Content uploaded by Solveig Spjeldnes
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Solveig Spjeldnes on Apr 16, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Saving Our Criminal Justice System:
The
Efficacy
of
a Collaborative Social Service
Hide
Yamatani
and
Solveig
SpjeLdnes
On
a typical
day
in 2008, 776,573 individuals were behind bars
in
nearly 3,500
US.
jails.
Yet
the potential benefits
of
soci
al
services in achieving lower recidivism rates and successful
reintegration are understudied
in
jail populations. This three-year study investigated the
effects
of
collaboration-based in-j a
il
services and postrelease transitional services provided
by
the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative (ACJC).
The
results included a significantly lower
recidivism rate among inmate participants, similar service benefits across racial group
s,
and
successful reintegration into community life among a large majority
of
participants. At 12
months postrelease, participants had a 50 percent lower recidivism rate than members
of
the
matched comparison group,
who
were unexposed to the intervention, and multiple indicators
showed successful reintegration. This reduced rate would
save
the county
an
estimated $5.3
million annually, largely due to increased public safety and lower victimization costs. Data
sources included the ACJ
's
hi
storical inmate data
sets
frOlT! the pre-ACJC and post-ACJC
intervention periods, three postrelease face-to-face survey interviews, and focus group sessions
with former inmate participants and the study interviewers.
The
critical importance
of
social
workers in rehabilitative efforts with jail inmates
is
discussed along with recommendations
and implications for policy, practice, and research.
KEY
WORDS:
inmate
s;
jail;
race;
recidivism;
r
ei
ntegratiol1
The Second
Chance
Act
of
2007
(P.L.
110-
199), signed in 2008, marked a
fundamen-
tal shift toward rehabilitation to achieve
successful
community
reentry
for offenders, an
endeavor in
which
social workers can
playa
major
role
(Eckholm, 2008)
.The
act authorizes services to
reverse skyrocketing incarceration rates and costs. It
provides stace and local grants to
government
and
nonproftt groups for
services-including
hou
sing,
health,
drug
treatment, and
employment-and
en-
courages pilot programs to test the effectiveness
of
reintegration and diversion programs for nonviolent
ofIenders.This article reports
on
an effort
supported
by
this act and best
practice-the
Allegheny
County
Jail
Collaborative (ACJC) system,
which
is
oper-
ated
by jail and social service
agencies-showing
a
50
percent reduction in recidivism rates (Mellow,
Mukamal, LoBuglio,
Solomon,
&
Osborne,
2008;
Solomon, 2008). Based
on
its success,
we
posit that
such
a collaborative system can serve
as
a model
for
communities
throughout
the
country
to aid jail
inmates, reduce criminal justice and societal costs,
and
increase pu bbc safety.
For decades,
the
"get
tough"
approach that ftt
the
mood
of
a
crime-weary
pubEc led to three
inter-
related
criminal justice challeng
es
and
some
startEng
statistics.The
fmt
challenge
is
out-of-control
incar-
ceration rates.
The
United
States repre
se
nts only 5
percent
of
the world's population,
but
we
hold 25
percent
of
the
world's inmates in
our
prisons and
jails (Pew
Center
on
the State
s,
2008).
We
have
more
people
behind
bars in total
numbers
and per
capita than any
other
industriaEzed
country-2.3
million
out
of
nearly
300
million (750
per
100,000
residents)-one
out
of
100 U.S. adults. Annually,
an estimated 12 million people cycle in and
out
of
nearly
3,500
US.
jails (Beck, 2006).
On
a typical
day in
mid-2008,
776,573 individuals
were
in jail,
up
from
618,319
in 2000
(Minton
& Sabol, 2009).
The
same study
reported
that
258
per
100,000
U.S. residents were in jail custody (up from 226 in
2000)-nearly
all
of
whom
would
reenter
society.
The
US.
aggregated corrections costs rose from $12
billion in 1987 to $49 billion
in
2007, $20 billion
of
which
was for jails and local criminal
justice
(Hughes, 2006).
The
second challenge
is
high recidivism rates.
Langan and Levin (2002) found that 44
percent
of
former
offenders
were
rearrested
within
12
months
after release (Langan & Levin, 2002). Plus, black
men
and
women
have been found to recidivate at
higher rates than their
white
counterparts (Bureau
of
Justice Statistics, n.d. ; Kansal, 2005;
La
Vigne,visher,
& Castro, 2004; Sabol,
Minton,
& Harrison, 2007).
The
third challenge
is
the racial disparity
among
incarcerated individuals (Bonczar, 2003; Kansal,
2005; Langan & Levin, 2002;
La
Vigne et
a!.,
2004;
Sabol et
a!.,
2007).
The
mid-200S
US.
jail inmate
populations were 42.5 percent white, 39.2 percent
African American, and 16.4
percent
Hi
spanic/
Latino, despite an overall population representa-
tion
of
12.S percent African American and 14.S
percent Hispanic (Minton & Sabol, 2009; Sabol et
a!.,
2007).
