National Institute of Corrections News

Hailed as the only national in-depth discussion of the utilization of sustainable products and services in the corrections profession, this symposium will be held Oct. 29-Nov. 1, 2012 just minutes from the Indianapolis International Airport.

In preparation for this event, you might be interested in some of the things the National Institute of Corrections is doing around the area of greening corrections. While greening your facility might seem like a luxury project at first glance, it can be a strategy for developing cost-saving practices as well as an opportunity to develop green-collar readiness training programs.

• The Greening of Corrections: Creating a Sustainable System (PDF)
  What are viable strategies for cutting costs while protecting the public’s safety? Corrections can achieve some substantial cost savings in sustainability or greening strategies. This publication “provides correctional professionals with a framework to gain a general understanding of sustainability practices and principles and to identify examples of operations, programs, and management strategies for self-sustaining facilities” (p. ii). Sections of this publication include: introduction; greening of correctional facilities; completing the sustainable model—preparing and training inmates; correctional industries—creating sustainable products/services and a green workforce; green reentry programs; recommendations for greening prisons and jails; and conclusion—the sustainable correctional/detention facility of the future.
  
• Greening Corrections: People, Programs, and Practices (Video)
  This program seeks to increase environmental awareness among corrections professionals and focuses attention on the need to make correctional facilities more energy and resource efficient. This broadcast:
  • Explores the feasibility of introducing green collar job readiness training programs
  • Assesses correctional industries capability to adopt “green” practices
  • And identifies strategies to assess cost saving options for correctional agencies to operate “self sustaining” facilities and programs

The National Institute of Corrections also offers funding assistance for agencies interested in adopting green initiatives. More information can be found on the NIC website.

Opening of the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) public hearing, Balancing Fiscal Challenges, Performance-Based Budgeting, and Public Safety, in Washington, DC began with a welcome from Advisory Board Chair, Diane Williams, President and CEO of the Safer Foundation.  Following the welcome, both Charles Samuels, Director, Federal Bureau of Prisons, and Morris Thigpen, NIC Director, made introductory remarks.  Director Samuels spoke of the Bureau’s commitment to both public safety and reduced recidivism.  He cited reducing costs as a key goal for corrections and cited statistics on current costs of corrections.  Director Thigpen focused on “why this hearing now”, noting concerns on how rapidly corrections costs are increasing; this was also reinforced at a recent senate judiciary hearing on the topic.  Max Williams, Advisory Board member and President and CEO of the Oregon Community Foundation, then kicked-off two days of anticipated, informative panel sessions on the topic of cost containment.

Highlights from the Wednesday afternoon panel sessions include: (most recent sessions shown first)

Panel 3: Cost-Effective Strategies for Meeting Policy Requirements and Legislative Mandates

Panelists: Franklin Amanat, Esq., Supervisory Assistant United States Attorney and Deputy Chief, Civil Division, U.S. Attorney’s Office Eastern District of New York; Gary Mohr, Director, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

Mr. Amanat, a principal author, gave an overview of the creation and contents of the recently released Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) standards. He provided data on the expected costs of the PREA standards, approximately $468.5M/yr., or approximately 0.06% of the total corrections budget [based on 2008 numbers]. He also noted correctional agencies should be able to comply with the new standards at minimal cost by leveraging existing practices and training, providing specific examples.

Mr. Mohr told a “story” of the last 20 months in Ohio; addressing both budget cuts and safety in and out of prison.  He spoke of the vision to reduce crime/reduce recidivism in Ohio by “blurring the lines from prison to community” and looking at the partnership between public and private organizations.  In addition, the legislature in Ohio passed law diverting 1st time, non-violent offenders from prison, along with other sentencing changes.  One result of system reform in Ohio is a recidivism rate of 31.2%, a record low.

Q&A: The one PREA standard that needs to have further work is audit – how will it proceed?  Response: There is additional work to be done in the coming months and a committee/working group will be developing an audit instrument as well as policies and procedures to certify auditors.

Panel 4: Reengineering Population Management

Panelists: Michael Jacobson, President and Director, Vera Institute; Dr. James Austin, President, JFA Institute; Ed Monahan, Public Advocate, Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy; Stan Hilkey, Sheriff, Mesa County Sheriff’s Department

Mr. Jacobson started his testimony by discussing the “sobering” statistics of state fiscal issues, requiring significant reductions in corrections budgets. He reinforced that corrections leaders need to have a cost benefit analysis as support when bringing proposed changes to legislatures.

Looking at the future of corrections populations, Dr. Austin discussed methods for predicting population levels.  One statistic he shared: the crime rate today is the same as it was in 1960.  He emphasized the “length of stay” as critical in impacting predicting populations, with increases in the average “time served” in both prison and parole since 1993.  He also specifically addressed the situation in California, with shifting populations between the state and local jurisdictions.

