,including who goes to prison and the termsof release. Sentencing laws and practices,particularly in Massachusetts, have a signifi-cant effect on prison to community reentry.Sentencing laws drive the prison populationand led to the dramatic growth in thatpopulation over the past ten years. Almosthalf of the offenders sentenced to state prisonare precluded from parole consideration dueto their sentence, where the minimum andthe maximum sentence are one day apart(Massachusetts Sentencing Commission,2003). Since parole cannot be granted untilthe minimum sentence is served, an inmatewith this type of sentence is not eligible for

parole until one day before he or she must bereleased with no supervision. Nearly one-third of all court commitments to stateprison in 2002 were for drug offenses; mostof these had mandatory minimum sentences.(Sampson, 2004 ).3 These mandatory mini-mum sentencing statutes for drug offendersand the practice of sentencing a minimumand a maximum sentence one day apartprevent those affected from participating inprison pre-release programs and being re-leased on parole.

As a result of the Truth in Sentencing reformof 1993, parole eligibility at one-third or two-thirds of the minimum sentence and statu-tory good time were eliminated. The pro-posed companion legislation that would havecreated sentencing guidelines was not en-acted; consequently, incentives for goodbehavior in prison have largely been elimi-nated, and most offenders are released with-out parole supervision. While rates of paroleeligibility have declined, so have rates ofparole approval for eligible inmates. In 1990,the Parole Board approved 70 percent ofparole candidates; this dropped to 38 percentby 1999 (Mass. Parole Board, 1999). Limit-ing the number of parolees does not limit thenumbers released; it only serves to limit theplanned and supervised transition fromprison to community. Even more disturbing,during the same time period there has been athree-fold increase in the percentage of malestate prison inmates released directly frommaximum security settings with no supervi-

3 Thirty-three percent of male commitments to DOC were for drug offenses, with mandatory offenses account-

ing for 64 percent of these commitments. Twenty-seven percent of female commitments to the DOC were for

drug offenses, of which 10 percent were mandatory offenses. However, unlike the males, most of the females

(92 percent) were serving house of correction (county) sentences.

2.2 Applying a National Model to Reentry

11



sion or support (Hoover, 2000). Inmateswho pose the greatest threat to society aredenied parole, while those with the leastneed for supervision receive supervision andservices. Community safety is jeopardizedwhen inmates, especially those most likely torecidivate, are released without the supervi-sion and support of parole.

The judiciary has reacted to this lack ofsupervised release by imposing “from andafter” sentences, whereby a probation term isordered to follow a prison term. This prob-lem would be better addressed throughsentencing reform than through the existingpatchwork of sentences and supervisingagencies. Of those incarcerated at either thestate or county level, approximately 40

percent had a post-release probation sentence(Mass. Sentencing Commission, 2001).Thus, both probation agencies and paroleagencies are providing some form of post-prison supervision; sometimes offenders aresupervised by both agencies at the same time,and sometimes they are supervised by neitheragency. Centralizing post-incarcerationsupervision in the Parole Board and itsagents will reduce fragmentation and im-prove the Commonwealth’s approach to thereentry process. It will facilitate a statewideand strategic approach to supervision and thedevelopment of community-based sanctionsand resources. It will also clearly distinguishthe important role of probation as a sentenc-ing alternative to prison.

Recommendations:

• The state should adopt sentencing guidelines that: support parole; eliminatemandatory minimums for drug crimes by incorporating them into the sen-tencing guidelines; and support intermediate sanctions for those low-level,nonviolent offenders who can safely be managed in the community. Prisonbeds should be reserved for those who pose a higher threat to public safety.

• Returning inmates who are most likely to re-offend should be supervised bythe Parole Board after release. The Board should be granted the legal authorityto require supervision of all offenders after incarceration; however, the Boardshould rely on an objective risk assessment to prioritize and order supervisionfor those most likely to re-offend. Low risk offenders should be put on inactivestatus.

• Prisons and houses of correction should have some form of discretionaryrelease that is more broadly available to serve as an incentive for inmates’good behavior and program participation while incarcerated. Parole servesthis function, as would a provision for earned “good time” with post-releasesupervision.

12



Incarceration and ReentryPlanning

Massachusetts operates 18 state prisonshousing 9,223 criminally sentenced inmates(Mass DOC, January 1, 2003). Four ofthese facilities operate as pre-release pro-grams in which minimum custody inmatespreparing to transition to the communitycan begin working prior to release.4 TheDepartment of Correction (DOC) releasesabout 3,300 inmates per year (3,239 in2002).

According to the national model, Transitionfrom Prison to Community Initiative,transition planning begins at the front doorof the prison or house of correction ratherthan near release. If the period of incarcera-tion is to have an effect beyond punishment,then some thought must be given to reduc-ing offenders’ propensity to commit crimesagainst the public after release. A transitionaccountability plan should be developed atadmission to prison, with the goal of decreas-ing recidivism and increasing an inmate’sprospects for successful self-sufficiency. Thefirst step in creating a meaningful plan is theassessment of dynamic risk factors (crimino-genic needs), such as chemical dependencies,lack of education, poor job skills, and antiso-cial thinking. The transition accountabilityplan includes a prescribed series of programsand interventions designed to mitigate thoserisk factors. The plan also specifies behav-ioral expectations and consequences formeeting or failing to meet those expecta-

tions. As offenders make progress, the planis revised throughout incarceration, atrelease, and on into community supervision(Parent and Barnett, 2002).

In the last six to twelve months of incarcera-tion, the focus on successful communityliving should increase. This is the time todeliver programs focused on communityliving skills and addiction treatment. Ideally,many inmates would be placed in “half-wayout” programs so that they move graduallyinto community living, beginning with veryclose oversight and control. The existingpre-release programs provide an ideal settingfor a graduated return to community living.These programs have demonstrated positiveresults in lowering recidivism rates andshould be expanded (Piehl, 2002; Boston BarAssociation, 2002).

The phase of the transitional accountabilityplan focused on release planning, often calledthe reentry plan, centers on a projectedrelease date. It is important to establish aprojected date as a benchmark for solidpreparation. The reentry plan describes thepreparation for release, terms and conditionsof that release, and post-release supervisionand services. It covers the period for the sixmonths before and after release, addressingcritical reentry issues in detail such as hous-ing, employment, conditions of release, andaccess to programs and services. It definesactions and responsibilities of corrections,other supervisory agencies, human serviceagencies, and the offender. The reentry plan

4 Following passage of the Corrections Reform Act, Chapter 777 of the Acts of 1972, the Department of

Correction established an extensive system of pre-release centers to provide pre-release programming and

furloughs as a way to prepare inmates to transition to the community; however, this system was largely

dismantled with changes in policy direction in the late 1980’s.

13



is a logical next step based on the transitionaccountability plan and serves as theroadmap for continuity in the delivery oftreatment and services and sharing of infor-mation. The plan should reflect a multi-disciplinary and collaborative approach tocase planning, including prison/house ofcorrection staff, parole staff, Parole Board,program staff, law enforcement, and familyand community members as appropriate.Leadership for the plan and responsibility forengaging others rests with prison and houseof correction staff initially, and then transfersto parole staff at release (Parent and Barnett,2002).

The Massachusetts Department of Correc-tion uses a two-part release preparationprogram for inmates that consists of the riskreduction plan and transition planningworkshops. All inmates are assessed at intakein order to create their own unique planbased on an assessment of risk factors. Thisplan is similar in concept to the accountabil-ity plan recommended by the TPCI and isused to determine appropriate in-prisonprogram referrals aimed at reducing recidi-vism. Programs offered, depending on theinstitution, are literacy, employment skills,cognitive and interpersonal skills, cognitiverestructuring, relapse-prevention skills, sexoffender treatment, parenting education,conflict resolution skills, violence reduction,and a comprehensive residential programtreating the co-occurring problems of crimi-nality and addiction. The prison system alsorelies on a number of volunteer-facilitatedself-help programs.

The DOC encourages all inmates within oneyear of release to attend transition planning

workshops (five 2-1/2 hour sessions). Theseworkshops teach inmates life skills and helpthem develop transition plans detailingexpectations regarding employment, hous-ing, treatment programs, and medical needs.Staff members assist with referrals and casemanagement services. Reentry plans aredeveloped by reentry case workers or byinmates who voluntarily participate in thetransition planning workshops. These plansare not mandatory — approximately 80percent of inmates participate in the transi-tion planning workshops and 60 percentcomplete a release plan with the DOCreentry unit case managers.

One of the significant barriers to adequatepreparation for community living is custodyclassification. The custody classificationsystem in the state prison system appears toover-classify inmates at the higher securitylevels, making them ineligible for manyprograms and all reentry facilities. Forexample, Massachusetts classifies 8 percent ofinmates at the minimum level compared tothe national average of 16 percent (Kurkjian,2004; Stephens and Karberg, 2003). TheDepartment of Correction is currentlyreviewing those practices, with assistancefrom the National Institute of Corrections.

The Crime and Justice Institute supportschanges in classification as a way to reducebarriers to effective reentry preparation, asrecommended by the Governor’s Commission onCriminal Justice Innovation. A change in themix of higher and lower security settings alsooffers an opportunity to shift resources fromunnecessarily high levels of security to increasesin reentry programming and half-way out/pre-release settings.

14



Typically inmates with sentences of less thantwo-and-a-half years serve their time at thesheriff-operated houses of correction.5

Several sheriffs’ offices and police depart-ments have some type of reintegrationprogram in place for at least some groups ofoffenders. Examples of well-developed localprograms involving multi-agency partner-ships can be found in Suffolk, Essex andHampden Counties, and the City of Lowell.

• In Suffolk County, the Boston ReentryInitiative (BRI) has been designed toenhance public safety by identifying andproviding services and monitoringinmates who pose a significant risk ofviolence upon release from jail. Servicesand monitoring commence the momentoffenders enter the Suffolk CountyHouse of House of Correction, lastthroughout their incarceration, andfollow them to the neighborhoods towhich they return. The Boston ReentryInitiative builds on interagency andcommunity partnerships with the BostonPolice Department, Suffolk CountySheriff ’s Department, other law enforce-ment agencies, social service providers,and faith-based organizations.

• Essex County has developed an innova-tive and cost-effective program for femaleoffenders that has significantly reducedrecidivism and improved reintegration.The program, Women in Transition,provides a wide range of treatment and

educational programs inside the facilityand transitions women from structuredto more independent living, where theywork in the community. The Sheriff ’sDepartment also has reentry case manag-ers at each facility who develop individu-alized treatment plans for each inmate.

• The Hampden County CorrectionalCenter has developed a release planningprogram that includes group sessions onthe topic of release planning and thedevelopment of an individual releaseplan for each participant. The releaseplans list services that inmates will needwhen they are released: addictiontreatment programs; health or mentalhealth care; and employment or educa-tion services. In addition, staff activelymake referrals to community-basedservices and offer offenders an aftercaresupport group and individual mentors.

• The City of Lowell has strong commu-nity police agencies, which have a historyof collaborating with the Department ofCorrection to improve the success ofprisoner reentry. Police officers meetwith inmates prior to their release, andthey have a case meeting with partneragencies on each released offender,focusing on his or her future plans.