One
in nine African Americans between
the
ages
of20
and 34 were incarcerated (Pew
Center
on
the States, 2008). Nearly one-third
of
African
American men will
be
incarcerated
during
their
lifetime, compared with 6 percent for
white
men
(Bonczar, 2003).
In most jurisdictions, jail administrators are
not
held accountable for re
entry
outcomes (Solomon,
2008). In fact, few jails track recidivism rates.
Their
focus
has
traditionally been public safety, so keeping
inmates in custody and
under
control have been the
primary goals. Growing recognition
of
the social
and cost benefits
of
rehabilitation have spurred jail
officials
to
seek collaborative reentry programs with
public health and social service agencies. These ef-
forts are
mo
stly in their early stages. Although the
Urban
Institute
has
reported that most jails provide
some reentry services, comprehensive best practice,
community-based reintegration interventions are
rare Qucovy,2006;Solomon ,200S). In fairness, scarce
jail resources, skeptical public sentiment, and chal-
lenging offender needs complicate efforts
(Roman
& Chalfm, 2006).
Exten
s
ive
programs exist in jails
in
New
York City;
Cook
County, Illinois; and Al-
legheny County, Pennsylvania (Solomon, 2008).
The
present three-year, study using quantita-
tive
and
qualitative
data
sources,
investigated
AC]C
, which
is
arguably the most advanced and
comprehensive collaboration-based social services
reintegration program in the
United
States.
It
is
the first empirically completed evaJuation
of
such
a large and complex jail rehabilitative intervention
(Solomon, 2008).
BACKGROUND
The
AC]
is
a detention and incarceration facility,
and it provides "lo
ck-up"
services for arrestees
who
are held pending formal identification by the
City
of
Pittsburgh Bureau
of
Criminal Identification, for
city magistrate and
di
strict justice prearraignment
hearings (Allegheny
County
Bureau
of
Corrections,
2002). Parallel to the national trend, the average
daily
inmate
number
in the AC] rose steadily throughout
the past decade (1997 through 2006).
The
AC]
has
recorded more than
21
,000 admissions
during
2005
and 2006.The
AC]
capacity
is
1 ,S50 inmate
s,
but
the
facility frequently houses more than 2,000; it
had
a
total 2006 budget
of
nearly $46.5 million (Allegheny
County
Bureau
of
Corrections, 2007).
The
AC]C
is co-chaired by the director
of
the
Department
of
Human
Services (DHS), the warden
of
the AC], and the dire ctor
of
the
Department
of
Health.
The
AC]C committee consists
of
about
25
funded and volunteer service providers, including
representatives from j a
il
social services; Allegheny
Correctional Health; the D HS Offices
of
Beh
avioral
Health, which include mental health ;
drug
and alco-
hol programs;Drug
Court
and MentaJ HeaJth Court;
Children, Youth and Families (CYF); employment
and training programs; and the coordinator
of
the
Children
of
Prisoner's Project.The overall member-
ship attendance rate at monthly Collaborative meet-
ings has been consistently high (over
SO
percent),
with the following subcommittees reporting to
the
group
on
a regular
basis:
AC] service provider
s,
CYF, children's subcommittee,
continuum
review
committee, c
ourt
corrections subcommittee, court
service planning, data collection committee, drug
and alcohol,
drug
court,
employment
committee,
manageme
nt
informati
on
systems, medical
assis-
tance,
ment
al health court, and three-quarter
way
housing.
The
main goal
of
the
AC]C
was
to
increase
inmates' likelihood
of
successful
community
rein-
tegration and reduce recidivism by providing in-jail
hum
an services (paid for by Allegheny
County
and
lo
ca
l private foundations)
and
sea
mless transitional
reentry services
on
rele
ase
through jail-based refer-
rals
to community-based organization.
On
the
basis
of
results
of
an inmate needs
as
sess
ment
(provided
to
all
inmates
on
admission to jail), the
AC]C
provided
an array
of
services to those
who
registered need
and interest in receiving services such
as
drug
and
alcohol education and treatment,
GED
preparation,
computer
literacy, stress
and
anger management,
parenting skills, creative
writing
and publishing,
life skill
s,
and vocational training. To link
inm
a
tes
with community-based services, the AC] organized
group presentations by the Probation Department
and social service organization representatives for
inmates awaiting release. Services most frequently
rections,
age
daily
oughout
ACJ has
ing2005
s,
but
the
I; it had a
.llegheny
or
of
the
c
warden
tment
of
about
25
ncluding
:ehavioral
and
alco-
1
1th
Court;
ployment
tor
of
the
member-
tive
meet-
1
percent),
ing
to
the
viders,
m revIew
:tee,
court
ttee,
drug
ommittee,
ical
ass
is-
larter
way
)
increase
nity
rein-
ing
in-jail
Otll1tyand
·ansitional
Ised
refer-
n
the
basis
rovided
to
:
provided
ered
need
drug
and
eparation,
1agement,
ublishing,
k
inmates
organized
tatives
for
frequently
received after release by the inmates included
drug
and alcohol,
job
search,
job
training, faith-based,
and mental health services.The study sample
group
included no individuals
with
court
mandates for
enrollment to
human
services.
