The plight of offenders after release -- and the relationship that their success or failure has on government pocketbooks and public safety -- has definitely caught the attention of federal lawmakers.

The Second Chance Act of 2005, which was introduced last year, has bipartisan support in the House and Senate with more than 100 co-sponsors and seems likely to succeed in providing grant funding to state and local governments as well as resources and assistance for programs and research.

“In Kansas, over two-thirds of people admitted to prison are those who have violated probation or parole. In California, a majority of prison admissions also related to failure to comply with conditions of probation or parole. Why? Frequently it relates to substance abuse issues. Over half have to do with failing drug tests. We see a vicious circle emerging,” said Michael Thompson, Director of Criminal Justice Programs for the Council of State Governments in a recent press conference about the legislation.

The Second Chance Act aims to address this issue by providing funding and support for programming that targets offenders' substance abuse addition and their reentry needs so they can become productive members of the community.

At a February 8 Congressional hearing on the act, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Howard Coble (R-NC) outlined the issue for his colleagues.

“Any offender reentry strategy has to include comprehensive and innovative drug treatment programs,” said Coble in his opening statement at the hearing. “Today, there are more than 3.9 million drug users in America who need, but who do not receive, help. And we've got to do something about that.”

He also stated that in looking at drug treatment programs lawmakers should consider their effectiveness and whether they fit into a comprehensive approach to reentry and maintaining continuous care.

The Second Chance Act of 2005 hopes to address these areas as well.

Embedded in the legislation is funding for research grants and a resource center that will promote best practices in reentry, as well as a task force to develop interagency initiatives, a national research agenda for reentry and report recommendations to Congress.

Experts in the field of drug treatment and reentry are eager to support these initiatives.

According to Sonya Brown of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, the structure and provision of some existing drug addiction programs may need to change as new initiatives are developed.

“Treatment has to be available; waiting lists don't work. A continuum of services needs to be available so we can move people along a continuum of care. Duration is [also] important; 90 days is usually an effective time. And, intensity of services has to be available. Usually outpatient is available one hour each week; we need to expand that to something like three hours per day each week,” said Brown at a recent press conference. “Treatment has to be effective and we need to use proven treatment strategies.”

Brown and other experts, including those who recently testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the Second Chance Act, would like to see specific aspects of effective drug treatment become incorporated in federally funded reentry efforts.

Supporting Second Chance

According to Nora Volkow, Director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse, federally funded research on drug treatment has already pinpointed effective elements of existing programs and these should be front and center when reentry programs and treatment are funded further.

In her testimony before the Judiciary Committee February 8, Volkow said that drug treatment strategies should include behavioral therapy that can help participants learn positive social and coping skills to reinforce positive change; medications that have been proven effective in treating drug addition and an adequate assessment of co-occurring mental disorders.

But aside from including these strategies, lawmakers and officials should also keep in mind that other challenges exist in working with the criminal justice population.

“Implementing drug abuse treatment into any non-treatment setting is challenging. In the criminal justice system, the translation of science to practice is further compounded by the need to merge two very different cultures; public health that aims to treat the individual and public safety that aims to protect the community,” she said.

To this end, Volkow described the research that has been done by NIDA, including its Criminal Justice Drug Abuse Treatment Studies initiative. This initiative includes multi-site research projects to improve outcomes for offenders with substance use disorders by encouraging public health and public safety systems to work together.

“Through this comprehensive initiative, we are sponsoring a range of research, looking at everything from adolescents with drug problems to the importance of building interagency cooperation and collaboration,” she told the members of the Judiciary Committee.

One program that has been developed by the CJ-DATS program, called Step n' Out, specifically looks at collaboration between parole and outpatient addiction treatment providers. The project goals are to systemize assessment, treatment orientation and monitoring between parole officers, treatment counselors and clients.

Another goal of the project is to encourage a supportive approach to supervision that emphasizes pro-social goals and positive responses by clients.

According to Faye Taxman, a Professor at Virginia Commonwealth University, an expert on drug treatment and the criminal justice system, reentry initiatives that address community supervision and treatment for offenders are important.

“We have a situation in most states where parole is serving 70 to 100 plus offenders in a caseload. We need to use risk tools to see who needs treatment and improve the administration of justice,” said Taxman, who is involved in the CJ-DATS research. “What is promising about some of these [new] initiatives is a national agenda that interfaces treatment [with reentry] to the best degree possible.”

Others who testified before the Judiciary Committee spoke of coordinating reentry efforts with other entities, including Single State Authorities for Substance Abuse, which could help eliminate duplication of services and save taxpayer dollars.

According to Ken Batten, Director of the Office of Substance Abuse Services in the Virginia Department of Mental Health, serious consideration should be given to creating and supporting state-level coordination of substance abuse and reentry services.

“Given the high rate of substance abuse among offenders and the positive effect of treatment on reducing recidivism rates and saving taxpayer dollars, it is imperative that  State substance abuse directors are involved in the planning, implementing, reporting and evaluating of any reentry strategy,” said Batten in his testimony.  “Our own experience in Virginia has demonstrated that when these systems coordinate their efforts, less duplication of effort occurs, the overall product improves and better services are delivered.”

Batten also supports the idea of continuing technical assistance for state agencies and the use of the National Outcomes Measures system.

Batten said that Virginia has collaborated with SAMHSA and the National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors to develop outcomes measures to document treatment effectiveness.

“It is important for common standards and outcome measurements to be used when collecting data in order for findings and outcomes to be accurate and complete. Collecting accurate data and sharing information can help improve collaboration and fine-tune services to better address populations,” he told the committee.