Additional examples are described in FromCell to Street and in Returning Inmates:Closing the Public Safety Gap.

5 However, several counties send their female inmates to be housed at the state Department of Correction.

In fact, most of the female population of the DOC are there for county House of Correction sentences. In

2002, 92 percent of DOC female court commitments were incarcerated for house of correction sentences

and 8 percent were there for state prison sentences. (See Sampson [2004]. 2002 Court Commitments to the

Massachusetts Department of Correction).

15



Recommendations:

• The availability and capacity of prison and jail programming should besufficient and appropriate to intervene with the criminal risk factors of thoseinmates most likely to re-offend.

• A reentry plan should be mandatory and universal for every inmate releasedfrom incarceration. Massachusetts’ case law has established that prison pro-grams must be voluntary. The reentry plan is not a program, but a procedureadded to other existing procedures that govern release from custody. This planwill describe how the inmate will be prepared for release, the terms and condi-tions of that release, and post-release supervision and services. The reentrycase worker within the facility should be assigned to take the lead in carryingout this responsibility, but should work across agencies and divisions as neces-sary to create a comprehensive and collaborative plan.

• Pre-release/work-release facilities should be expanded, and the number ofinmates eligible for this form of transition should be increased.

• The custody classification system of the DOC should be changed to shiftresources from unnecessarily high levels of security to increases in reentryprogramming and half-way out/pre-release settings.

• New partnerships should be developed between the Department of Correc-tion and houses of correction for returning state offenders. If a house ofcorrection near the inmate’s residence serves as a releasing facility from thestate prison system, it can increase the capacity of the local parole agency tocollaborate with institution staff, thus improving the release planning process.It also facilitates reach-in efforts by community services and supports, provid-ing a tighter link between the offender and the community to which he or sheis returning. In addition, a house of correction may be better able to offer pre-release work programs to eligible inmates. There is a pilot of this type ofarrangement operating at the Hampden County House of Correction. CJIconcurs with this recommendation made by the Governor’s Commission on Crimi-nal Justice Innovation.

• Comprehensive reentry partnerships developed by houses of correctionshould be identified and replicated statewide. CJI concurs with this recommen-dation made by the Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation.

16



Correctional Programs

According to a recent monograph by MarkLipsey for the International CommunityCorrections Association (2003), the mosteffective programs have one or more of thefollowing characteristics. They:

• focus on training and skill building, suchas skills related to interpersonal behavior,thinking and behavior, or academic andemployment skills;

• focus on interpersonal behavior such asimproving interpersonal skills, conflictresolution skills, and/or assertivenessskills, and increasing empathy;

• address deviant thinking patterns that arecharacteristic of many offenders (self-justification, poor decision-making,misinterpretation of social cues, deficientmoral reasoning, and attitudes andexpectations that support substanceabuse);

• employ techniques of behavior modifica-tion—rewards and punishments are usedto shape behavior (e.g., contingencymanagement, contracting, and tokeneconomies). Research shows that behav-ioral approaches are the most effective inreducing recidivism;

• target multiple problems; and

• deliver well implemented and relativelyintensive treatment.

Lipsey reports that the very best programsreduce recidivism by 32 percent.6 Unfortu-nately, only about 10 percent of programsreviewed in the national research attain thehighest levels of effectiveness. Massachusettshas no systematic processes or procedures inplace that ensure that correctional programsare designed using the existing research oneffective programs.

Practitioners in Massachusetts working withoffenders transitioning from incarcerationare very concerned with the lack of programsin correctional facilities and in the commu-nity to assist with successful transition. Theyhave identified the need for and importanceof increased capacity in addictions andmental health treatment,7 education, andprograms that develop marketable job skills.

Alcohol and Drug Treatment

The link between drug use and crime hasbeen well established. M.R. Chaiken,writing for the National Institute of Justiceon prison programs, states:

Entrenched in a lifestyle that includes drugsand crime, many of these offenders when

6 The Crime and Justice Institute recognizes that some very antisocial and high-risk offenders do not

benefit from correctional programs. For these individuals, close monitoring and surveillance may be the

most effective intervention to reduce criminal offending.

7 Prison and jail inmates have relatively high rates of serious mental health problems compared with the

general population. Untreated mental illness is a significant predictor of recidivisim (Steadman, 1998).

For a comprehensive set of policy recommendations for offenders with mental health problems, see

the Council of State Governments’ Criminal Justice Mental Health Consensus Project report

(http://consensusproject.org/).

17



released are very active criminals….Paroledoesn’t necessarily deter them, as researchsuggests that the highest rate, more danger-ous drug-involved offenders have a historyof escaping supervision. Clearly, releasingthese types of drug involved offenders…without changing their behavior is offensiveto the public interest (Chaiken, 1989;Tunis, Austin, Morris, Hardyman,Bolyard, 1997).

Eighty percent of prison inmates have ahistory of substance abuse (Mumola, 1999),and a majority of prison and jail inmatesreport using drugs or alcohol at the time oftheir offense (Wilson, 2000). To have ameaningful and measurable impact onrecidivism, it is essential to deliver alcoholand drug treatment programs designed foroffenders throughout the corrections system.A study of the Key-Crest program in Dela-ware revealed that offenders who did notreceive alcohol and drug treatment in prisonor the community had a 70 percent re-arrestrate. Treatment in the community followingprison resulted in a 50 percent reduction inrecidivism, and treatment that began inprison and continued into the communityresulted in a 64 percent reduction in recidi-vism (Inciardi, Martin, Butzin, Hooper, andHarrison, 1997). Results of the National

Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study,which included a review of correctionaltreatment, found that the percentage ofoffenders who reported any criminal activitydeclined 60 percent after treatment, and theaverage number of crimes per year droppedby 74 percent post-treatment (Koenig,Denmead, Nguyen, Harrison, and Harwood,1999).

The Massachusetts Department of Correc-tion reports that 86.5 percent of state in-mates committed in 1999 would benefitfrom alcohol and drug treatment; however,only 33 percent of the state prison popula-tion participated in treatment while incarcer-ated. Treatment capacity in the commu-nity—already inadequate—has been furthereroded with reductions in state funding.Consequently, many offenders who shouldbe treated do not have access to treatment.Because drug and alcohol use is so closelylinked to recidivism, treatment for addictionmust be available within the correctionssystem to meet the goal of reducing crimescommitted after release from prison. Treat-ment must also be available in the commu-nity, both for those treated in prison and forthose who did not receive treatment whileincarcerated.

Recommendations:

• Programs delivered to offenders in correctional institutions and in the commu-nity should be designed on evidence-based principles.

• The corrections system needs to institute a method to certify that correctionalprograms are being delivered in a way consistent with the research. DonAndrews and Paul Gendreau (Correctional Program Assessment Inventory), theInternational Community Corrections Association, and the United Kingdomhave all developed tools for assessing correctional programs for consistency withevidence-based practices.

18



Recommendations (cont.):

• Alcohol and drug treatment programs designed for offenders must be available incorrectional institutions and in the community, with sufficient capacity to reachhigher risk offenders.

begin working with inmates prior to releaseand continue with them in the community.In cases where the offender participated in atreatment program in prison, the transitionplan should include coordination withcontinuing care in the community. Forexample, if the inmate requires mental healthtreatment or health care, community careproviders should be identified, and diagnosisand treatment needs should be communi-cated to those providers.

Protecting the investment of any type of in-prison programming requires some form offollow-through in the community (Martin,Butzin, Saum, and Inciardi, 1999). Forexample, if the inmate received residentialtreatment for an addiction in prison, anoutpatient program should be planned tocontinue to support and build on theprogress made inside the institution. Inaddition, community programs should bedesigned using the same evidence-basedapproach described for prison programs.

Research continues to reinforce the need toapply a balanced approach to managing

Post-release supervisionand follow-up

Supervision following a prison term shouldbe available to every high and medium riskoffender and should be applied at the levelneeded to control the risk of re-offending.8

A risk assessment tool should be used toassign supervision levels, with high riskoffenders receiving closer supervision thanmedium risk offenders. Access to servicesand resources should be prioritized in thesame way, using risk management strategies.Parolees with a low risk of re-offendingshould be placed on an unsupervised statusor discharged early from supervision.

Ideally, the first supervision plan is thereentry plan developed collaborativelybetween prison/house of correction staff andfield staff prior to release. This plan shouldinclude the conditions of release, housingand employment plans, and program needsbased on criminal risk factors identified inprison. Some of the best examples of coordi-nation of care can be found in the “reach-in”model in which community service providers

8 Some predatory sex offenders, as determined by an objective tool, may require lifetime supervision. A

small minority may require civil commitment.

19



offenders effectively in the community.Supervision and community sanctions alone,such as electronic monitoring or day report-ing, have not been shown to reduce crime(Burke, 2001; Sherman, 1997). However,when paired with effective correctionalinterventions, the overall managementapproach makes a difference to the public’swellbeing. The balance of supervision,sanctions, and services appears to be the keyto success in reducingrecidivism.

The typical practice ofsupervising an offender inthe community hasremained fairly static for along time, with slightvariations in the degree towhich monitoring andpunishment or rehabilita-tion are emphasized. In the last few years,however, a number of supervising agencieshave been looking to the effectiveness re-search and “reinventing” community super-vision. Washington State has instituted adynamic case planning process using ongo-ing assessment and re-assessment, along withthe use of behavioral contracts and a widerange of prescribed incentives and sanctionsthat encourage prosocial development. InMaryland, the Division of Parole and Proba-tion adopted a proactive community supervi-sion model that incorporates research-drivenpractices of problem-solving and offendermanagement. Rather than respondingreactively to compliance or non-compliance,proactive supervision is aimed at addressingthe offender’s behavioral problems before theneed for formal sanctions arises. The

approach includes assessing needs anddeveloping an individualized, specific caseplan. It also defines and requires quality inthe officer-offender contacts, including bothpositive and negative consequences foroffender behavior. Behavioral contracts,along with administrative and court-orderedsanctions and incentives, are a part of theapproach (Sachwald, 2000). The structuredapproach to defining a quality contact

standard is particularlyinnovative. The standardincludes communicatinginterest and respect,ongoing assessment andchanges to case plan asappropriate, noticing andreinforcing positivebehavior, reviewingprogress on goals, mak-ing treatment and service

referrals, reviewing rules and consequences asnecessary, and applying sanctions immedi-ately for non-compliance.

Currently, the majority of inmates in Massa-chusetts receive no supervision in the com-munity following their prison sentence. In2002, only one-third of sentenced prisonersreleased from state prisons were supervisedby the Parole Board (Mass DOC, 2003),representing a steep decline over the last 20years.9 At the same time, a greater percentageof inmates classified and incarcerated at thehigher custody levels are being releaseddirectly to the community. For maximumsecurity inmates in state prisons, 83 percentwere released without parole supervision in2002, posing a serious public safety threat(Mass. DOC, 2003).

9 Statewide data are not available for house of correction releases. Analysis of a sample of releases from the

Suffolk County House of Correction in January of 2001 indicated that 52 percent were released that month

with no supervision (Piehl, 2002).

The balance ofsupervision, sanctions,

and servicesappears to be the key to

success in reducingrecidivism.