Court-determ.ined
individuals in
need
of
acute services were diverted
directly to a well-established
intervention
program
called Allegheny
County
Forensics
(winner
of
the
Innovation
in
American
Government
Award in
2005) ,
which
served,
on
average, 600 to 700 mentally
or emotionally challenged individuals
per
month.
METHOD
Eligible
study
participants were male,
at
least
21
years
of
age,
currently
enrolled in
AC]C
services,
and slated
for
release
within
30
days.
Slightly
more
than
90
percent
volunteered
to participate
in
the
study.
The
average stay was 165
days-5.5
months after
signing
of
the initial
consent
form.
As
required by
our
institutional review
board
(IRB),
ACJ
participants signed a
consent
form
in jail,
on
recruitment
to the study,
and
at
30
days
postre-
le
ase.
The
form
included
a
descripticn
of
need for interviews at
30
days, six
months,
and
12
months after release. Participants were offered a
$50 certificate
incentive
per
interview.The
sample
inmates were released
when
they
completed
their
jail time,
but
not
all were released
on
the same
day.
They
were
interviewed
at specified intervals
as
time elapsed from
the
date
of
their
release.
The
sample
group
consisted
of
276
participants living
in
Allegheny
County
at
30
days after release,
220
at
six
months
after release,
and
140
at 12
months
after release.
The
28
study
interviewer
s
(track-
ers)
who
were
hired
as
research
team
members
completed a total
of
636
face-to-face
interviews,
all
in
community
settings.
Despite the
lagged ef-
fect
and technical
terminations,
the response rate
was
adequate. Individuals
excluded
from analysis
included four released inmates
who
discontinued
participation;
four
died
during
the study
period;
and
19
returned
to
jail
at six
months,
making
them ineligible for
the
next
interview
period
at
the
12
months.
The
sample response rates at
the
three sequential
interview
periods
were
as
follows:
92.0
percent
(30-day
interview),
89.5
percent
(six-
month
interview),
and
87.3
percent
12-month
interview).The percentages
of
inmates
who
disap-
peared
or
missed
appointments
at
the
six-month
and
12-month
interview
marks were 10.5
percent
and
12.7
percent,
respectively.
It
should
be
noted
that
because
the
sample
inmates
were released at
various times, we were unable to
interview
the
entire
baseline
group
at
six
and
12
months
postre-
lease by the
end
of
our
study
period.
Descriptive
Profile
of
the
Collaborative
Sample
Group
The
face-to-face interview sample group, consisting
of276
former
inmates at the
30-day
interview
s,
was
nearly evenly distributed by race:African
American
(51.4 percent, n =142) and white (48.6 percent,
11
=
134).
The
average age
ofACJ
inmates in 2006 was
33.
The
average age
of
our
study sample
group
was
36,
due
in
part
to the exclusion
of
anyone
under
21 years
of
age.
The
ACJ housed adult inmates
of
all
ages (that is, 18 and older),
many
of
whom
were
released
on
the same day they were adm.itted
and
so were
excluded
from the study. A
majority
of
the
study sample
group
(57.7 percent) consisted
of
individuals
who
had served two
or
more
separate
jail
sentences
during
the
previous five years. In
other
words,
our
samp
le,
which
the
ACJC
served,
included substantial
numbers
of
multiple offenders
(57.7 percent).
Nearly
half
(46.5 percent)
of
the
ACJC
sample
group
had
not
completed
high
school.
This
attain-
ment
was lower than that
of
the
overall
population
of
ACJ inmates in
2006
(41.9 percent).
The
white
(compared
with
African American) sample
group
included
a slightly higher
number
of
individuals
without
high school diplomas.
Among
participants
who
had
not
completed
high school, 77.9
percent
and 73.9 percent, respectively,
of
African
American
and
white
sample participants had
earned
aGED.
The
distribution
of
primary
conviction
offenses
for the latest
term
evaluated
showed
that
the
most
common
were
drug-related
offenses (33.9 percent).
Overall, according to offense type, the sample
group
closely represented typical ACJ inmates.
Participation
in
Collaborative
Services
Participants had the
opportunity
to
participate in
in-jail
and
post jail services
as
they chose
and
as
need
arose,
with
guidance
from case managers.
About
30
days postrelease, members
of
the study
group
sample
were asked to indicate
which
of
the
AC]C
services
they actually received.
As
Figure 1 shows, a
majority
of
the
AC]C
sample
group
received substance abuse
prevention
and
rehabilitation services
during
their
jail
time.
Nearly
70
percent
of
the
sample
group
received three
or
more
services at the AC].
NUARY
2011
YAMATANI
AN
0
Sp
J
ELON
ES /
Saving
Our
Criminal
justice
System:
The
Efficacy
of
a
Collaborativ
e
Social
Service
55
:
!