Mr. Monahan presented on the Kentucky experience with changes in pretrial release.  Key components of legislation on pretrial release: 1) some minor crimes are now “non-arrestable” 2) upgraded risk assessment using evidence-based practices 3) district judges required to consider pretrial risk assessment 4) makes mandatory “own recognizance” for low risk to flee 5) bail credit provision for each day served.  As a result of changes, the pretrial release rate is at 70% across the state compare to 65% prior, which reflects approximately $14 million in savings over the last year.

Mr. Hilkey spoke on NIC’s Evidence Based Decision Making project in Mesa County. He discussed a pretrial proxy (an initial assessment tool used to triage defendants) being used to create standards for risk assessment decisions. In addition, Mesa County is involved with partners to implement a comprehensive pretrial assessment tool.  He noted reductions in jail detainees, and increases in the following of the risk assessment by judges.

Highlights from the Wednesday morning panel sessions include:

Panel 1: Briefing on the Fiscal Costs of Corrections in the United States

Panelists: Dr. Reginald Wilkinson, President, Ohio College Access Network; Dr. Mary Livers, Deputy Secretary, Louisiana Office of Juvenile Justice; James A. Gondles, Executive Director, American Correctional Association; Adam Gelb, Director, Public Safety Performance Project, Pew Center on the States.

Dr. Wilkinson opened the first panel, noting the current challenge of managing costs is not unique to corrections, but persists in many areas of government, using education as an example.  He proposed that what we are missing is the “science of managing” budgets and this hearing can help look at gaps, solutions, and find practical applications.  He emphasized that any positive change needs to use participatory leadership, including executive level, middle management, and line staff. 

Dr. Livers provided insights from her personal experience dealing with a 25% decrease in her budget over four years and 22% decrease in staffing level.  She focused on the impact on staff from personnel cuts, with personnel being the major part of budgets.  She mentioned that policy changes are happening in some jurisdictions, but reform is often slow to be implemented.

Covering trends in international corrections, Mr. Gondles cited statistics from Europe, Canada, Asia, and Mexico.  Specific points of note: Germany uses fines to punish 71% of offenders, France has increased the use of minimum sentences and the result is an increased prison population, and Japan has a significantly rising population of older inmates due to an aging population.

Mr. Gelb gave an overview of the growing costs of corrections in the U.S.  He focused on five key points: corrections costs have exploded, total cost is higher than meets the eye, public safety payoff is low, longer time served is a major growth driver, and policy makers and the public want a better return on investment.  One telling statistic: “one day in prison costs more then 23 days on probation”.  From public opinion polls, results showed “voters strongly support reducing prison time for low-risk, non-violent offenders”.

Q&A: A comment was made that it is easy to talk about costs and sentencing reforms and also incredibly challenging for administrators.  Panelists acknowledged the point and commented on the reality that all areas are susceptible to cuts, but policies and programs are being developed to address the net costs throughout the system.

Panel 2: Outcome-based Budgeting: Process and Practice

Panelists: Chris Innes, Chief, Research and Information Service, NIC; Karen Wilson, Partner, PricewaterhouseCoopers; Brian Sigritz, Director of State Fiscal Services, National Association of State Budget Officers; and Theresa Lantz, Consultant, Retired Commissioner of Connecticut DOC.

Mr. Innes began his presentation describing the current situation in corrections as the “big squeeze”, reflecting the situation of population pressures, budget constraints and political polarization.  He provided a background of historical trends for correctional budgets and populations. In addition, he covered results of NIC’s Cost Containment survey from 2011, noting specific areas where correctional agencies reported cost cutting.  On example: 90% of respondents tried to contain costs in the area of staffing during the last year.

Mr. Sigritz focused on overall state budgets and expenditures, as well as corrections-specific financials.  Of note, state revenues are now above the 2008 low, but spending has not increased overall as state leaders remain cautionary on spending.  For corrections specifically, as recently as mid-year 2012, eight states cut corrections budgets.

Leading a discussion of fixed vs. discretionary costs, Ms. Wilson covered principles of cost reduction and a framework for addressing them.  The framework consists of two key principles: “understanding costs and their behaviors” and “risk”.  The goal of the framework is to structurally reduce costs—reductions that would sustain into the future.

Ms. Lantz covered the “processes” necessary to make cost containment initiatives succeed.  She focused on four objectives for cost containment: transformational leadership, a systems-approach to making decisions, implementation, and sustainability.  Models for enabling the process were discussed, such as the Cost Containment Framework and APEX (Achieving Performance Excellence) Model.

Q&A: Is there a place (a state) that has taken a cost containment initiative to implementation?  The answer noted that pilot projects on performance-based budgeting are happening, and though results are coming in, they are not to the level of complete implementation.  The discussion continued on how changes, such as moving from 8 to 12 hour shifts or vice versa, affect culture.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Following the completion of the Hearings, presentations will be available on NIC’s website.