20



As discussed in the Sentencing section, someof the offenders who are not released toparole supervision are supervised after release

in the probation system, under the jurisdic-tion of the judicial branch, and some aresupervised by both probation and parole.

Recommendations:

• The intensity and length of supervision following incarceration should be applied atthe level needed to control the risk of re-offending, based on the results of the riskassessment. Supervision as well as correctional services, should focus on offenders witha high or medium risk of re-offending; limited supervision resources should not be usedto supervise low risk offenders.

• An offender’s first supervision plan should be the reentry plan developedcollaboratively by prison/house of correction staff and field staff prior to release.Although all offenders should have a reentry plan prior to release, if a reentry plan isnot completed in the institution, then the parole officer should develop a comprehen-sive plan when he or she becomes responsible for the transitioning offender.

• An inmate who received treatment while in custody should receive coordinatedaftercare in the community to maintain changes and protect the programminginvestment. This level of continuity of care requires a referral prior to release, and thetransfer of information such as diagnostic information, a discharge summary, and acontinuing care treatment plan.

• Correctional agencies should take a balanced approach to supervision. Supervisionalone will not reduce the criminal behavior of offenders on supervision. An effectiveapproach requires a balance of: supervision; correctional programs and support services;and positive and negative consequences applied based on offender behavior.

• As Massachusetts embarks on a path to expand parole supervision, state leadersshould look for ways of enhancing supervision quality according to evidence-basedpractices.

21



Responding to Non-Compliance

When no intermediate sanction tools areavailable, the parole officer faces the choiceof either ignoring technical violations orreturning the parolee back to prison for theremainder of his or her sentence. The systemresponse is either not enough or too much.This means, for example, that an incident ofdrug use or failure to appear could result in18 months in prison. This use of expensiveprison bed days would not be necessary ifother meaningful responses were available. Ifreducing recidivism is the ultimate goal,addiction treatment needs to be available forthose suffering from drug or alcohol abuse.Even offenders who are doing well in treat-ment occasionally experience a relapse. Thebest long-term outcome would be for thatperson to successfully recover from theaddiction problem, which is supported byremaining in treatment. A punishmentdelivered in the community provides aresponse to a violation, while at the sametime reinforcing attendance at the treatmentprogram.

Intermediate community-based sanctionssuch as house arrest, electronic monitoring,community service, increased reporting, andwork release settings are important tools inresponding to technical violations. Theyoffer a measured response to inappropriatebehavior and are generally more cost effectivethan prison. Research into the effect ofsanctions indicates that recidivism and non-compliance are no worse and are often betterafter a community sanction when compared

to incarceration (Clear, Harris, and Baird,1992; Gendreau and Goggin, 1996; OregonDepartment of Correction, 2003).

Revocation/sanction policies can providegraduated responses to violations that areproportional to the risk and seriousness ofthe non-compliant behavior. To be mosteffective in changing behavior, parole officersshould have the authority and the resourcesto respond to each violation as quickly aspossible. In other words, the responseshould be swift and certain. Proportionalityof response and consistency from officer toofficer throughout the state can be accom-plished through the establishment of sanc-tions guidelines. Sanctions guidelinesfunction in a similar way to sentencingguidelines; the severity of the violation andthe criminal history and risk of the offenderare placed on a grid that guides the officer inimposing the sanction. Additionally, theofficer should also be careful not to createfurther risk factors through the sanctioningprocess—he or she should avoid imposingsanctions that disrupt existing prosocialsupports such as employment or housing.

Massachusetts has community correctionscenters (CCCs) that can provide intermedi-ate sanctions. Under the Office of theCommissioner of Probation,10 the CCCs arecommunity-based intensive supervision sitesthat deliver bundled sanctions and services toprobationers and parolees through multi-level sanctions. Services and sanctions in-clude treatment, education, community ser-vice, drug testing, and electronic monitoring.

10 Within the Office of Community Corrections, which is under the judicial branch of government.

22



Although practices vary by local jurisdiction,the use of CCCs for intermediate sanctionsfor parole appears to be limited. Paroleneeds the kinds of services that CCCsprovide, but the state’s current administrativestructure and practice can make it difficultfor parolees and other returning prisoners tofully utilize the CCCs’ services. For example,CCCs offer fixed packages of mandatedsanctions and services, but do not have theflexibility to allow supervising agents totarget individual offenders’ needs withspecific interventions. Additionally, theCCC program structure can make it difficultto accommodate offenders’ employmentschedules. Certain legal restrictions forprobationers also prevent the centers fromserving a broader offender population.Offenders who have inflicted serious bodilyharm (including murder), sex offenders, andthose who used a firearm to commit a crimecannot be referred to a community correc-

tions center. If these offenders are alreadyliving in the community, it makes little senseto prevent access to the services and sanc-tions delivered in the community.

Expanding the availability of pre-releasework settings as a “half-way out” betweenprison and community has already beenrecommended as a way to improve thereentry process. This type of setting couldalso be used as an intermediate sanction. Inthis sense, the work center becomes a “half-way back” setting between community andprison. A sanction in a work release settingprovides a high level of accountability, yetstill allows an offender to keep his or her job.It can also be imposed at less cost than arevocation to prison or a house of correction.Suffolk County Sheriff ’s Office and theParole Board are operating a pilot programusing this model.

Recommendations:

• Massachusetts should increase the availability of community-based sanctions as aresponse to non-criminal violations of the conditions of supervision. Community-based sanctions are a meaningful response to inappropriate behavior and are generallymore cost effective than prison.

• The state should develop revocation/sanction guidelines that: support the use ofgraduated, community-based responses to violations; provide swift and certainresponses to violations; and provide a decision-making structure for statewideconsistency in responses to violations.

• Use of pre-release work settings should be expanded as an intermediate sanctiontool. A work release facility provides a high level of accountability while still beingless expensive than prison. This setting is more supportive of the eventual return tocommunity living as it allows the inmate to continue to work and/or find employ-ment before returning to the community.

23



Information Sharing

All stages of the reentry process—supervisionand monitoring, case management, servicedelivery and continuity of care, and responseto violations—require the sharing of infor-mation among multiple public and privateagencies. Information sharing helps agenciesbetter manage and track offenders, intervenein social and legal problems, and carry outtheir public safety mission.

An integrated data system should providereal time information about offenders (i.e.,crime, conditions of supervision, incidents ofmisconduct, criminal risk factors, recom-mended and completed programs, andongoing management plans). This informa-tion enhances the ability of correctional andlaw enforcement agencies in managingoffenders knowledgeably and safely.

Confidential information cannot be widelyshared; however, it must be shared appropri-ately. Confidential information is oftenrequired for the continuity of medical,psychiatric, or addictions treatment. Pro-

cesses that work and meet the legal standardsfor sharing confidential information betweenprison treatment providers and communitytreatment providers must be used by thecorrectional system in the transition process.

While public safety concerns are the primaryreason to move toward an integrated datasystem, the data collected can also be used tomonitor system performance and providefeedback for system improvements. Theavailability of offender management infor-mation can assist policymakers in makingdata-driven decisions by helping them:understand the system and how it worksmore accurately; objectively study proposedchanges; and quantify system needs. Acentralized research function or unit wouldbe the most efficient use of this type ofspecialized expertise.

Massachusetts does not currently have anintegrated data system for tracking andcommunicating about offenders, howeverthe Department of Correction is in theplanning stages of such a system that wouldinclude both state and county level data.

Recommendations:

• Massachusetts should support efforts to develop an integrated data system.

• In the absence of an integrated data system, each agency involved in offenderreentry should prioritize the sharing of data in whatever form is most expedient.An improved reentry process cannot occur without it. CJI concurs with thisrecommendation made by the Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation.

24




The primary goal of prison reentry programsis to successfully reintegrate an offender backinto the community as a prosocial andcontributing member of that community.Offenders typically leave prison with little orno money and face many barriers to reinte-gration, including how they will meet theirbasic needs. Reintegration requires supports,such as housing and jobs, as well as continu-ity of care for offenders with substance abuseissues and serious mental and medicalproblems. It also requires monitoring andsupervision to intervene early in developingproblems.

Crime occurs in the community, and theinterventions and supports necessary toreduce it may or may not exist in dispropor-tionately affected communities. Offendersreturn in higher numbers to particularcommunities or neighborhoods that typicallyare distressed areas with high rates of povertyand crime. Focusing resources and coordi-nating interventions and services in thesegeographic areas is especially important toreduce the likelihood of new criminal behav-ior among those released from incarceration.

In several Massachusetts’ communities, lawenforcement and corrections professionalswork closely together to set clear expecta-tions with returning offenders, watch themmore closely, and intervene as necessary. Inthe area of community supports, Massachu-setts needs broad-based collaboration be-

tween governmental agencies and commu-nity-based providers to create the complexweb of services that cannot be provided by asingle agency. Access to a well-organizedweb of services and pro-social communityconnections greatly enhances an offender’sability to succeed.

Housing

Lack of housing is one of the most seriousreentry issues for inmates transitioning fromprison. The period immediately followingrelease, when a returning prisoner may bemost tempted to fall back into old habits, is acritical time. In many areas, there is a greatshortage of affordable housing. Compound-ing this lack of availability, most offendersleaving prison do not have the financialresources to rent housing at any price. Theymay be screened out by potential landlordsbecause of their criminal record and lack ofreferences. In addition, federal laws restrictmany ex-prisoners from public housing andfederally-assisted housing programs. InMassachusetts, state law allows housingproviders to access complete criminal historyinformation on convictions and casespending, with no time limit. Public housingauthorities can legally exercise theirdiscretion to exclude tenants with criminalhistories.11

The Georgia Parole Board found that therewas a 25 percent increase in the likelihood ofre-arrest each time a parolee changes address(Meredith, 2001). Homelessness increases

11 Applicants who are denied housing due to their criminal record can request the opportunity to provide

evidence of rehabilitation or mitigating circumstances. (See Winsor [2003]. The CORI Reader.

Massachusetts Law Reform Institute.)

25



the risk of recidivism for a number of rea-sons. Lack of stable housing makes it diffi-cult to find employment. With no perma-nent address, potential employers often haveproblems contacting reentering offenders.Lack of housing also makes it more difficultto show up for job interviews well-groomedand wearing clean clothes. Living in shelters,cheap motels, or on the street can be “crimi-nogenic.”12 In other words, these settingsmay trigger a return to drug use or crimebecause these environments are rich withdrug users and/or criminal behavior.

The Massachusetts Department of Correc-tion has a policy of not releasing any inmateto homelessness or a homeless shelter;however, since most inmates are completingtheir sentences in prison rather than beingreleased to parole, the state has no choice butto release them irrespective of this policy. Itis estimated that 20-25 percent of prisoninmates who wrap up their sentence arehomeless at release (Community Resourcesfor Justice, 2001). Addressing this problemfor transitioning offenders will requiresomething beyond the existing policy. Thereare some programs in place that focus on theissue of housing, such as the Honor Court inHampden County; however, transitionalhousing resources have been seriously re-duced from past levels. Practitioners agreethat the resources currently available are notsufficient.