Figure
1:
Collaborative
Services Received,
by
Race
and
Total
Sample
Population
•
•••••••••••••••••
Substance abuse 54.9%
(Education)
••••••••••••••••••••
50.2%
..................
45.3%
L
ife
skills 42.5%
••••••••••••••••
42.7%
•••••••••••••
Substance abuse II 36.4%
(Rehabilitation)
...............
.
II
37.0%
.............
Work on persona l 37.3%
rel
ationship
•••••••••••••
.-:m.
32.7%
'
•••••••••••••••
37.9%
Computer literacy
22.
1%
•••••••••••
30.5%
•••••••••••
29.1%
Employmenr
............
27.7%
II
28.1%
...........
24.8%
19
.7%
•••••••••
21.7%
.Afti
ca
n American
OWhir
e
..........
22.8%
. Total
Parenri ng skills •
•••••••
15
• .
2%
18.4%
Vocarional rraining
o
10
20
30 40
50
60
Methods
of
Analysis and the pos
t-ACJC
intervention
period
from
2003
We analyzed recidivism rates
of
ACJC jail inmate to 2006
(/'I
=
41
,865). Finally, we conducted
two
participants compared
with
tho
se
of
a statisti
ca
lly sets
of
qualitative
asse
ss
ments, data for which were
matched comparison
group
offormer
inmates
who
gathered
during
focus group sessions
with
former
had
not
received services.We conducted process and AC] inmate participants
(who
expressed int
eres
t
outcome
using three major data sets to at the time
of
recruitment) and tracke
rs.
We
also
eva luate
AC]C
syst
em
goals related to recidivism estimated cost savings, derived from
po
strele
ase
re-
reduction.
The
first was data
ga
thered
through
cidivism rate differences between
AC]C
particip
an
ts
inm
ate interviews
in
a
community
setting for up and the matched compariso n group.
to
thr
ee
tim
es
during
the
fIrSt
one-year postrelease
The
ACJC recidivism rate was obtained on
the
period (total interviews = 636
am
ong
276 released basis
of
a sub
sa
mple
of
inmates
who
receive d
ACJC
inm
ate
s)
.
The
second
se
t
was
the ACTs historical services and were released in 2005
(n
= 140).
This
inmat
e data
se
ts
(which generated the
matched
group wascompared with a demographically
similar
compari
so
n group),
which
included the pre-ACJC
sa
mple comprising inmates released in 1996 (prior
intervention period from 1994 to 1997
(n
=33,487) to the start
of
AC]C
). Becau
se
national re cidivi sm
rates r
and
IT
group
se
lect(
strat
ifi
(two
I
categ<
to 49,
of
10
a
nd
F
becau
age
aI
exam
Sabol
Or
Institl
cost-s
a jail
in th(
crim<
ingsa
recid
II1-Jal
calcu
we
fI
ACJ
,
its to
bed
(
R,
th
e (
justi(
offer.
used
offer
inm:
ers I
victi
be
c:
inju
SOC
);
200,
Kro
estil
Thl
and
offe
Tht
rapt
bur
ofs
tr
at
56
Social
Work
VO
LU
ME
56,
NUMBER
I
JANUARY
201l
rates
remained fairly stable
during
the past decade
and
more, it was possible to select a
comparison
group
ofAC]
inmates from a
pre-AC]C
period.We
selected the
comparison
group
using a matched,
stratified random-selection
method-inmates'
race
(two
groups: African
American
and white) by age
category (five groups: ages
21
to
29,30
to 39, 40
to
49,
50 to 59, and 60
or
over)-matching
a total
of
10
sample parameters across the
post-AC]C
and
pre-AC]C
groups.
This
strategy was chosen
because the literature has indicated that race and
age
are highly associated
with
recidivism rates (for
example, Bonczar, 2003; Langan & Levin, 2002;
Sabol
et aI., 2007).
On
the basis
of
a strategy
reported
by the
Urban
Institute, we used the following steps to
conduct
a
cost-savings analysis.We estimated the average cost
of
a jail
stay,
estimated the cost
of
processing offenders
in
the criminal justice system, estimated the cost
of
crime victimization, and
then
calculated cost sav-
ings
associated
with
the AC] C system by
comparing
recidivism reduction
among
its participants
with
in-jail service costs (Roll1an & Chalfin, 2006). To
calculate the cost structure associated with the AC]C,
we
first estimated the cost
of
keeping inmates in the
AC],
based
on
its 2006
budget
($46,504,976) and
its
total bed capacity (1,850),
which
was $68.87
per
bed
day while operating at full capacity.
Roman
and
Chalfin (2006) suggested averaging
the
costs
of
processing offenders in
the
criminal
justice system
on
the basis
of
each major type
of
offense
.
