|
|
Home  Solutions Client System for Children RETHINKING AMERICA'S PRISONS
|
RETHINKING AMERICA'S PRISONS |
|
|
RETHINKING AMERICA'S PRISONS
Record numbers of ex-cons return to Illinois streets
More people ask how to help them adjust
By Rex W. Huppke
Tribune staff reporter
June 19, 2005
Having served their time, they come back to Chicago in staggering
numbers: hundreds who've murdered and robbed; thousands of one-time
thieves and burglars; nearly 10,000 who've dealt drugs or used them.
About 21,000 inmates will leave the high-fenced borders of Illinois
prisons this year and re-enter society within the city limits, enough
ex-offenders to fill the United Center, about 10 city bus-loads rolling
in each week.
This population returns with little notice or fanfare, most drifting
almost invisibly back to the neighborhoods where they found trouble in
the first place. From January 2004 to the end of May this
year, 27,944 people were released to Chicago. Already, 6,405--nearly 23
percent -- are back in prison.
There's a reason for that. Most of these inmates are leaving with
a bus pass and a few bucks, taking limited skills and a
criminal record and jumping the chasm between a cell and law-abiding
society.
Over the last three decades, America has largely given up on
rehabilitating its prisoners, all the while watching prison populations
across the country swell to unheard-of levels. In 1972, about 200,000
people occupied the country's state and federal prisons.
That number is now about 1.4 million.
As "get tough on crime" became a political mantra throughout the '70s,
'80s and '90s, the nation's corrections system grew, but its ability to
help inmates better themselves and prepare for life outside the gates
was shrunk intentionally.
Officials stopped believing criminals could
be reformed, and money for treatment and education programs was taken
away, often used to build more prisons.
The result is a prison system that costs $60 billion a year to operate,
up from $9 billion in 1982. Illinois alone pours $1.3 billion
into corrections annually, roughly $100 per year for each resident of
the state, young and old. For more than a decade, Medicaid and
corrections have been the only two areas in which states have increased
spending.
A poor success rate
Despite the cost, the success rate of the nation's corrections system
is poor: Nationally, about two-thirds of the more than 600,000
ex-convicts coming out in 2005 will be re-arrested within three years,
and about half will return to prison for a new crime or violation of
parole.
While it was once politically taboo to speak of providing resources for
prisoners, these figures have brought many lawmakers across the
country, both liberal and conservative, to the same conclusion: The
nation's corrections system is correcting very little. "Obviously
with recidivism at 67 percent, we're not doing a very good job," said
Joe Weedon, director of government affairs at the American Correctional
Association. "And something needs to change."
Many would say Terrence Johnson's life is emblematic of the prison
system's flaws. On Friday morning, the South Side Chicagoan left an
Illinois prison for the fifth time in his 38 years.
He had just finished serving 2 years of a 6-year sentence for
possession of a stolen vehicle, and he walked out the gates at Logan
Correction Center in Lincoln, Ill., with the same optimism he has had
each time he became a free man. This, he says, will be the time I
straighten my life out.
Slim prospects
Johnson faults no one but himself for his inability to keep that
promise. But about the only help he has ever had re-entering society
has been a busy parole agent, and his job prospects now are as slim as
ever.
What was lost in the race to incarcerate was the fact that 95 percent
of those who get locked up, people just like Johnson, eventually come
out. And once they're out--often no more educated or prepared to join
the workforce and always bearing the black mark of a felony
conviction--they're less likely than before to find ways to make an
honest living, presenting a sizable risk to public safety.
"Every time I get out, I feel hopeful," Johnson said Friday as he
waited in green prison-issued sweat pants and a white T-shirt for a
Greyhound north to Chicago. "Until I start hearing a lot of, `No, we're
not hiring.' It gets so hard after a while. I'll do anything, anything,
but nobody will hire me because of my record. You have to find a way to
live. And that can lead you back to crime."
More than half of Illinois' 44,524 prisoners are either repeat
offenders or parole violators. That means thousands of additional
crimes are being committed by people who were, in theory, supposed to
have been rehabilitated.
"In a sense, imprisonment may be creating more crime," said Arthur
Lurigio, a criminologist at Loyola University Chicago, noting that
first-time offenders locked up with hardened criminals tend to pick up
more pointers in prison than they do life skills. "Our system is not
set up to prevent crime. It's set up to perpetuate it."