While it is clear that access to transitionalhousing, and affordable housing in general,will support the successful transition from

prison to community living, the primaryresponsibility for developing housing re-sources in communities is not always easy todetermine. Is this the responsibility of theDepartment of Correction, the Parole Board,housing agencies, or community-basedorganizations? A review of current modelsfor addressing this problem can be found inPreventing Homelessness Among People LeavingPrison by Nino Rodriguez and BrennerBrown and in No Place Like Home: Housingand the Ex-prisoner by Katherine Bradley andothers, Community Resources for Justice.

Employment

There is a relationship between employmentand crime. Studies have shown that having ajob with adequate pay is associated withlower rates of re-offending (Byrne and Kelly,1989). The Georgia Parole Board found thateach day of employment predicted a onepercent drop in the likelihood of arrest. Thattranslates into a 30 percent decrease in thelikelihood of arrest for only one month ofemployment (Meredith, 2001).

Job training and employment assistance foroffenders is important because many offend-ers lack education and job skills, and beingout of the labor force due to incarcerationdecreases their employability. Researchsuggests that job programs for offenders thataddress vocational skills as well as motivationand attitude are more successful at improvingemployment than those that focus only onvocational skills (Travis, Solomon, and Waul,

12 Shelter use is associated with an increased risk of return to prison (Metraux and Culhane, 2004).

26



2001). Also, programs that include jobplacement assistance and follow-up supportare promising. This follow-up support maybe especially important to an employerwilling to employ an ex-inmate, because heor she could depend on a third party to avertand intervene with problems the ex-inmatemay bring to the work site (Travis et al.,2001).

Unfortunately, having a criminal recordposes significant barriers to ex-offenders’access to employment. Ex-offenders inMassachusetts routinely face employmentdiscrimination based solely on having acriminal record, regardless of whether theformer offense would affect their job perfor-mance or the safety of others. (See the box,“Legal and Structural Barriers to Employ-ment of Ex-Offenders.”)

Recommendations:

• Massachusetts should build a “web” of services and pro-social community connec-tions around an offender following release from incarceration to enhance his/herchances of successful reintegration. Services and resources should be concentrated inneighborhoods with higher numbers of returning offenders.

• Transitional and affordable housing opportunities for offenders should be expandedto support the successful transition from prison to community living.

• Massachusetts should develop comprehensive job programs for offenders thataddress not only vocational skills, but also motivation and attitude. In addition,job programs must be delivered as part of an integrated approach to dealing withother criminal risk factors. For example, an offender who is addicted to drugs, actsout in a hostile or impulsive way, or continues to have criminal thinking is not likelyto be successful in a job. A successful approach will target each of these criminal riskfactors.

• The state should review and remove all legal and structural barriers to employmentthat are not necessary for public safety purposes. In particular, Massachusetts lawshould be changed to explicitly protect ex-offenders from discrimination basedsolely on having a criminal record when the offense does not relate to the job orpose a public safety threat.

27



Legal and Structural Barriersto Employment of Ex-Offenders

The CORI (Criminal Offender Record Information) law, administered bythe Criminal History Systems Board (CHSB), makes available to the publicinformation on convictions and custody status of offenders while in prison,on parole, or on probation (with some exceptions for lesser offenses), andfor limited periods after their discharge from prison or supervision(Heigham, 2000). Additionally, the CHSB makes CORI available withoutany time limitations to employers and housing providers that can show thattheir interest in having CORI data outweigh the privacy interests of personswho have CORI.13

Through CORI, employers have access to varying levels of criminal historyinformation; however, Massachusetts does not have standards prohibitingemployment discrimination against ex-offenders as a group by public orprivate employers or occupational licensing agencies. Several states, includ-ing New York, have laws that explicitly protect ex-offenders from discrimi-nation based solely on having a criminal record when the offense does notrelate to the job or pose a public safety threat (Fishman, 2003). Wisconsin,in particular, has significant safeguards to enable ex-offenders to obtaingainful employment. That state’s law, Wis. Stat. §111.335, bars discrimina-tion against ex-offenders in the private and public sectors, but specificallyrequires that ex-offenders be excluded from jobs when their convictedcrimes are “substantially related” to the circumstances of the position theyseek. Massachusetts should examine its laws and consider enacting andenforcing meaningful anti-discrimination protections.

Although bias and stigma contribute to discrimination against ex-offenders,discrimination also arises from employers’ lack of understanding of the

13 Communication with Francisca Fajana, Esq., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, April2004. For a thorough discussion of CORI laws and their implications for ex-offenders, seeThe CORI Reader by Ernest Winsor, Esq., Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Dec. 1, 2003.

28



issues, leading them to make decisions out of fear rather than fact.First, employers often do not know how to interpret the CORI reportsand often exclude from consideration anyone with any kind of criminalrecord. They may not understand the difference between a singleminor offense, which may have multiple entries on the CORI report,from multiple serious offenses (See Winsor, 2003)14 ; or they may treata dismissed case or not guilty finding the same as a conviction. TheCORI reports provided to employers and the public need to be moreclear and easy to understand. Second, employers have exaggerated fearsof liability for potential problems with ex-offenders after they are hired;Massachusetts law affords some protection to employers from this typeof liability if they perform due diligence in the hiring process. Forexample, in Coughlin v. Titus & Bean Graphics, Inc., 54 Mass. App.Ct. 633, a court stated that “to hold that an employer can never hire aperson with a criminal record or retain such a person at the risk ofbeing held liable for his tortious assault flies in the face of the premisethat society must make a reasonable effort to rehabilitate those whohave gone astray.” Employers need to be educated about how tointerpret the CORI reports and when they may be protected fromliability.

Federal and state laws also bar offenders with certain types of convic-tions from particular occupations or may require mandatory back-ground checks and proof of rehabilitation. In Massachusetts, regula-tion 101 CMR 15.0 which applies to health and human service agen-cies has the potential to exclude large numbers of offenders fromemployment in the human service world, even when the convictionmay not relate to the position or pose a threat to public safety. Theregulation mandates that all public or private agencies that receive anyfunding from the Executive Office of Health and Human Servicesperform a full CORI check on all job candidates. It further requiresthat individuals with broad classes of offenses be barred from employ-ment for life unless they can overcome significant hurdles imposed bythe regulation. For example, an individual is required to have anassessment of his or her risk of harm performed by a qualified mental

14 Conversations with human resources staff confirmed the challenges of interpret-ing the CORI reports.

29



health professional; this cost must be borne by the hiring agency. Over-coming the hurdles imposed by the law is overly burdensome and costlyfor agencies and may raise liability concerns. This leads agencies toneedlessly exclude ex-offenders who are not a public safety risk and couldmake a positive contribution. Agencies need to be able to exercise morejudgment to consider the position and potential candidates on a case-by-case basis.

Drug-related offenders face some additional legal barriers to employmentand reintegration, including suspension of drivers’ licenses for at least oneyear for many types of offenses—even when the offense does not relate tooperation of a motor vehicle (Mass. Regs. Code tit. 540, § 20.03). Thisposes transportation barriers and precludes employment in occupationsthat require driving.15

Employment is the cornerstone of successful reintegration and self-sufficiency, and Massachusetts has too many barriers that prevent ex-offenders from achieving this goal. Policymakers need to eliminate thelegal barriers to employment and identify policy and programmaticinterventions that effectively promote offender reintegration into thelabor market while protecting public safety. Some examples of interven-tions to address these legal and structural barriers include state provisionof certificates of rehabilitation. Several states provide these certificates(e.g., Arizona, California, Nevada, and New York), which officially recog-nize that an offender has been rehabilitated, “with the effect of restoringcertain rights and lifting bars on certain jobs, licenses, and benefits”(Fishman, 2003, p. 2). Some states also offer employer state tax credits inaddition to the Federal tax credits that can be available to employers forhiring ex-offenders.16

15 In addition, with some exceptions, individuals who are incarcerated for drug felonies are noteligible for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for 12 months followingrelease, preventing transitional cash assistance for those who cannot initially obtain employ-ment and would otherwise qualify for TANF. For more information on legal barriers toreentry in Massachusetts and other states, see After Prison: Roadblocks to Reentry. A Reporton State Legal Barriers Facing People with Criminal Records. Legal Action Center, 2004.

16 Additional practical resources relating to employment for ex-offenders include: Strategiesto Help Move Ex-Offenders from Welfare to Work by Debbie Mukamal, Legal Action Center,prepared for the U.S. Department of Labor, June 2001; and Getting Back to Work, EmploymentPrograms for Ex-Offenders by Maria L. Buck for Public/Private Ventures, fall 2000.

30



Community Participationand Support

A powerful tool in the successful transitionof inmates to the community is the commu-nity itself. Informal social controls such asfamily, peer, and community influences havea more direct affect on offender behaviorthan formal social controls (Byrne, 1989).Natural supports, such as offenders’ familiesand faith-based institutions, should beactively engaged in helping offenders reinte-grate. Recent research indicates the efficacyof twelve-step programs, religious activities,and restorative justice initiatives that aregeared towards improving bonds and ties topro-social community members (Emrick,Tonigang, Montgomery, and Little, 1993;Bonta, Wallace-Capretta, Rooney, andMcAnoy, 2002; O’Connor and Perryclear,2003; Clear, 2002).

Jeremy Travis and others, in the publicationFrom Prison to Home, summarize wayscommunity members can contribute to asuccessful reentry. Suggestions include:

• Working with prisoners while they are stillincarcerated to arrange for jobs, housing,treatment, and health care post release.

• Meeting prisoners upon release, helpingnavigate the first hours or days in thecommunity.

• Creating or building on neighborhood-basednetworks of workforce development partnersand local businesses that will target thepreparation and employment of offenders.

• Engaging local community-based organiza-tions that can help family members supportex-offender in overcoming substance abuseproblems, stay employed, and meet theoverall requirements of his or her supervi-sion and reintegration plan.

• Involving local faith-based organizations tofacilitate mentoring programs; local mentorscan provide support for ex-offenders andtheir family members in their neighborhood.

• Providing ex-offenders opportunities toparticipate in community service anddemonstrate that they can be assets ratherthan a neighborhood liability.

• Developing coalitions of resident leaders tooversee reentry efforts and provide account-ability for community and offender obliga-tions.

As part of the Reentry Partnership Initiative,Washington State has defined a role for acommunity “guardian” in their reentryprocess. Working with neighborhood-basedpolice and corrections officers, guardiansencourage family members, ministers, self-help groups, and other less formal providersof services and support to become involvedwith a transitioning offender. Successfulreentry graduates may eventually becomeinvolved as peer role models or as guardiansfor newly released offenders (Young,Taxman, and Byrne).

Within the Commonwealth, thecommunity’s role in successful reentry hasnot been considered in a systematic way bythose responsible for the transition fromprison to community living.

Recommendation:

• Massachusetts should facilitate community involvement in helping offendersreintegrate successfully. Community members can work with parole and lawenforcement officers and provide support to offenders nearing release and followingincarceration.

31



3. Managing for Results

and System Accountability:

State-Level Performance Measurement

The reforms recommended here and by theGovernor’s Commission on Criminal JusticeInnovation have as their primary goal theprotection of the public through the reduc-tion of criminal recidivism of inmatesfollowing release from prison. Carrying outthese reforms requires a shift in publicresources from incarceration to communitysupervision and correctional programming.It is very important that the benefits of thatchange in investment be measured over time.Ongoing performance monitoring is essentialto system improvement and ensuring effec-tive use of resources. Practitioners need tomeasure outcomes to ensure that the reformsare having the desired consequences at theagency level. Looking beyond the agency tothe entire criminal justice system, the publicneeds to be assured through objective meansthat they are indeed safer under new policies.