Thus,
AC] inmates' profiled offenses were
used
to estimate
the
average total cost
of
processing
oEfenders
in the criminal justice system. Released
inmates
who
committed
new
offenses cost taxpay-
ers
in part
as
a result
of
ramifications from
crime
victimization. Estimates
of
victimization costs can
be
calculated by considering medical expenses from
injuries, productivity losses, and intangible costs as-
sociated
with
pain and suffering
(Roman
& Chalfin,
2006).
McCollister (2004) and Lombard, Krouse,
Krouse,
Pflueger
,
and
Hudson
(2004)
reported
estimated total victimization costs by offense type.
Thus, we adjusted
the
offender processing costs
and
crime victimization costs
on
the
basis
of
the
offense
type
committed
by the AC] sample group.
The
offenses were
as
follows: violence (for example,
rape,
murder, assault), property damage (for example,
burglary,
larceny, theft, vehicle theft, fraud, position
of stolen property), drugs (for example, possession,
trafficking), and public order (for example, driving
under
the
influence, weapons possession, public
intoxication) .
FINDINGS
The
AC]C's two goals were
to
increase
former
inmates' likelihood
of
successful reintegration
into
community
life and to reduce recidivism.
Both
of
these goals were met. At 12
months
postrelease,
AC]C
inmates achieved a 50 percent lower recidi-
vism rate than did members
of
the matched compari-
son group (16.5 versus 33.1 percent, respectively).
2
Such a significant recidivism rate difference
[X
(1,
2,793) = 4.28, P = .03] suggests the usefulness
of
AC]C
interventions (see Figure 2).
The
estimated postrelease recidivism rate differ-
ence
between
the
AC]C
and
comparison
groups
within the three-year
period
was 17.8 percent (34.4
percent versus 52.2 percent for
theAC]C
participants
and
the
comparison
group
, respectively).
Consider-
ing
'this pattern, the estimated reduced recidivism
for AC] C participants,
among
300 inmates annually
during
a three-year period, was 122.8 individuals
fewer than the
comparison
group, despite there
'having been
an
equal
number
of
inmates.
Countering
national trends for more than the past
decade,
our
findings further indicated that
among
the
AC]C
sample group,
no
statistically significant
recidivism differences existed
between
African
American and
white
participants. In contrast,
among
Figure
2:
Twelve-Month
Recidivism Rate
Comparison:
Allegheny
County
Jails
Collaborative
(ACJC) versus
Matched
Comparison
Group
35 33.1%
Matched
Comparison
AC]C
YAMATANI
AND
SPjElDNES
/ Saving Our Criminal
Justic
e
System:
The
Efficacy
ofa
Collaborative
Social
Service
57
the matched comparison group, the recidivism rate
for the African American group was significantly
hi¥her (by 12 percent) than that for the white group
[X
(1, 10,552) =
3065,p
= .001].
In
addition,
during
the 12
months
after par-
ticipants' release from AC], evidence showed that
they successfuUy reintegrated
into
community
life.
Indicators included higher enrollment in
commu-
nity-based service organizations, improved housing
obtainment
for
both
racial groups, and an increased
employment
rate
among
white
releasees.
Other
areas that remained relatively unchanged (but did
not
significantly deteriorate) were
drug
and alcohol
usage rates, the African American
employment
rate,
and mental and physical health treatment needs.
Cost
and
Savings
Profile
Inmates in this study spent an average
of
45 days in
the
AC]
between booking and releaseThus, the aver-
age cost
of
an AC] inmate stay was the average cost
per day ($68.87) multiplied by the average length
of
, stay (45
days)-a
total
of$3,
104The
average cost
of
processing
AC]
inmates was $2,955 per individual.
This estimate was slightly higher (by an additional
$900) than similar costs reported by Lombard et
al.
(2004).
It
was noticeably lower
(by
$3,100) than an
estimate provided by
Cohen
(2000) that considered
the most costly inmates
who
conunitted
violent
offenses.
On
the basis
of
the suggested estimation
method,
the average cost
of
crime
victimization
. across major types
of
offenses
committed
by the
AC]
inmates was $37,603. Adding cost estimates
resulted in a total average cost
of
$43,662 per
AC]
inma te jail
stay.
The
Urban
Institute's
estimate--using
the distri-
bution
of
offenses reported
by
Roman,Kane,Turner,
and Frazier
(2006)-of
expected cost per recidivat-
ing inmate was slightly higher than
our
estimate
($49,123).
Our
number
resulted from differences in
the distribution
of
offense types
committed
by
AC]
inmates,
who
had a lower rate
of
violent offenses.
In
addition, cost calculations were based only on AC]
operating
costs-amortized
capital costs were
not
included. According to
Cunniff
(2006),
who
con-
ducted ACTs bed utilization analyses, two variables
determined
jail bed demands: admission rates and
length
of
stay.
The
estimated average annual cost savings associ-
ated with CoUaborative involvement was calculated
on
the basis
of
the estimated average annual recidi-
vism reduction
of
122.8 jail stays
during
the three-
year postrelease period.We derived the total average
annual cost savings by multiplying the estimated
cost per
AC]
inmate
per
incarceration ($43,662)
by
122.8-a
total
of
more than $5.3 miUion (that
is
, $5,363,267).