Some disagree with Lurigio and point to the fact that from 1993 to
2000, as prisons were filling up, the rate of both violent crime and
property crime dropped 44 percent, according to the U.S. Department of
Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Others argue that even if prisoners are given additional resources,
there's no proof they can be reformed. David Farabee, a research
psychologist at UCLA and author of the book "Rethinking
Rehabilitation," says prisoner rehabilitation programs have never been
proven effective, and reviews of such programs are often manipulated to
produce favorable results.
"The majority [of programs] are never evaluated," he said. "Of
those that are evaluated, the strongest support for those programs
comes from the lowest quality studies."
But many in the corrections field are convinced drug treatment and
education can keep ex-offenders out of prison. A 1997 study by the U.S.
Department of Education found that just attending school while in
prison can cut reincarceration nearly 30 percent, and other reports
have found recidivism rates for inmates who take college-level courses
can dip below 20 percent.
A push for change
The realities of the country's prison system have sparked a movement to
improve "prisoner re-entry," a buzzword that's been on the lips
of politicians from coast to coast.
Last year, Gov. Rod Blagojevich reopened the 1,300-person Sheridan
Correctional Center in LaSalle County, turning it into the country's
first prison focused specifically on drug treatment, education and job
preparation.
Democratic Congressman Danny Davis of Chicago and Republican Sen. Sam
Brownback of Kansas are pushing a federal bill called the Second Chance
Act that would provide more than $100 million for prisoner re-entry
programs nationwide.
The city of Chicago has earmarked $4 million from the Chicago Skyway
lease to enhance prisoner re-entry initiatives over the next five
years.
Texas lawmakers are considering more than $80 million for alternatives to prison for non-violent offenders.
Connecticut shortened prison terms for some non-violent offenders and
used the money it saves to create programs that help communities that
produce the most criminals.
Cheri Nolan, a deputy assistant attorney general in the Justice
Department, said the department is closely watching what states
across the country are doing, hopeful these new ideas provide an answer
for a system that clearly is not working.
Derrick Hendricks is intimately familiar with the system. He's 26, grew
up in Cabrini-Green and was released from prison March 8 after serving
a 7-month sentence for drug possession. It was his third trip to prison
on drug charges.
Each time he has been released, the only preparation Hendricks got was
a 15-hour program called "Pre-Start," which touches on anger
management, job searches and parole rules.
When he left the Lincoln Correctional Center, he was given a bus ticket
back to Chicago and a pamphlet with the numbers of a couple of agencies
that help ex-offenders find jobs. His only support network upon return,
he says, was a parole officer whose advice was, "Get a job."
Hendricks knows how to do construction work, says he has filled out job
applications across the city and is desperate to get away from the
stress and danger of the street. He's willing to take any job, he says,
as long as it pays the bills. But so far nothing has worked out.
Trying to survive
"That's why I keep going back, because I can't find a job," he said.
"The streets are my job. Everything I get locked up for is dealing with
my trying to survive."
Studies estimate about one in five of the
600,000 ex-offenders leaving prison
this year will have served
their entire sentence and will thus be under no formal supervision.
This massive flow of ex-offenders is not something lawmakers gave much
thought to when they were filling up prisons and building more. What
they wanted, and got, was a drop in the crime rate.
But a number of criminologists and other researchers say the crime drop
can't be tied directly to the increase in prison populations. Other
factors were at play, including a booming economy in the '90s, the
stabilization of the country's crack cocaine markets, better police
efforts to get guns off the streets and increased vigilance by
community members.
Michael Jacobson, president of the Vera Institute of Justice and author
of the book "Downsizing Prisons," studied data nationally and found
several examples that showed little correlation between incarceration
and crime. For example, from 1992 to 2002, violent crime in New York
state fell by 53 percent, while the prison population increased 9
percent. In West Virginia during the same time, crime increased by 10
percent, while the prison population skyrocketed 171 percent.
Still, some experts warn against a sudden swing toward idealistic rehabilitation programs.
Douglas Marlowe is director of the Section on Criminal Justice Research
at the Treatment Research Institute at the University of Pennsylvania.
He believes the country's approach to incarceration swings like a
pendulum between two extremes, one being punitive, the other
rehabilitative.
He said there's no evidence that either extreme works.
"All of
our solutions have been simplistic," Marlowe said. "What we really need
is an integration of the best of both of these worlds, so people
receive services and treatment, but they are held carefully and closely
to monitor their behavior."
In 2004's State of the Union address, President Bush brought up the
issue of prisoner re-entry, a watershed moment for those who had long
disagreed with the country's "lock 'em up and throw away the key"
approach to criminals.
`The land of second chance'
"America," the president declared, "is the land of second chance, and
when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a
better life."