The state should convene a broad-basedleadership team to focus on the transitionfrom prison to community. The teamshould be tasked with developing systemwideagreement on what is to be accomplished atthe state level; they must define and agree onthe goals of prison reentry. Certainly one ofthose goals will include reductions in recidi-vism for those offenders who have servedprison time, but there are also other expecta-tions for a well-functioning reentry process.Some examples of other possible goals, basedon the recommendations in this report, are:

• higher risk offenders receive the mostintense community supervision;

• higher risk offenders are a priority forreferral to correctional interventions bothin prison and in the community;

• correctional interventions in the prisonand in the community are based on thecurrent research on effectiveness;

• reentry plans are completed for allinmates leaving prisons or houses ofcorrection;

• parole officers combine surveillance andmonitoring with interventions to im-prove offenders’ functioning in thecommunity, including referrals to alcoholand drug treatment, mental healthtreatment, employment services, hous-ing, and other forms of communitysupport; and

• community-based sanctions, rather thanprison time, are used to respond totechnical violations.

In Massachusetts, the National Governor’sAssociation (NGA) Prison Reentry StatePolicy Academy has been established toprovide leadership for system reform in thereentry process and in using evidence-basedpractices. It makes sense to use this group toform the statewide leadership team that willbe charged with defining state-level perfor-mance goals. At present, however, member-ship is limited to state agencies. The groupshould be expanded to better represent the

32



complex range of agencies and entities thatcontribute to the success of prison to com-munity transition. (For a more comprehen-sive discussion of the expanded role of theNGA, see Role of Collaboration, nextsection).

After agreeing on the desired goals for thereentry process, the Leadership Team mustthen determine how they will know that thereentry system reforms have been successfulin reaching those goals. In other words, thegroup must transform the goals of thereentry process into measurable events, orperformance measures, that will best gaugeprogress in achieving the goals. Performancemeasures should be based on accurate andreliable data. The data needed may beavailable within the current managementinformation systems of the various agenciesinvolved in reentry, or it may require newmethods for data collection. Technicalassistance from research professionals may behelpful at this stage.

Performance measures should include targetsfor improvement. Once the measures aredefined and the data elements identified, it isimportant to develop a baseline for currentsystem functioning and establish targets forimprovement from that baseline. Targetsshould be ambitious but realistic. Thereshould also be an expectation that perfor-mance measures be refined or changed overtime. They should remain a dynamic toolincorporated into the ongoing strategicplanning of the public safety system.

For a performance monitoring system toimprove system performance and account-ability, the performance measures must beregularly monitored and reported to allstakeholders (i.e., policymakers, practitio-ners, and citizens). Each part of the systemshould be able to review the performance of

every other part; each jurisdiction should beable to review the performance of every otherjurisdiction. In this way, all parts of thesystem remain focused on results and ac-countable to one another. Even more useful,pockets of success can be identified andsuccessful practices can be celebrated anddisseminated.

In addition to documenting progress, sys-tem-level outcome measurement is alsonecessary to identify problem areas foradditional analysis. A process should bedeveloped by the Leadership Team to re-spond to performance that is not meetingthe goals. This is the foundation of systemaccountability—identifying and solvingproblems in performance—guided by theoverriding goal of system improvement. TheLeadership Team should take the lead indeveloping this process and actively seek outthe participation of stakeholder groups.

At the program or agency level, agency-specific performance measures should bedeveloped that support the statewide goalsand performance measures for the prisonerreentry process. This program or agency-level performance monitoring will mirror theprocess described for state-level outcomes,although the performance measures willdiffer, depending on the mission of theparticular agency and the role it plays in thereentry process. Measurement makes anagency or program more accountable inter-nally and externally to its partners andfunders and provides information as towhether the agency is effective in achievingits own goals. Relating performance goals tothe statewide strategies supports a morecohesive and systematic approach to reentry,even when there are many public and privateagencies participating in the process (OregonProgress Board, 2002 and 2004).

33



Recommendations:

• Massachusetts should develop systemwide agreement on what is to be accomplishedat the state level as a result of improving the prison to community transition.

• The state should develop systemwide agreement on the definition and measure ofrecidivism.

• The Governor should charge the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Massachu-setts Leadership Team with defining state-level performance goals, including aspecific goal for reduction in recidivism.

• The Leadership Team should transform the performance goals of the reentry processinto measurable events, or performance measures, that will best gauge progress inachieving the goals.

• The Leadership Team should monitor and report data on performance measures toall stakeholders (i.e., policymakers, practitioners, and citizens). It should also developa process to respond to performance that is not meeting goals or benchmarks.

• Individual agencies should develop program/agency-level performance measures thatsupport the statewide goals and performance measures for the prisoner reentryprocess.

34



4. Leading System Change:

The Role of Collaboration

Change requires the participation of manyunrelated governmental and private agenciesincluding law enforcement, the judiciary,corrections, parole, community corrections,human services, and the community at large.The only way to successfully accomplishsystem change of this magnitude is throughcollaborative partnerships. Implementingreform will require the commitment, dedica-tion, and persistence of many organizationsworking together.

Successful collaborations share a number ofcommon elements. An essential element iscommitment to a common vision. Otherelements include: a shared sense of purpose;clarity of roles and responsibilities; healthycommunication pathways; membership;respect and integrity; accountability; data-driven process; effective problem solving;resources; and environment. Most impor-tantly, successful collaborations share mutualauthority and accountability for success. (SeeCrime and Justice Institute [2004]. Imple-menting Evidence-Based Principles in Commu-nity Corrections: Collaboration for SystemicChange in the Criminal Justice System.)

Every collaboration needs some structure.Methods of developing structure such ascharters, memorandums of understanding,and partnering agreements fulfill multiplepurposes. They clarify authority and expec-tations, define the roles and functions ofparticipants, clarify decision-making, andemphasize that no one agency is in charge.

Professionals from each center of expertiseare empowered to do what they do best inthe advancement of the collective goal.Partners can further formalize operationalrelationships through interagency agreementsand contracts.

Improving transition and reentry in theCommonwealth is not possible withoutcollaborative planning. The system iscomplex, and many public and privateagencies have responsibility for parts of it, yetno agency has responsibility for all of it. Theway to help make transition a priority forparticipating organizations is to involve themin a collaborative process. The NationalInstitute of Corrections Transition fromPrison to Community Initiative (TPCI)model suggests that a multi-agency transitionpartnership be created to take the lead in thereform of any reentry system. There willneed to be policy-level partnerships, multi-agency and place-based working groups, andimplementation committees. Groups at eachlevel of planning and implementationanalyze practices, identify problems, andplan and implement solutions.

Collaboration as described here is not likelyto occur without strong leadership at thestate level. It is encouraging that the Gover-nor and the Secretary for the ExecutiveOffice of Public Safety have expressed theircommitment to reentry system reform. Thatcommitment will be important in charteringa statewide leadership group to work

35



collaboratively on improving the system ofprison to community transition.

As stated earlier, the National Governor’sAssociation (NGA) Massachusetts Leader-ship Team has already been established toprovide leadership to system reform in thereentry process and in using evidence-basedpractices. It is recommended that additionalstakeholders be appointed to this leadershipgroup if it is to be successful in leading thisreform effort. Members should include: theDepartment of Correction; the Parole Board;the judiciary; probation; state and localhuman service executives; the Office ofCommunity Corrections; the sheriff ’sassociation; community corrections execu-tives; members of the faith community; andcommunity service providers. Bipartisaninput from legislators should also be consid-ered. The Leadership Team would be chargedwith guiding systemwide policy, implement-ing corresponding changes in their ownorganizations that support the systemchanges, and communicating with their ownorganizations about the relative impact ofsystem changes.

Consistent with the Transition from Prisonto Community Initiative model, the Leader-ship Team should be responsible for plan-ning, developing, implementing, and over-seeing the operation of a reformed transitionprocess. The Team should: map the transi-tion process; identify decision points and thepolicies governing decisions at each point;identify the individuals or organizations thatcontrol policies and decisions; and collectand analyze data on the flow of offendersthrough these decision points and costs ofexisting practices. Tasks of the LeadershipTeam should include:

• Identification of each stakeholder’scommon and specific interests;

• Articulation of a common vision fortransition and reentry;

• Use of Returning Inmates: Closing thePublic Safety Gap, From Cell to Street,and the Governor’s Commission on Crimi-nal Justice Innovation Final Report for athorough review of existing policies andpractices that need to be corrected, aswell as specific recommendations forsystem improvement;

• Creation of an implementation plan forimprovements and monitoring that plan;

• Establishment of regular and continuingcommunication among stakeholders;

• Removal or minimization of barriers toperforming reentry transition activities;

• Review of agency budgets for alignmentwith the new policies and with evidence-based practices;

• Recommendation of elimination offunding for programs and practices thatare not consistent with the plan for areformed transition and reentry process;

• Recommendation of changes in fundingto further support the reformed transitionprocess;

• Search for opportunities for resourcereinvestment to fund some of thechanges—for example, using intermedi-ate sanctions rather than prison beds fortechnical violators creates an opportunityto use resources more effectively;

• Clarification of the role of probation inthe reentry process;

36



• Review of policies relating to: assessment andclassification; institutional case planning;information sharing; continuum of servicesfollowing release; parole release; violationhearings; termination of supervision; socialservices in the community; and housing andemployment; and aligning those policies withevidence-based practices;

• Identification and dissemination of informa-tion regarding successful models of systemreforms already operating within the Com-monwealth and elsewhere in the country; and

• Establishment of implementation groups towork on the operational aspects of systemreform, including the procedures and practicesthat will require change in the many agenciesinvolved in the reentry process.

The Leadership Team will most likely encounterresistance to change in many of the agencies andstakeholders involved in the reentry process. Tominimize resistance, the Team should identify and

invite all stakeholders to actively participate in thepartnership. It will be important for the leader ofeach collaborating agency to formally and unam-biguously endorse the goals of the partnership.The Leadership Team must anticipate resistance,identify sources of resistance between agencies andwithin agencies, and develop a plan to addressthem.

The Leadership Team is encouraged to begin itswork by developing the vision and an implementa-tion plan. There is no need for additional analysisof problems and barriers to effective and respon-sible prison reentry in the Commonwealth. Sev-eral recent comprehensive reports provide a thor-ough review of the current factors affecting thetransition from prison to community. The analy-ses completed to date provide many recommenda-tions, and while some require new legislation,many do not. Now a clear vision is needed forreentry in Massachusetts.

Recommendations:

• The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and Secretary of Public Safety will need toprovide strong leadership to facilitate the collaborative partnerships described inthis report.

• The Governor should charge the National Governor’s Association (NGA) Leader-ship Team, with membership expanded to include other stakeholders beyondstate agencies, to take the lead in establishing the collaboration needed to reformthe prison reentry system. The Leadership Team is then responsible for planning,developing, implementing, and overseeing the operation of a reformed transitionprocess.