The
estimated cost
of
providing in-jail
AC]
col-
laborative services included average costs
of
service
per inmate
by
community-based organizations plus
costs
of
AC] personnel services. Cost
per
inmate
ranged from
no
cost-due
to volunteer assistance--
to
drug
and alcohol services at $1,984 per inmate.
We estimated that,
on
average, the
AC]C
in-jail per
inmate cost
was
$2,570,
not
including expenses
as-
sociated with AC] C
comnuttee
meetings, presenta-
tions, and conferences. Thus, the cost-savings
rate
was $6
(a
doUar investment yielded a $6 return)
The
greatest cost savings (86.1 percent
of
the total)
was
attributable to increased public safety and reduced
victimization.
According to a Washington State Institute
for
Public Policy review
of
in-jail
drug
treatment re-
ports (Aos, Phipps, Baronski, & Lieb, 2001), average
cost-savings ratio estimates were $3.87
(a
dollar
investment yielded a $3.87 return).These programs
were solely
drug
rehabilitation programs rather than
part
of
a coUaborative system
of
service providers.
Aos et
al.'s
report
of
an assessment
of
work
release
programs showed a slightly higher cost-savings
rate
of$6.16These
authors also found that in-prison (not
in-jail) vocational education programs generated a
cost-savings ratio
of$7
.13.Thus, the
AC]e's
impact
compared favorably with
other
studies' findings.
Insights
from
Focus Groups
Former
inmates were invited to volunteer for fo-
cus group sessions
during
their initial recruitment
meeting at jail. We selected 12 sample individuals
on the basis
of
a stratification
method
by
race.
However, only nine individuals participated in the
discussion sessions (four African American and
five
white
former
inmates).
The
focus group
sessions
were tape-recorded and analyzed thematically
on
the
basis
of
similar statements
among
respondents.
No
statistical assessments were
conducted
on the
content
of
statements, words used by participants,
or
contextual variables.
The
former
inmate participants' top priorities
(per majority agreement) regarding reentry needs
were
as
foUows: housing, employment, and educa-
tion. However, they noted the following issues
and
challenges:
('
"\
1=
T
A"
A
T T
J::
• Employers are typically suspicious
of
hiring
a former offender
with
a record
of
felony.
Thus, at the state level, a distinction should
be made
between
violent and
nonviolent
crimes. Participants suggested
that
unless
weapons are involved,
drug
offenses should
not
be considered a felony.
• Drugs and alcohol issues were a huge part
of
most former inmates' lives . Those participat-
ing in Alcoholics Anonymous
or
Narcotics
Anonymous programs
during
incarceration
and postrelease found
them
helpful. These
interventions encouraged
them
to open up
in
an empathetic environment and allowed
healing
through
introspection.
However,
participants
also
reported that addiction was
a vicious
circle-alcohol
and
drug
use led to
vulnerability to committing
more
crimes to
support their habit.
The
trackers,
who
conducted face-to-face
in-
terviews
with
former inmates, gained insight
into
the strengths, challenges, and progress
of
their
in-
terviewees. A total
of
eight trackers (who remained
working
with
the project after the study
period
ended) provided information substantively similar
to comments made by the former inmates:
• Factors perceived
as
contributing to avoiding
recidivism included positive social support;
stable housing; and
long-term,
legal employ-
ment
.
Former
inmates
often
need
social
connection
with
family members
or
friends
to guide
them
through addiction and
unem-
ployment issues. Residing in drug-infested
neighborhoods negatively influences efforts
to remain
drug
free.
Long-term
employment
is
necessary for maintaining housing, a sober
lifestyle, and positive relations
with
social
network members.
•
The
best situations observed included indi-
viduals
who
took
initiative, resolved
not
to
go back to
jailor
prison, and enhanced their
life
with
school
or
job
training programs.
• A positive attitude and motivation to make
healthy decisions were associated
with
re-
fraining from criminal activity and gaining a
sense
of
pride in success. Former inmates try
hard
not
to recidivate, but difficulties finding
and keeping a
job
can interfere with their
goals. Trackers sensed that many
of
the
men
they interviewed feared returning to jail, but
most were too proud to admit it (especially
to
women
trackers).
DISCUSSION
The
Second
Chance
Act
of
2007
(P.L.
110-199)
is
a federal recognition that the decades-old strategy
oflocking
up criminals in the name
of
public safety
has
been
disastrous. In response, the
ACJC
was
initiated to test the theory that seamless, 'intensive,
and comprehensive interventions by social service
agencies with jail inmates from initial incarceration
and
during
their transition back into the
commu-
nity would help
them
prepare for jobs, for higher
education, for
drug
and alcohol rehabilitation, and
for relationship and family issues . And in so doing,
the ACJC's intent was that its work would reduce
criminal behavior and increase chances for offend-
ers to have productive lives after incarceration.
The
system worked,
as
evidenced by a significantly lower
recidivism rate compared
with
that
of
a matched
companson
group.