For more information: Cost Containment – NIC’s Cost Containment in Corrections; Hearings – Advisory Board Hearings

Developing employment skills in offenders can make a difference. Several jurisdictions report favorable impact on recidivism  for offenders who participate in job-readiness/employment skills services. The NIC Community Services Division can help develop skills through three training opportunities for correctional staff tasked with offender workforce development, and the NIC information Center can provide supportive resources.

 

What the Research Says

Several reports show that employment can impact recidivism.  Research on the Virginia Department of Correctional Education’s Career and Technical Education (CTE) Program  “Career and Technical Education Program's Influences on Post-Release Outcomes for Offenders in Virginia” says program participants recidivate at  lower rate than non-participants (35.2% versus 40.7%). A study of Ready4Work published in 2006, “Ready4Work In Brief:  Update on Outcomes; Reentry May Be Critical for States, Cities”, showed a reduction in recidivism within one year compared to national recidivism statistics.  Ready4Work programs provided employment services, case management and mentoring in 11 adult sites around the country.  In a bulletin published by NIC  “Creating a Workforce Development Culture to Reduce Recidivism”, the Vermont Department of Corrections Workforce Development Program showed a 20% reduction in re-incarceration for males and 37% reduction for females after 6 months for program completers. In a study in the Kansas Department of Corrections “Offender Workforce Development Services Makes an Impact”, offenders who received offender workforce development services had a recidivism rate 33% lower than the comparison group.

“A lot of evidence points toward the impact of offender employment on recidivism.” says Scott Weygandt, former Social Science Research Assistant for NIC’s Offender Workforce Development initiative in the NIC Community Services Division and co-author of the Kansas DOC report. “Given the multiplicity of offender needs, there is never one single factor yielding impact. However, enhancing offender employability is very promising as an emerging evidence-based practice in corrections.”

 

Preparing Staff to Deliver Offender Employment Services: What NIC can do to help

The NIC Community Services Division offers three offender employment training opportunities for staff at no cost to the requesting agencies.

Offender Employment Specialist (OES) Training:

This three-day program provides participants with foundation in the topic of offender workforce development and emphasizes building collaboration as a critical factor. It provides information about best and promising practices.  The NIC resource “Offender Employment Specialist:  Building Bridges” DVD/CD set is a core component of the training. For more information, and to watch an informational video, go to NIC OES.

Offender Workforce Development Specialist (OWDS) Partnership Training:

This competency-based training focuses on essential skills and also teaches participants how to develop their own training and workforce development services. The two-week program consists of classroom instruction followed by 80 hours of required e-learning, hands-on practice, and homework assignments. Completion of the OWDS Partnership Training meets the requirements for certification as a Global Career Development Facilitator through the Center for Credentialing and Education. For additional information about the OWDS Partnership Training please see NIC’s Administrative Guide: Offender Workforce Development Specialist Training Program or contact Francina Carter, NIC Correctional Program Specialist.

“The Offender Workforce Development Specialist Training Program has been a catalyst for positive change across the country” says NIC Correctional Program Specialist Francina Carter. “It has created partnerships between criminal justice agencies and their community partners where none existed before and given participants a common set of professional, evidenced-based skills needed for improving reentry outcomes in their communities. It has also created a national network of offender workforce development professionals who can call upon each other for support and guidance.”

Offender Employment Retention Specialist (OERS) Training:

This training addresses a key component in offender employment, job retention , by teaching how to apply evidence-based practices in corrections including Motivational Interviewing and Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment principles to support self-change and also the use of an employment retention inventory to identify an offender’s challenges around a potential for job-loss.  See NIC’s Offender Employment Retention webpage for training opportunities as well as other resources, or contact  P. Elizabeth Taylor, NIC Correctional Program Specialist.

“Offender job retention really speaks to risk reduction and public safety” says Ms Taylor. “Correctional agencies have generally done well at job placement; job retention is the key to having impact.  Collaboration and communication, as well as applying motivational interviewing skills and implementing cognitive-behavioral strategies, enhance success at  building employment skills in offenders. Motivational interviewing provides a strength-based approach to support offenders exploration of the feelings and behaviors that impact their ability to maintain long-term attachments to the workforce.”

 

Supportive Resources Available

The following resources for offender workforce development staff are available through the NIC Information Center:

Career Resource Centers: An Emerging Strategy for Improving Offender Employment Outcomes (DVD)

Career Resource Centers (four disk set)

Using Labor Market Information to Promote Positive Employment Outcomes for Offenders  (CD)

Simulated On-Line/Kiosk Job Application (CD)

Building Tomorrow’s Workforce: An Effective Re-Entry Strategy (NIC Satellite/Internet Broadcast 2008 DVD/CD set)

Employment and Female Offenders: An Update of the Empirical Research (PDF)

*****************

For the most current offender workforce development information and resources, always check NIC’s Transition and Offender Workforce Development resource page and the Offender Employment discussion forum.