• The Leadership Team should anticipate resistance to system reform and developa plan to address that resistance.

37



5. Organizational Change

Developing a clear vision for the ideal prisonreentry system is not a simple achievement.It is even more challenging to move each ofthe individual agencies involved in the prisonreentry process, many of which are large andcomplicated organizations, through thechanges necessary to create that ideal system.However, none of the changes and reformscan occur without a conscious and plannedapproach to organizational change.

Shifting the way an agency does business isno easy task. It will require dynamic leader-ship and rethinking of agency mission andvalues. It will also require the developmentof new knowledge, skills, and abilities forstaff, adjustment and enhancement of aninfrastructure to support the changes, andtransformation of the organizational culture.Leaders of public and private agenciesaffected by the planned improvements inprison transition are advised to develop astrategy to address specific changes in theorganization’s practices or role.

A successful organizational change effortbegins with honoring the good work beingdone in the present, identifying individualand agency competencies, and offering avision for building on those competencies.Without these steps, staff can often feeldevalued and may not be interested inparticipating in changes that appear to bediscrediting them and their work.

Next, staff need to understand why they arebeing asked to change something that theydo, undertake new activities, or work in waysthey have not worked before. Staff need to

understand why improvements to the reentryprocess are needed. They need to under-stand the changes in state policy, especiallyregarding the desired vision for the idealreentry system. They need to understand thecontributions other agencies are makingtoward improving reentry, as well as thecontributions their own agency is making.They need to become familiar with recentresearch findings relevant to improvingreentry. If new skills are required, then skill-oriented and ongoing training programsshould be planned and delivered. New skillsare best learned if they are taught and prac-ticed over time, with ongoing coaching andcorrective feedback, rather than being offeredin a one-time training experience.

What gets measured gets done. Measuringsystem change using current, valid informa-tion is key to achieving true organizationalchange. Monitoring and feeding backinformation forms the basis for continuousimprovement. Each new process or expecta-tion requires the development of measure-ment methods. Data are then collected, andthe results are mirrored back to managersand staff, allowing them to focus on successand make adjustments when goals are notbeing met. In short, measurement forms thebasis for fine-tuning operations, findingproblems, and revising agency practices.

Nevertheless, one should be cautious indetermining the types of data to collect.Data collection should be practical andefficient and should not require a disruptionof mission-critical work or an unreasonableamount of time.

38



Many new initiatives and system improve-ment efforts fail because the change does notbecome institutionalized. After the initialattention and training, agencies often shifttheir focus to the next crisis or initiative.Creating an ongoing quality assuranceprocess ensures that the agency continues toassess the integrity of its activities and theirconsistency with the goals and strategies oforganizational change. Once the agencyobjectives are clarified and the desiredpractices defined, a process should be insti-tuted to regularly review whether or notthose practices are occurring and the qualityof those practices. For example, if there is anexpectation that case plans will addresscriminal risk factors, then there should be aprocess to periodically review case plans tosee if they are addressing those factors andmaking appropriate treatment referrals. Theprocess might also include a component thatprovides feedback on the quality of the caseplan as well. This type of quality reviewcommonly includes peer review, supervisorreview, or both.

Performance appraisals for staff should be atool in the agency’s quality assurance process.The performance appraisal process shouldaddress staff attitudes, knowledge, and skillsrelated to agency outcomes. Staff should beprovided with timely, relevant, and accuratefeedback regarding their performance. Staffwhose performance is not uniformly moni-tored, measured, and subsequently reinforcedwork less cohesively, work more frequently atcross-purposes, and provide less support tothe agency mission.

Finally, successful organizational changemust include continued and clear focus uponthe desired changes. When the agencymission appears to be shifting or is not well-defined, it is detrimental to efficient pro-cesses, morale, and outcomes. An organiza-tion has a limit to the human energy it hasavailable to take on and manage new chal-lenges. Agency leaders must take care not toexceed that capacity.

Recommendations:

• Agency leaders should recognize good work in the present and build on it.

• Agencies need to provide staff training focusing on the reason for the change, aswell as new knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for any changes in agency roleor practice.

• Agencies must provide a feedback loop to track the progress of implementation.

• Agencies should create an ongoing quality assurance process.

• Agency leaders should limit new projects to those that focus on the desired organi-zational change.

(See Crime and Justice Institute. [2004]. Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in CommunityCorrections: Leading Organizational Change and Development.)

39



6. Drawing Conclusions

An ideal and comprehensive model forprisoner reentry in the Commonwealth willprovide greater protection to the public,higher levels of accountability for offenders,and greater value for the public’s investment.

Each new crime prevented as a result of theeffective practices of a reformed reentrysystem means at least one less crime victim.Each improved correctional practice orintervention that prevents new crime repre-sents a better investment of public resources.By preventing one crime, and one offenderfrom returning to prison at a cost of $43,000per year in prison, resources are made avail-able to supervise more than ten offendersreturning to the community from prison, ata cost of $4,000 per year (Governor’sCommission on Criminal Justice Innovation,2004). In addition to savings in the correc-tions system, reducing recidivism savesdollars currently invested in law enforce-ment, prosecution, defense, and the courtsystem; it also saves the costs of victimiza-tion, including property loss, medical care,suffering, and loss of life.

Fortunately, there is a large body of researchon correctional interventions that providesthe knowledge base necessary to design anddeliver a corrections system that reducesrecidivism; this knowledge base allowspolicymakers and practitioners to invest inwhat works and to shift resources away frompractices that are not likely to affect crime.Correctional interventions designed to beconsistent with evidence-based principles canreduce recidivism by one-third or more

(Lipsey, 2003). When public resources areshifted from ineffective to effective programs,this creates opportunities for reinvestment.For example, New York Governor GeorgePataki announced plans in January 2004 toclose three prisons and reduce staffing in sixothers as a result of successful programmingfor nonviolent offenders. These programsallow nonviolent offenders to reduce theirsentences through rehabilitative activities(e.g., education, vocational classes, andaddictions treatment) and to be supervised inthe community at less cost. The WashingtonState Policy Institute for Public Policy foundthat increasing the incarceration rate for drugoffenders was not as effective or cost-efficientin terms of reducing crime as providing drugtreatment within the corrections system(WSIPP, 2003).

The Crime and Justice Institute advocates forthe use of research to promote correctionalpractices and interventions that are moreeffective than current practices and yieldimproved results for the dollars invested. Forexample, in a study published by the U.S.Department of Health and Human Services,taxpayers save about $10,000 for each personreceiving alcohol and drug treatment. Sav-ings were achieved through reductions incrime, victimization, health care, and welfaredependency, with the major benefit in thereduction of crime. For every dollar investedin treatment, seven dollars were saved insocietal and medical costs (Gerstein,Johnson, and Larison, 1997). Anotherexample is found in the numerous studiesthat support the cost-effectiveness of com-

40



munity-based sanctions when compared toincarceration. Community-based sanctionsresult in the same or lower recidivism ratesand are less expensive than incarceration(Clear et al., 1992; Gendreau and Goggin,1996; Oregon Department of Correction,2003).

A comprehensive model for prisoner reentryshould embody the following principles:

• To make the most effective use of limitedcorrectional resources, the risk that anoffender poses to the public must beidentified through objective risk assess-ment so that the higher risk offendersreceive the closest supervision and are apriority for referral to correctionalinterventions both in prison and in thecommunity.

• Supervision following release from prisonshould be legally mandated for allinmates leaving prison, but should beprioritized for those most likely to re-offend. Those of low risk to re-offendshould not be actively supervised.

• Correctional interventions in prison andin the community must be of highquality and based on the current researchon effectiveness in order to actually havethe desired effect on recidivism. Treat-ment must address criminal risk factorsand should be available and accessible tothe higher risk offenders.

• Release plans should be completed forevery inmate leaving prison and shouldinclude: clear expectations for behaviorunder supervision (i.e., conditions ofsupervision); positive and negativeconsequences for behavior; plans for

housing and work; and recommendedcorrectional interventions, taking intoaccount the importance of continuity ofcare from prison to community pro-grams. Ideally, the release plan is amulti-disciplinary product and processthat includes prison staff, the ParoleBoard and parole officer, community andprison treatment providers, the inmate,the inmate’s family, other communitymembers, and local law enforcement asappropriate (Parent and Barnett, 2002).

• Parole officers should combine surveil-lance and monitoring with interventionsto improve community functioning, suchas referrals to alcohol and drug treat-ment, mental health treatment, employ-ment services, housing, and other formsof community support. In this way,parole officers control the short-term riskto the community through supervisionand the long-term risk through lastingbehavior change.

• Offender accountability and responsibil-ity are a priority for the system. Offend-ers must be held accountable for viola-tions of supervision conditions through asystem of graduated, community-basedsanctions. Cost-effectiveness concernsrequire corrections systems to use com-munity-based sanctions rather thanexpensive prison beds in response totechnical violations.

• Crime is a complex and multi-dimen-sional problem. One person, one agency,one branch of government cannot be aseffective in managing offender risk as acommunity-centered approach to parolesupervision. The best approach requirescollaboration between parole, local law

41



enforcement, community service agen-cies, offenders’ families, neighborhoodassociations, and the faith community asthey all play a role in monitoring offend-ers and assisting them to change.

Implementing reform will require the com-mitment, dedication, and persistence ofmany working together. Strong and contin-ued leadership from the Governor’s Officeand the Executive Office of Public Safety isneeded to facilitate collaboration betweenthe many unrelated governmental andprivate agencies that contribute to thesuccess of prisoner reentry. In addition, it is

important that the effects of the reformeffort be defined and measured over time.Corrections officials and practitioners needto measure outcomes to ensure that thereforms have the desired consequences at theagency level, while the public needs to beassured through objective means that theyare indeed safer under this policy and thattheir tax dollars are being used effectively.Finally, none of the changes and reforms nowbeing considered can occur without a con-scious and planned approach to organiza-tional change within each of the individualagencies involved in creating the ideal prisonreentry process.

42



Summary of Recommendations

Changes in Correctional Policy or Practice

Assessment and Supervision:• All offenders returning to the community should be objectively assessed for risk to

re-offend using a valid and reliable instrument (p. 6).

• All partners in the transition process should use a common instrument to predict theprobability of future criminal behavior (p. 6).

• Following the risk assessment, a valid and reliable needs assessment should be adminis-tered to high and medium risk offenders to develop intervention plans. Lower riskoffenders who will not be prioritized for correctional interventions do not require needsassessment if they will not be actively supervised or referred for services (p. 7).

• Offender incarceration case plans, reentry plans, and parole and probation case plansshould address the criminal risk factors found in the needs assessment (p. 7).

• The level of risk to the community should determine the intensity and length of supervi-sion and correctional programs. Although all offenders should be legally eligible for post-release supervision, offenders with low risk of re-offense should not receive supervision orshould be considered for early case closure (p. 20).

• Correctional agencies should take a balanced approach to supervise offenders effectively.This requires a balance of supervision, correctional programs, and positive and negativeconsequences based on offender behavior (p. 20).

• As Massachusetts embarks on a path to expand parole supervision, state leaders shouldlook for ways of enhancing supervision quality based on evidence-based practices (p. 20).