The
ACJC (involving three major county depart-
ments)
is
unique in the nation (Solomon, 2008) .
Our
review
of
3,000
journal
articles, books, and reports
turned
up no similar service system.
The
real-life
success
of
the ACJC, with its intense social services
intervention system, may provide
our
nation
with
the best chance to stop the destructive cycle
of
crime
and ruined
lives--and
it should
be
emulated.
Another
important
finding
of
this study
is
an
eradication
of
racial disparity in recidivism
among
people exposed to social services while they are in
jail.This finding represents a significant implication
that even people
who
are most likely to experience
failure
of
reintegration can be helped by a well-
integrated collaborative service system.
The
U.S.
criminal justice system has yet to discover a policy
or
intervention that can address this issue, which
is
affiicting African Americans
on
an
enormous
scale.
ACJC's impact also affirms that effective social ser-
vices can generate equity
of
benefits across racial
groups with significant contextual variation.
As
noted, ACJC provides comprehensive services,
with
extensive cooperative involvement
of
more
than 60 social service agencies and more than two
dozen representatives
who
meet regularly to plan ,
troubleshoot,
and
resolve issues .
Such
a system
requires leadership from the community, the
cor-
rections system, and the government; involvement
from accomplished social service agencies; and
r .
,,..
societal will
to
invest in rehabilitation.
The
ACJC
involves a large
number
of
social workers, addressing
the
multiple challenges
of
people needing services
to fulfill their potential.
Reducing
criminal activ-
ity and recidivism requires an understanding
of
the
complex environmental factors that influence
crimi-
nal behavior and strategies
to
implement
change,
as
demonstrated by this study. Social workers can
provide expertise and leadership in research, policy,
and practice to rehabilitate offenders and provide
needed
skills for offenders to reintegrate into
com-
munities successfully.
It
is
time
for
the
social
work
profession to take a leadership role and help resolve
our
national criminal justice crisis.
It
should be
noted
that
our
IRE
limits
interven-
tion-based research studies involving jail inmates
strictly to
volunteer
sample groups.
The
practice
of
random
assignment procedures
among
vulnerable.
individuals to interventions
and
evaluation studies
risks unethical disregard
of
individuals' rights and
safety.
Thus,
this applied research using
matched
volunteer
comparison
group
samples
should,
be
viewed
as
generating a set
of
analytic findings ,
not
as
issuing representative findings
of
incarcerated
individuals in general.
REFERENCES
Allegheny
Counry
Bureau
of
Corre
ctions. (2002). Alleg
heny
County
Bur
e
au
of
Corr
ec
tions
: 2001
annual
report.
Pittsburgh: Author.
Allegheny
Counry
Bureau
of
Corrections. (2007) .
ALLegheny
Co
unty
Bureau
of
Corrections:
2007
annual
report.
Pittsburgh: Author.
Aos, S., Phipps,
P.,
Baronski, R ., & Lieb,
R.
(2001). The
comparative
costs
and
benefits
of
programs
to
reduce
crime
.
Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public
Policy.
Beck,A
.
]'
(2006,June).
The
importan
ce
of
successful
reentry
to
jail
population
g
rowth.
Presentation to the
Urban
Institute Jail
Reentry
Roundtable,
Wa
s
hington
,
DC
Retrieved
from http
://
www.urban.org/projects/
reentry-roundtable/roundtable9
.cfm
Bonczar,T. P. (2003).
PrevaLence
of
imprisonment
in
the
us.
popuLation,
1974-2001 (Bureau ofJustice Statistics
Special
Report
NCJ
197976). Washington,
DC:
US.
Department
of
Justice.
Bureau
of
Justice Statistics. (n.d.).
CriminaL
offender
statistics.
Retrieved
from
http://www
.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
crimoff.htm#jail
Cohen,
M.
A.
(2000).
Measuring
the costs and benefits
of
crime and justice. In
US
.
Department
of
Justice
(Ed.),
Measurement
and
anaLysis
of
crime
and
justi
ce
(Vol.
4, pp. 263-316).Washington, DC:
US
.
Department
of
Justice.
Cunniff, M. (2006).Jail
bed
utili
za
tion
anaLy
s
is
for
the
month
ofJune 2001 & 2006 All
eg
heny
County
(PA).
Washington, DC: National Institute
of
Corrections.
Eckholm, E . (2008, April 8). Shifting prison focus to
re-entry into sociery. New
York
Times
. Retrieved
from
http:// www.nytimes.com12008/04/ 08/
washington/08reentry. html?
J=
1 &ref=us&oref=slogin
Hughes,
K.
(2006).Justice
expenditure
and
employment
extracts,
2004. Washington,
DC:
US.
Dep
a
rtment
of
Justice,
Bureau
of
Justice Statistics.
Jucovy,
L.
(2006).Just
out:
Early
lessons
from
the
Ready
4Work
Prisoner
Reentry
Initiative.
Philadelphia: Public/Private
Ventures.