Such comments from any politician, much less a conservative Republican
president, flew in the face of more than three decades of stern
rhetoric.
In the late 1960s, spurred by a rise in violent crime, a burgeoning
drug culture and the civil unrest surrounding the war in Vietnam,
Americans began adopting a tougher attitude toward criminals.
Many experts trace the popularization of the movement to get tough on
crime to Richard Nixon. In 1967, the year before he was elected
president, Nixon wrote in an essay that appeared in Reader's Digest
that America had become "the most lawless and violent [nation] in the
history of free peoples." Such statements were common throughout his
campaign and presidency, setting the stage for countless politicians to
run on law-and-order platforms.
In 1974, Robert Martinson, a sociologist, released a study of prison
programs aimed at rehabilitating inmates. He concluded that prisoners
could not be rehabilitated, and his study launched a catchphrase,
"nothing works," that spelled the end of the rehabilitative
approach to incarceration.
Politicians eager to appear tough on crime and save money began pulling
programs from prisons and seeking tougher sentences for offenders. In
1979, Martinson produced a follow-up study in which he backed away from
his previous claims and said well-structured rehabilitative programs
could be successful. That study, however, received little attention,
while the sociologist's "nothing works" conclusions carried on
for years.
By the late 1970s, the nation's incarceration rate, which had held
nearly steady for four decades, had begun to increase. In the 1980s, it
exploded.
Taking the tough-on-crime approach to a new level, President Ronald
Reagan declared a war on drugs. This resulted in thousands of new
felony convictions, and with those convictions came steeper sentences
and fewer chances for early release.
Many corrections officials saw flaws in the tougher sentencing laws and
watched as their prisons filled with inmates who faced longer sentences
and knew that even good behavior wouldn't get them out any sooner.
"We knew it wasn't going to work," said Joe Lehman, former head of
corrections in Washington and current president of the International
Association of Reentry.
In 1994, the government made prison inmates ineligible for Pell Grants,
student aid funds that helped many offenders take college courses while
in prison. In 1982, more than 350 college-degree programs were
available in prisons across the country. Within a decade, fewer than a
dozen existed.
Some prisons would later get rid of exercise equipment, fearing inmates
would use it to increase their strength and fighting ability. They
started locking prisoners down for longer periods of time, and some
states even brought back chain gangs.
In the late 1990s, legislators and researchers looked up and saw the
results of two decades of mass incarceration. The prison population had
grown to 1.3 million in 1999 from about 320,000 in 1980.
A revolving door
In 1997, the Justice Department released a study that shook the
corrections world: Despite all the tough laws, two-thirds of the people
leaving the country's prisons were being rearrested within three years
of their release.
To make matters worse, the number of inmates being released had gone through the roof.
In 1998, 561,000 inmates were returned to their communities, a massive
jump from the 170,000 that got out in 1980. With such high rearrest
rates, it became clear to many the U.S. prison system had become little
more than a revolving door, and cities and towns across the country
were not prepared to handle the flood of ex-offenders.
"For a variety of reasons, the policy conversation from the '70s to the
late '90s was remarkably myopic," said Jeremy Travis, president of John
Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York City and an expert on
re-entry. "Myopic in the sense that as we continued to invest in
prisons as our predominant response to crime, we conveniently
overlooked the fact that almost everyone we send to prison eventually
comes back."
In 2000, in a speech at John Jay College, Atty. Gen. Janet Reno
acknowledged that the prison problems were recognized at the highest
levels.
"They come into prisons without life skills, without a job or an
anticipated job," Reno said. "They come with so little chance of
getting off on the right foot, unless we do it the right way."
About that time, incremental changes started taking place. In some
states, sentencing laws for drug offenders were scaled back, and some
non-violent inmates had their sentences reduced. Community programs
that had long struggled to help ex-offenders began getting state and
federal funding so they could do more.
Then came Bush's State of the Union address, which opened the door for politicians to speak freely about this issue.
"What that said to me was, Democrat or Republican, left or right, it's
OK to talk about offender re-entry," said Reginald Wilkinson, head of
Ohio's prison system and a longtime advocate of improving prisoner
re-entry policies. "That it's not some `get soft on crime' initiative."
A mood of hopefulness
While most ex-offenders in Illinois and elsewhere are still leaving
prison with precious few resources and dim prospects for employment,
there is a mood of hopefulness among corrections officials that change
is under way.
Deirdre Battaglia, warden at Illinois' Stateville prison, says the
state's wardens have been encouraged to forge new approaches that
will better prepare inmates for release. She has seen the
tough-on-crime attitude changing and believes reforms will--and
must--be made.