Correctional Services:• All correctional programs that aim to reduce criminal behavior and recidivism should

target criminal risk factors, not other problems that offenders might have. Existingprograms should be redesigned as necessary to target criminal risk factors (p. 7).

• Correctional interventions should be focused on the thinking or behavior of offendersand designed consistent with the concepts of social learning theory (p. 8).

• Gender-responsive strategies and approaches to managing female offenders should bedeveloped (p. 8).

43



• Correctional agencies and systems within the Commonwealth should, by clearly statedpolicy and practice, implement programs that are designed according to the scientificevidence available regarding effectiveness in reducing recidivism (p. 9).

• The corrections system needs to institute a method to certify that correctional programsare being delivered in a way consistent with the research (p. 17).

• An inmate who received treatment while in custody requires coordinated aftercare in thecommunity to maintain the changes made and protect the investment that programmingrepresents (p. 20).

Reentry Planning:• A reentry plan should be mandatory and universal for every inmate released from

incarceration (p. 15).

• An offender’s first supervision plan should be the reentry plan developedcollaboratively by prison/house of correction staff and parole field staff prior tothe offender’s release (p. 20).

• In the absence of an integrated data system, each agency involved in offender reentryshould prioritize the sharing of data in whatever form is most expedient. An improvedreentry process cannot occur without it (p. 23).

• New partnerships between the Department of Correction and houses of correctionshould be developed, allowing houses of corrections to be used as releasing facilities forstate prisoners (p. 15).

• Comprehensive reentry partnerships developed by houses of correction should be identi-fied and replicated statewide (p. 15).

Response to Violations:• Massachusetts should develop revocation/sanction guidelines that: support the use of

graduated, community-based responses to violations; provide swift and certain responsesto violations; and provide a decision-making structure for statewide consistency in thecriminal justice response to violations (p. 22).

Investment or Re-investment of Resources

• Resources invested in interventions not proven to be effective should beredirected (p. 7).

• The availability and capacity of prison programming should be sufficient and appropriateto intervene with the criminal risk factors of those inmates most likely to re-offend (p. 15).

44



• Alcohol and drug treatment designed for offenders must be available in correctionalinstitutions and in the community, with sufficient capacity to reach higher risk offenders(p. 18).

• Massachusetts should increase the availability of graduated, community-based sanctionsas a response to non-criminal violations of the conditions of supervision. It should alsoexpand the use of work release settings so that they can be used as an intermediatesanction (p. 22).

• Massachusetts should also expand the capacity and use of work release and pre-releasesettings for inmates nearing release; more inmates should be eligible for this form oftransition. The custody classification system of the DOC should be changed to shiftresources from unnecessarily high levels of security to increases in reentry programmingand half-way out/pre-release settings (p. 15).

• Massachusetts should support efforts to develop an integrated data system (p. 23).

Legal Change

• The state should adopt sentencing guidelines that: support parole; eliminate mandatoryminimums for drug crimes by incorporating them into the sentencing guidelines; andsupport intermediate sanctions for those low-level, nonviolent offenders who can safelybe managed in the community. Prison beds should be reserved for those who pose ahigher threat to public safety (p. 11).

• Returning inmates who are most likely to re-offend should be supervised by the ParoleBoard after release. The Board should be granted legal authority to require supervision ofall offenders after incarceration; however, the Board should rely on an objective riskassessment to prioritize and order supervision for those most likely to re-offend. Lowrisk offenders should be put on inactive status (p. 11).

• Prisons and houses of correction should have some form of discretionary release that ismore broadly available to serve as an incentive for inmates’ good behavior and programparticipation while incarcerated. Parole serves this function, as would a provision forearned “good time” with post-release supervision (p. 11).

• Massachusetts should review and remove all legal and structural barriers to employmentthat are not necessary for public safety purposes. In particular, Massachusetts law shouldbe changed to explicitly protect ex-offenders from discrimination based solely on havinga criminal record when the offense does not relate to the job or pose a public safety threat(p. 26).

45




• A “web” of services and pro-social community connections should be built around anoffender following release from incarceration to enhance his/her chances of successfulreintegration (p. 26).

• Transitional housing, and affordable housing in general, should be expanded to supportthe successful transition from prison to community living (p. 26).

• Massachusetts should develop comprehensive job programs for offenders thataddress not only vocational skills, but also motivation and attitude. Jobprograms should be delivered as part of an integrated approach to dealing withother criminal risk factors (p. 26).

• Massachusetts should facilitate community involvement in helping offendersreintegrate successfully. Community members can work with parole and lawenforcement officers and provide support to offenders nearing release andfollowing incarceration (p. 30).

Leadership at the State Level

• Massachusetts should develop systemwide agreement on what is to be accomplished atthe state level as a result of improving the transition from incarceration to the commu-nity (p. 33).

• The state should develop systemwide agreement on the definition and measure of recidi-vism (p. 33).

• The Governor should charge the National Governor’s Association (NGA) MassachusettsLeadership Team with defining state-level performance goals, including a specific goal forreduction in recidivism (p. 33).

• The Leadership Team should transform the performance goals of the reentry process intomeasurable events, or performance measures that will best gauge progress in achieving thegoals (p. 33).

• The Leadership Team should monitor and report data on performance measures to allstakeholders, i.e., policymakers, practitioners, and citizens. And it should develop aprocess to respond to performance that is not meeting goals or benchmarks (p. 33).

46



• Individual agencies should develop program/agency-level performance measures for theprisoner reentry process that support the statewide goals (p. 33).

• The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the Secretary of Public Safety will need toprovide strong leadership to facilitate the collaborative partnerships described in thisreport (p. 36).

• The Governor should charge the National Governor’s Association (NGA) LeadershipTeam, with membership expanded to include other stakeholders beyond state agencies,to take the lead in establishing the collaboration needed to reform the prison reentrysystem (p. 36).

• The Leadership Team should anticipate resistance to system reform and develop a planto address that resistance (p. 36).

Leadership at the Agency Level

• Leaders of public and private agencies affected by the planned improvements in prisontransition should develop a strategy to address specific changes in their organization’spractices or role (p. 38).

• Agency leaders should recognize good work in the present and build on it (p. 38).

• Agencies need to provide staff training focusing on the reason for the change, as well asnew knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for any changes in agency role or practice(p. 38).

• Agencies should provide a feedback loop to track the progress of implementation andcreate an ongoing quality assurance process (p. 38).

• Agency leaders should limit new projects to those that focus on the desiredorganizational change (p. 38).

47



ReferencesAndrews, D. A., J. Bonta, and R. D. Hoge. (1990). Classification for Effective Rehabilitation: Rediscover-ing Psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 17:19-52.

Andrews, D. A. (1994). An Overview of Treatment Effectiveness: Research and Clinical Principles. Paperprepared for National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Andrews, D. A. and J. Bonta. (1994). The Psychology of Criminal Conduct. Anderson Publishing Com-pany: Cincinnati, Ohio.

Andrews, D. A. (1999). “Assessing Program Elements for Risk Reduction: The Correctional ProgramAssessment Inventory.” In P. Harris, ed., Research to Results: Effective Community Corrections. Washington,D.C.: International Community Corrections Association.

Bloom, B., B. Owen, and S. Covington. (2003). Gender Responsive Strategies: Research, Practice, andGuiding Principles for Women Offenders. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S.Department of Justice.

Blumstein, A., A. J. Beck. (1999). “Population Growth in U.S. Prisons, 1980-1996.” In: M. Tonry and J.Petersilia, eds, Prisons. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bonta, J., S. Wallace-Capretta, J. Rooney, and K. McAnoy. (2002). An Outcome Evaluation of a Restor-ative Justice Alternative to Incarceration. Contemporary Justice Review. 5(4):319-338.

Boston Bar Association. (2002). Report of the Boston Bar Association Task Force on Parole and CommunityRe-integration: Parole Practices in Massachusetts and Their Effect on Community Reintegration. Boston,Massachusetts.

Boone, H., B. Fulton, A.Crowe and G. Markley. (1995). Results Driven Management: ImplementingPerformance Based Measures in Community Corrections. Lexington, Kentucky: American Probation andParole Association.

Bradley, K. H., M. Oliver, N. Richardson, and E. Slayer. (2001). No Place Like Home: Housing and theEx-prisoner. Boston, Massachusetts: Community Resources for Justice.

Burke, P. (2001). “Probation and Parole Violations: An Overview of Critical Issues.” In: M. Carter, ed.,Responding to Parole and Probation Violations: A Handbook to Guide Local Policy Development. SilverSpring, Maryland: Center for Effective Pubic Policy. National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Departmentof Justice.

Byrne, J. M. and L. Kelly. (1989). Restructuring Probation as an Intermediate Sanction: An Evaluation of theMassachusetts Intensive Probation Supervision Program. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice,U.S. Department of Justice.

Byrne, J. M. (1989). Re-Integrating the Concept of ‘Community’ Into Community-Based Corrections.Crime and Delinquency. 35 (3):471-499.

48



Chaiken, M. R. (1989). In-Prison Programs for Drug-Involved Offenders. Washington, D.C.: NationalInstitute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Clear, T., P. Harris, and S. C. Baird. (1992). Probationer Violations and Officer Response. Journal ofCriminal Justice. 20:1-12.

Clear, T. R. (2002). Prisoners, Prisons, and Religion: Religion and Adjustment to Prison. Religion, theCommunity, and the Rehabilitation of Criminal Offenders. Vol. 35 (3/4), pp 129-161.

Community Resources for Justice. (2001). Returning Inmates: Closing the Public Safety Gap. Boston,Massachusetts: Community Resources for Justice.

Crime and Justice Institute. (2004). Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections:Leading Organizational Change and Development. Boston, Massachusetts: Community Resources forJustice.

Crime and Justice Institute. (2004). Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections:Collaboration for Systemic Change in the Criminal Justice System. Boston, Massachusetts: CommunityResources for Justice.

Crime and Justice Institute. (2004). Implementing Evidence-Based Principles in Community Corrections:The Principles of Effective Intervention. Boston, Massachuetts: Community Resources for Justice.

Emrick, C. D., J. S. Tonigang, H. Montgomery, and L. Little. (1993). “Alcoholics Anonymous: What iscurrently known?” In: B. S. McCrady and W. R. Miller, eds., Alcoholics Anonymous: Opportunities andAlternatives. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Alcohol Research Documentation Institute, Rutgers Center ofAlcohol Studies.

Fishman, N. (2003). Briefing Paper: Legal Barriers to Prisoner Reentry in New Jersey. New Jersey Institutefor Social Justice. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.njisj.org/reports/barriers_report.pdf.

Gendreau, P. and D. Andrews. (1994). The Correctional Program Assessment Inventory. 4th edition. SaintJohn, New Brunswick: University of New Brunswick.

Gendreau, P. and C. Goggin. (1996). Principles of Effective Correctional Programming. Forum onCorrections Research. 8(3):38-40.

Gerstein, D. R., R. A. Johnson, C. L. Larison, H. J. Harwood, and D. Fountain. (1997, January). Alcoholand Other Drug Treatment for Parents and Welfare Recipients: Outcomes, Costs, and Benefits. Washington,D.C: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Governor’s Commission on Criminal Justice Innovation. (2004). Final Report. Massachusetts.