Kansal,
T.
(2005).
RaciaL
disparity
in
sentencing:
A r
ev
iew
of
the
literature
. Washington,
DC:The
Sentencing
Project.
Langan,
P.
A., & Levin,
D.].
(2002).
Recidivism
of
prisoner
s
released
in
1994 (Bureau
of
Justice Statistics Bulletin
NCJ
1934237).Washington,
DC:
US.
Department
of
Justice.
LaVigne, N. G.,Visher,
C,
& Castro,]. (2004).
Chicago
prisoners'
experience
returning
home.
Washington,
DC:
Urban
Institute.
Lombard,
D.
N., Krouse,
C,
Krouse, K., Pflueger, S., &
Hudson,
S.
(2004,
September
9). Allen County
re
e
ntry:
2
year
pilot
study.
Fort
Wayne, IN:
Center
for Applied
Behavioral Studies.
McCollister, K. E. (2004).
The
co
st of
crime
to
s
ociety:
New
crime-specific
estimates
for
policy
and
program
evaluation.
Lexington,
KY:
Addiction
Health
Services Research.
Mellow,].,
Mukamal,
D.
A., LoBuglio,
S.
E,
Solomon,A.
L.,
&
Osborne,].WL.
(2008) . Thejail
administrator
's
tooLkit
for
re
entry.
Washington, DC:
Urban
Institute Justice
Policy Center.
Minton,
T.
D., & Sabol,
W].
(2009) .
Jail
inmates
at
midyear
2008-Statistics
tabLes
(Bureau
of
Justice Statist
ic
s
NCJ
225709). Washington,
DC
:
US.
Department
of
Justice.
Pew
Center
on
the
States. (2008) . One
in
one
hundred
:
Behind
bars
in
America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew
Charitable Trusts.
Roman,].,
&
Chalfm,A
. (2006).Jail
reentry
roundtabLe
initia-
tive.
Washington,
DC:
Urban
Institute Justice Policy
Center.
Roman
,
].,
Kane,
M.,Turner,
E., & Frazier, B. (2006).
Instituting
lasting
reforms
for
prisoner
reentry
in
PhiLadeLphia.
Washington, DC:
Urban
Institute Justice
Policy Center.
Sabol,
W].,
Minton,
T.
D., &
Harrison,
P.
M.
(2007).
Pri
so
n
and
jaiL
inmates
at
midyear
2006 (Bureau
of
Justice
Statistics Bulletin
NCJ
217675). Washington, DC:
US
.
Department
of
Justice.
Second
Chance
Act
of2007,
P.L.
110-199, 122 Stat. 657
(2008).
Solomon,A.
(2008).
Life
after
lo
ck
-up:
Improving
reentry
from
jail
to
the
community
. Washington,
DC
:
Urban
Institute
Justice Policy
Center.
Hide Yamatani, PhD,
MSW,
MBA,
is
associate
dean
for
research,
professor,
and
research
associate,
Center
on
Race
and
Social
Problems,
School
of
Social
Work,
University
of
Pittsburgh,
2033
Cathedral
of
Learning,
Pittsburgh,
PA
15260;
e-mail:
hzy@pitt.e
du.
Solveig Spjeldnes, PhD,
MSW,
MA,
is
as-
sistant
prof'essor,
Department
of'
Social1iJ.i,rk,
Ohio
Univer
s
ity
,
Athens. The
authors
thank
the
Allegheny County Jail
(AC))
Collaborative
and
the
Human
Service
Integration
Fund
(rep-
resented
by
over
a dozen
major
philanthropic foundation s of
greater
Pittsburgh
region)
for supporting
this
study.
Most
astute
and facilitating national
advisory
committee
members
of
this
project
included Alfred Blumstein and Jonathan Caulkins
of
Carnegie-Mellon University; Martin Horn of'the N ew
York
Departments
of'
Correction
and
Probation;
Stephen
Ingley,former
pr
es
ident
of
the
American Jail Association; Nancy
La
Vigne,
senior
researcher,
Urban
Institute, Washington,
DC;
and
Calvin
LighifootJormer
warden
of
the
ACJ
and initiator
of
the
AC)
Socia/Work
VOLUME
56,
NUMBER
I
JANUARY
2.011
60
Collaborative
.
Finally,
sincere
thanks
to
University
if
Pittsburgh
School
oj
Social
Workjail Study Zorich,jen
Thornton,
Michelle
Loduka, Hyunz
ee
Zung, Aaron Mann,
Lambert
Maguire,
andjody Bechtold-Jor
providing
theoretical
enlightenment
and
pragmatic
solutions.
Original manuscript received June
20,
2008
Final revision received July
28,
2009
Accepted September
16
, 2009
e
or
Id
h,
if :
s-
ty,
J)
p-
oj
Ite
lis
oj
·
rk
ler
YAMATANI
AND
Sp
JELDNES
/ Saving Our Criminal
Justice
System:
The
Efficacy
of
a
Collaborative
Social
Service
HI
61