"We have to, while we have them behind the wall, correct their
behavior," Battaglia said. "That's why we're called the
Department of Corrections."
"It's to everyone's benefit to try to effect changes with another human being. And that's what they are--human beings."
***
Helping ex-convicts to stay straight
Steps the state and the city of Chicago are taking to keep ex-offenders from returning to prison:
- In 2004, Gov. Rod Blagojevich turned the Sheridan
Correctional Center in LaSalle County into a prison focused
specifically on drug treatment, education and job preparation. Once
inmates are released, they receive extensive case management to help
them find jobs and settle into crime-free and drug-free lives. This
model is being watched closely by corrections officials across the
country.
- Under Operation Spotlight, the state is working to
reduce the caseload of parole agents by as much as a half and put a
greater emphasis on agents helping parolees find work. About 100 agents
have been added, and the Illinois Department of Corrections says the
number of new crimes committed by parolees in fiscal year 2005 was the
lowest since 1989.
- This year, the Statewide Community Safety &
Re-entry Working Group was formed and has held meetings across the
state to develop a plan to help prepare ex-offenders to return to
society. Recommendations are to be given to the governor by January.
- The city of Chicago is using $4 million in proceeds
from the Chicago Skyway lease to improve prisoner re-entry initiatives
over the next five years.
- The Mayor's Office of Workforce Development
launched a pilot jobs program for ex-offenders that will help 60 people
find work in the hospitality and warehousing industries.
- The city has given about $260,000 to the
North Lawndale Employment Network to help fund three programs that will
help ex-offenders with job training.
Evolution of the modern prison system in the U.S.
The evolution of the nation's push to get tough on crime through incarceration and how that attitude has begun to change:
1967
Presidential candidate Richard Nixon describes America as "the most
this tone through his successful presidential campaign and, many
believe, ushers in the country's push to get tough on crime.
1974
Sociologist Robert Martinson releases an article based on a survey of
rehabilitation programs across the country and concludes prisoners
can't be rehabilitated. This article launches a catch phrase "nothing
works" and is used over the next two decades by politicians as reason
to pull resources from prisons.
1976
Maine gets rid of discretionary parole, making it harder for inmates to
shorten their sentences. Fifteen other states, including
Illinois, go on to do the same. Later studies show prisoners released
by parole boards have better success than those released without one.
1977
California's state penal code is changed to say the ultimate goal of imprisonment is punishment, not rehabilitation.
1980s
President Ronald Reagan launches the war on drugs. In 1980 there are
19,000 people serving time in state prisons on drug charges. By 1990
that number increases to 148,600.
1984
The federal Sentencing Reform Act is approved, taking away federal
judges' discretion in handing out punishments. The act imposes
mandatory sentences for specific crimes. It ensures offenders will
serve longer prison terms and takes away the ability of a federal
parole board to release a prisoner early. States across the country
enact similar legislation.
1993
In October, 12-year-old Polly Klaas is kidnapped from her home in
Petaluma, Calif. She is found dead two months later, murdered by a
repeat violent offender who'd been released from prison three months
before he abducted Polly. This tragedy, and others like it, lead
politicians and many Americans to push for "three strikes and
you're out" laws, in which offenders convicted three times of serious
felonies face lengthy prison terms, if not life in prison.
1995
Illinois adopts truth-in-sentencing legislation, requiring certain
offenders to serve a specified percentage of their sentence.
Congress approves the Violent Criminal Incarceration Act. This
increases funding to $10.5 billion from $8 billion over five years for
states to build prisons and increases incentives for states to put more
violent criminals in prison. The U.S. Department of Education releases
a study showing that attending school while in prison can reduce
recidivism nearly 30 percent.
2000
Atty. Gen. Janet Reno says in a speech at John Jay College of Criminal
Justice that prisoner re-entry is "one of the most present problems we
face as a nation." Many credit Reno with being one of the first
high-ranking government officials to talk openly about the problems
prisoners face coming out of prison.
2001
States across the country begin enacting bills that cut back on tough sentencing policies.
2002
Michigan Republican Gov. John Engler repeals most of Michigan's
mandatory sentences for drug offenses, some of the harshest in the
country.
2003
Washington state enacts a law that shortens the sentences of inmates
convicted of certain drug and property crimes and eliminates
post-release supervision for certain low-risk offenders.
2004
President Bush, in his State of the Union address, brings up the issue
of prisoner re-entry and says, "America is the land of second chance,
and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life."
Source: Tribune reporting Chicago Tribune
|
|