Heigham, J. C. CORI: The Criminal Offender Record Information Law. Massachusetts Bar Association.Posted on May 22, 2000. Retrieved April 5, 2004, from http://www.massbar.org/article.php?c_id=393&vt=3.

Hoover, H. M. (2000, September). A Statistical Description of Releases from Institutions and the Jurisdictionof the Massachusetts Department of Correction During 1999. Massachusetts Department of Correction.http://www.state.ma.us/doc/Research/Relann.htm

Hoover, H. M. (2003, July). Recidivism of 1997 Released Department of Correction Inmates. MassachusettsDepartment of Correction. http://www.state.ma.us/doc/pdfs/REC97.PDF

49



Inciardi, J. A., S. S. Martin, C. A. Butzin, R. M. Hooper, and L. D. Harrison. (1997). An Effective Modelof Prison-Based Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders. Journal of Drug Issues. 27(2):261-278.

Koenig, L., G. Denmead, R. Nguyen, M. Harrison, and H. Harwood. (1999). The Costs and Benefits ofSubstance Abuse Treatment: Findings from the National Treatment Improvement Evaluation Study (NTIES).Prepared for the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment. Fairfax, Virginia: Caliber Associates.

Lipsey, M. W. (2003). Effective Correctional Treatment Enhances Public Safety. International CorrectionalAssociation, Monograph Series Project, Publication #3.

Martin, S. S., C. A. Buztin, C. A. Saum, and J. A. Inciardi. (1999). Three-Year Outcomes of TherapeuticCommunity Treatment for Drug-Involved Offenders in Delaware: From Prison to Work Release to After-care. The Prison Journal. 79:294-320.

Maryland Division of Parole and Probation. (2003). “Nuts and Bolts” of PCS: Proactive Community Supervi-sion. College Park, Maryland: University of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research.

Massachusetts Department of Correction. (2003, December). Releases from the Massachusetts Department ofCorrection During 2002. (All data are preliminary and subject to change.)

Massachusetts Parole Board. (1999). Ten Year Trends. Statistical Reports 1900-1999.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. (2001, November). Survey of Sentencing Practices, FY 2000.

Massachusetts Sentencing Commission. (2003, May). Survey of Sentencing Practices, FY 2002.

McGuire, J. (Editor). (1995). What Works: Reducing Re-Offending: Guidelines from Research and Practice.Wiley Series on Offender Rehabilitation. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons.

Metraux, S. and D. P. Culhane. (2004). Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration Following PrisonRelease: Assessing the Risk. Criminology & Public Policy. 3(2): 201-222.

Meredith, T. (2001). Automated Parole Risk Assessments. Applied Research Services, Inc. Research TrianglePark, North Carolina: Research Triangle Institute.

Mumola, C. J. (1999). Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Bureau of JusticeStatistics, Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ12871.

O’Connor, T. and M. Perryclear. (2002). Prison Religion in Action and Its Influence on Offender Rehabilitation.

Oregon Department of Correction. (2002). The Effectiveness of Community-Based Sanctions in ReducingRecidivism.

Oregon Progress Board. (2002). Performance Measure Guidelines.

Oregon Progress Board. (2004). Improving Government Outcomes: The Role of Evidence-Based Practices.http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb/

Parent, D. and L. Barnett. (2002). Transition from Prison to Community Initiative. Abt Associates Inc..Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice.

Petersilia, J. (2002). Reforming Probation and Parole in the 21st Century. Lanham, Maryland: AmericanCorrectional Association. ISBN Number 15699144.

50



Piehl, A. M. (2002, January). From Cell to Street: A Plan to Supervise Inmates After Release. Boston,Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute for a New Commonwealth.

Rodriguez, N. and B. Brown. (2003). Preventing Homelessness Among People Leaving Prison. New York:Vera Institute of Justice.

Sachwald, J. (2000). Proactive Community Supervision: A Plan for Making Maryland Communities Safer.Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.

Sampson, L. L. (2004, February). 2002 Court Commitments to the Massachusetts Department of Correc-tion. Massachusetts Department of Correction. http://www.state.ma.us/doc/pdfs/COMMIT021.pdf

Sherman, L. W. (1997). “Thinking About Crime Prevention.” In: Sherman, Gottfredson, MacKenzie,Eck, Reuter, and Bushway, eds., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising. Wash-ington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

Steadman, H. J., E. Mulvey, J. Monahan, P. Robbins, P. Appelbaum, T. Grisso, L. Roth, and E. Silver.(1998). Violence by People Discharged from Acute Psychiatric Inpatient Facilities and by Others in theSame Neighborhoods. Archives of General Psychiatry, V55: 393-401.

Stephens, J. and J. Karberg. (2003). Census of State and Federal Correctional Facilities, 2000. Washing-ton, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.

Taxman, F., D. Young, J. M. Byrne, A. Holsinger, and D. Anspach. (2002). From Prison Safety to PublicSafety: Innovations in Offender Reentry: Final Report. College Park, Maryland: Bureau of GovernmentalResearch.

Tonry, M. (1997). Intermediate Sanctions in Sentencing Guidelines. Washington, D.C.: NationalInstitute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice. NCJ 165043.

Travis, J., A. L. Solomon, and M. Waul. (2001, June). From Prison to Home: The Dimensions andConsequences of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

Tunis, S., J. Austin, M. Morris, P. Hardyman, and M. Bolyard. (1997). Evaluation of Drug Treatment inLocal Corrections. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.

United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Reentry web site, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/learn.html.

Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (2003). The Criminal Justice System in Washington State:Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and Prison Economics.

Wilson, D. J. (2000). Drug Use, Testing, and Treatment in Jails. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Special Report.Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics,U.S. Department of Justice. NJC 179999.

Winsor, E. (2003, December 1). The CORI Reader. Boston, Massachusetts: Massachusetts Law ReformInstitute.

Young, D., F. Taxman, and J. Byrne. Engaging the Community in Offender Reentry in Reentry PartnershipInitiative: Moving from Prison Safety to Public Safety, a collection of papers. College Park, Maryland:Bureau of Governmental Research, University of Maryland.

51



Eight Evidence-Based Principles for Effective Interventions

1. Assess Actuarial Risk/Need. Sound assessment that identifies dynamic and static risk factorsis the cornerstone of effective supervision. If risks and needs are not properly identified andprioritized, appropriate interventions and services cannot be delivered.

2. Enhance Intrinsic Motivation. Using motivational interviewing techniques, as opposed todirect persuasion or nondirective counseling, can help build intrinsic motivation in offenders.This is instrumental in initiating and maintaining behavior change.

3. Target Interventions. This principle incorporates five related subordinate principles—theprinciples of risk, criminogenic need, responsivity, dosage, and treatment. In general, the prin-ciple states that supervision and treatment should target higher-risk offenders, focus on needsrelated to criminal behavior, be responsive to the offender’s unique issues, be delivered in thecorrect dosage, and be specified in the court’s sentence.

4. Skill Train with Directed Practice. Cognitive behavioral treatment methods have beenshown to be effective at changing behavior and reducing recidivism. Examining thinkingprocesses, role playing, and positive reinforcement are key components of this type of treatment.

5. Increase Positive Reinforcement. When learning new skills and behaviors, people respondbetter to positive rather than negative reinforcement. Research suggests a ratio of four positivereinforcements for each negative. It is also important to note that even when applied sporadi-cally, positive reinforcements can be effective, unlike negative reinforcements.

6. Engage Ongoing Support in Natural Communities. Realigning offenders with prosocialsupport systems in their communities is critical for sustained behavior change. Attitudes andbehaviors are strongly reinforced in one’s daily living environment. Without prosocial reinforce-ment in this setting, the chance of long-term positive effects are diminished.

7. Measure Relevant Processes. Measuring outcomes is crucial; it is what evidence-based prac-tices are based on. Offender as well as staff performance must be measured.

8. Provide Measurement Feedback. Providing feedback increases accountability and has beenassociated with enhanced motivation for change.

AppendixSummary of Evidence-Based Principles

52



Principles of Risk, Need,Responsivity, Dosage, and Treatment

Risk

The duration, level, and intensity of services must coincide with the level of risk posed by theoffender. Research has shown that the positive effects of treatment are greatest with moderate tohigh-risk offenders and that providing services to low-risk offenders is ineffective, and in fact, insome cases can increase recidivism rates.

Need

Interventions must target the dynamic risk factors associated with future criminal behavior. Alsoknown as criminogenic needs, these are the risk factors that can be changed. Properly addressingthem will reduce recidivism.

Responsivity

Supervision and treatment must address the dynamic risk factors and must be matched with theoffender’s learning ability and styles, culture, gender, maturity level, and degree of motivation tochange.

Dosage

Higher risk offenders require a great deal of structure, particularly during the initial phase ofsupervision. It is recommended that 40 to 70 percent of an offender’s free time in the commu-nity be occupied for the first 3 to 9 months with appropriate services, e.g., treatment, employ-ment services, education, etc.

Treatment

Appropriate treatment should be integrated into the requirements of the sentence.

53



Dynamic and Static Risk Factorsand Non-Criminogenic Needs

Dynamic Risk Factors/Criminogenic Needs: Properly addressing these willreduce criminal behavior.Examples:

● Antisocial attitudes, values, and beliefs

● Pro-criminal associates and isolation from prosocial associates

● Dysfunctional family relations

● Weak social and problem-solving skills

● Current substance abuse issues

● Temperament and behavioral characteristics (e.g., egocentrism, impulsivity, aggression)

● Educational and vocational deficiencies

Static Risk Factors: Factors that cannot be changed but are predictors ofcriminal behavior.Examples:

● Number and severity of prior convictions

● History of childhood abuse and neglect

● History of substance abuse

● History of education, employment, family, and social failures

Non-Criminogenic Needs: Factors that are not associated with criminal behavior.Examples:

● Anxiety

● Low self-esteem

● Creative abilities

● Medical needs

● Physical conditioning

54



What Works vs. What Doesn’t Work

What Works

Examples of recidivism reduction strategies supported by research:1

● Structured social learning where new skills and behavior are modeled● Cognitive behavioral interventions that target criminogenic needs such as:

o Interpersonal communication skills trainingo Moral Reconation Therapyo Thinking for a Change Programo Behavior modification programso Anger management programs that have appropriate cognitive behavioral interventions

and therapeutic integrity● Using a balanced and integrated approach to sanctions and interventions

● Family-based approaches that train family on appropriate techniques

What Doesn’t Work

Examples of strategies shown to be ineffective in reducing recidivism:2

● Intensive supervision without treatment● Punishment alone● Prison alone● Military models of discipline and fitness● Physical challenge programs● Confrontational programs such as Scared Straight● Drug education programs● Programs that target low-risk offenders● Drug testing alone● Shaming offenders● Fostering self-esteem● Insight-oriented psychotherapy● Nondirective, client-centered counseling● Non-action oriented group counseling

1 With extremely high-risk offenders who have extensive criminal backgrounds and who are deeply enmeshed in antisocial subcultures, oftentimes public safety concerns must take priority over risk reduction strategies.2 While these strategies may be appropriate for fulfilling other goals of criminal justice, they have not been shown to be effective in reducing recidivism.

Documents

From Incarceration to Community