Built into the Second Chance Act are a number of provisions that address this point.

As part of the reconfiguration of the act's Adult and Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Demonstration grants, each applicant in the new round of funding must develop a comprehensive strategic reentry plan with five-year and 10-year performance outcomes, identify performance outcomes related to long-term goals of increasing public safety and reducing recidivism, establish a center to collect data and best practices from grantees and other agencies and organizations and establish set performance measurement standards.

While these provisions are new to the Second Chance Act funding, some states have already begun to employ substance abuse reentry programming for offenders and have realized the importance of simultaneously evaluating these programs to “prove” program effectiveness.

Ahead of the Reentry Curve

When the Illinois Department of Corrections re-opened the Sheridan correctional facility in 2004, it had a new focus and a new plan for rehabilitation – and it centered on substance abuse treatment and reentry services.

More than a year later, Sheridan has become known across the country for its facility-based program and preliminary outcome results show that the multi-faceted programming is having a positive effect on recidivism.

“It's a holistic approach. We don't just look at the substance abuse issues, it's also academic and vocational issues [that are] inherent in the total program. They are involved three hours a day in the treatment aspect, then three hours in academic programming. [Plus] we have changed all of our vocational programs to provide links to jobs in the community,” said Sheridan's Warden Mike Rothwell.

Rothwell explained that offenders who meet the eligibility criteria for Sheridan, which includes a minimum of six months to a maximum of 24 months in sentence length, are screened through several levels to determine drug abuse history and interest in and readiness for the program.

One of the assessments used to determine program placement at Sheridan – the ASI – helps officials match offenders to the type of treatment groups that best fits their needs.

An offender may go into a group where he processes cognitive issues and self change, while another offender may focus more on anger management.

“One of the things we looked at with 18 to 24 year-olds is they are still resistant to the program, so we sat down and developed an aggression management program that would identify them when they come in so that we could pull a crisis team together to work with them separately,” said Rothwell.

A major part of the programming is the involvement of TASC (Treatment Alternatives for Safer Communities) – Illinois, a non-profit that works under contract with the DOC to provide case management and build networks between the criminal justice system and community social service providers.

TASC staff work with offenders inside the facility to help them work through their programs, then assist with discharge planning and finally monitor their progress on the outside after release.

One program at Sheridan involves offenders in job preparedness and readiness programs run by the Safer Foundation where offenders participate in computer lab tutorials, receive help with resume writing and create portfolios. In conjunction with the program, TASC staffers work with the offenders at 120 days pre-release to formally plan what the offender will do after his sentence is over. The TASC staff revisit the plan at 60 days and at 30 days pre-release -- when a parole agent becomes involved so that those who will supervise the offender on the outside understand the expectations for that offender.

“They are either in a recovery home, half way home, or they go to outpatient. They all have a discharge summary and the transitional plan addresses the needs that need to still be met,” Rothwell said. He added that through these layers of assistance and programming at Sheridan offenders learn that the recovery and reentry programs are a guide for them, but they must take ownership in their progress.

“One of our biggest hurdles is trying to convince people that it's not an event here; it's a process. They don't get fixed here, it is a process that starts here and it is carried on into the community,” Rothwell said.

Another major part of this process that Sheridan officials have tried to address is the offenders' ability to find work. Academic and skills training are two must-haves for any offender who hopes to succeed after release.

Rothwell said that the Sheridan facility has collaborated with a number of outside organizations and groups to help offenders in this part of their reentry planning. One stand-alone program involves the Home Builders Institute, which trains offenders in carpentry skills, building and apartment maintenance and then works with other National Home Builders Institute members to place them in jobs.

And, in the Sheridan horticulture and landscape program, offenders can test for their license prior to release and are matched with employers who will sign on to certify them based on their on the job work experience.

On the education side, Sheridan has become creative in helping offenders who may not be quite ready to achieve the GED. A new “bridging” program helps prepare offenders through math and reading programs that will raise their proficiency levels that are acceptable for certain vocational training at the facility.

For example, an offender who wants to be a welder can participate in the 12-week bridging program to improve their skills.

“We recognize that not every one has the capacity to get a GED. So we looked at the vocational programs and said, ‘What do you need [to do this],'” he said.
Next for Sheridan is a plan to establish a Meth prison and reentry program that focuses on a therapeutic community model specifically for Meth users.

“We are starting to look at what we can do differently, at what we can do for those guys and talk specifically about a nine to 12-month program that would really hit them,” said Rothwell.

Rothwell is hopeful that the jam-packed, evidence-based reentry program at Sheridan will help offenders change their ways and recover from their addictions for good.

Preliminary outcomes research conducted over the last year and half shows that the Sheridan model is off to a good start. Of the 863 offenders released from the program through 2005, only 67 or 7.7 percent have returned to prison. In addition, 54 percent of Sheridan completers are now employed.

“We are seeing some trends and numbers that are very encouraging and optimistic,” Rothwell said.

And this is just the kind of outcome that corrections officials and reentry experts would like to see – and results that lawmakers hope the Second Chance Act will facilitate.

“If these folks get the kind of treatment they need when they are incarcerated, then when they are released they won't fall into their old ways again. We have law enforcement and community service providers, then corrections itself, looking to make this work,” said Dede Short, spokesperson for the Illinois DOC.

Resources:

TASC -
www.tasc.org/preview/index.html

CJDATS – www.cjdats.org

Illinois DOC - www.idoc.state.il.us/