The standard metric people use to measure effect size for incarceration is recidivism. It is important because it is the commonly referred to term for determining the effectiveness of policies and programs to prevent post-release criminal behavior. However, the success of someone leaving jail expands far beyond scope of recidivism. In our work we have seen that someone’s overall well being, sense of hope, clarity of who and what is most important to them, and sense of connection to chosen community is pivotal to successful reentry after incarceration.
In this publication, “The Limits of Recidivism,” the authors make a compelling case that we need to expand our definition of what success means – I mean consider this – if our metric of success is recidivism, an individual who dies after being released from jail has a positive result for recidivism numbers as that individual is no longer alive and hence commits’ no further crimes. I don’t mean to disparage recidivism as an outcome metric – it is important and good researchers will be able to control for this variable for sure, however it is not simply the only outcome measure we should be thinking about.
I will return to the topic of recidivism, after considering another way to think about results coming in the form of narratives.
Case Study 1:
“On Tuesday we received a call from a client. They self-reported that they were at a Restaurant, and was ready to hurt the manager. The client’s tone of voice and manner of speech on the phone were congruent with a person experiencing anger and emotional distress. The client said that they were tired of being mistreated and was fed up. We asked the client to remain on the phone with at all times. The client made comments stating that they were near the dish-sink area of the restaurant, there were no security cameras, and that they knew that if they acted, they would never get out of jail again. The client said that they wanted to get revenge on the manager, and the client’s tone and manner of speech sounded serious.
We asked the client to please leave the restaurant while remaining on the phone and the client accepted. We asked the client to slow down and explain the situation again while walking away from the restaurant. As the client was telling his story, we gently reframed statements about the event into the past tense ‘back then, when you felt that, you…’ This approach motivated the client to contact the present moment, and was then reinforced through prompting questions like, “and now what do you see around you, can you feel your heart beating, can you feel the pavement under your feet, etc…’ After this the client engaged in perspective taking processes, identifying how hurting the manager could have escalated to the point that it would be awful for the children at the restaurant to witness the violence. The client then tracked their experience, stating that they were about to lose it when they decided to call for help. We thanked the client for calling and told them that it is clear, that deep inside they knew what they wanted to be moving toward, and that calling for support was a step in that direction. We validated that the client was agitated by the way they were talked to, looked at, and treated by the manager. They said that they had a history with the management who were not involved in good things. Then we worked to transform the function of the pain into something worth having – it was clear that the client had some very important values and that their pain/anger was only there because they cared about something very much. We wondered with the client, were they also moving toward something when they left the restaurant?
We continued to speak with the client on the phone and we talked about what a toward move could be – what values are important to them right now, something that they could act on right now. The client spoke about the risk of relapse, indicating that they often use substances when dealing with difficult situations. The client stated that they were committed to their recovery and said that they were going to walk to the local AA meeting to connect with other people in recovery. We spoke with the client for about one hour total and by the end of our conversation the client sounded more calm, grounded in next steps, and proud that they had walked out of the restaurant. We talked about not returning to the restaurant and instead made a plan to look for a new job with supervisors who share similar values. Later in our conversation they said that they were going to hang up to enter the meeting and connect with others in recovery. We invited the client to please call the following day to make plans to meet in the morning. We told him how impressed we were with their choices this evening. The following day we met the client early in the morning and made a referral to a local outpatient therapist.”
In this case study you can see how interventions such as these help reduce the overconsumption of emergency and police and court involvement when someone is in a behavioral health crises. It is hard to quantify the potential costs of an averted crisis, however hypothetically if the client in this scenario acted on their thoughts, this event would have set in motion:
- A traumatic incident potentially witnessed by patrons and employees of the restaurant
- And whatever the long term costs of this might be.
- Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Response
- Police Response
- Utilization of the hospital’s emergency room
- Incarceration at the local jail
- District attorney and defense bar engagement
- Court services at the district or superior court
- Potential trial by jurors
- Potential incarceration and probation supervision
Case Study 2:
“During a wellness check, a reentry client who was living in our residential post release program was found to be intoxicated. A reentry case worker spoke with the client and observed that they were in violation of both our tenant agreement and their conditions of probation – and that the client needed report to his probation officer. Simultaneously our case worker started working to secure the client a bed a treatment program; ultimately finding an available bed at a regional acute stabilization unit. The probation officer asked that the client present to probation immediately after completing treatment.
Detox is the first in line of a corridor of care: acute detox, the client was referred to Clinical Stabilization Services (CSS), then to a locked Transitional Support Services (TSS) where the client had to apply to three long term recovery programs (½ way houses) and go to the first bed available, which was ultimately a local long term recovery program. Each step of the way the reentry case worker and probation officer worked together with the active case workers of each program.”
The Assistant Chief Probation Officer at the time was supervising the case. They reported “Initially, I was not interested in discussing treatment anymore, they were already in violation status. The Reentry Case Workers from FCSO are here in the probation office daily, I allowed them to do their job. I was fully intending to ask for detention when the client came back into the court. However, by the time the client came back they had completion letters from all three treatment programs and a new look about themself.”
In this case, we worked with the Probation Department and their thinking evolved. Initially, they wanted to send the client back to jail for one year at the HOC. Instead, they supported the client’s process: participating in treatment, successfully completing all programs designed to support their recovery, and ended up completing probation.
Returning to the metric of recidivism, it has been a helpful tool at the mezzo and macro levels as it helps legislators and policy makers think about resource allocation.
Lets look at our recidivism data at the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office, Greenfield MA:
In 2011 we started working with a consultant (another MSW, Kevin Warwick of Alternative Solutions Associates, inc. https://alternativesolutionsassociates.com/about-us/) to conduct 10 years of recidivism analysis on people who were released from FCSO. When implementing the work with this population, it always felt unethical to conduct a randomized controlled study as we felt all people deserved access to our most advanced treatment modalities. As such, the study that was conducted was a natural experiment of those individuals exposed to the intensive treatment program and to those who were not for various natural reasons.
We defined recidivism as someone who left the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office and was reincarceration anywhere in Massachusetts after release from FCSO within a specific date range for 1) conviction of a new crime, and/or 2) a violation of a condition of probation for which they returned to incarceration. Information for this analysis was gathered utilizing the Massachusetts Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) – a state wide system that anyone can access.
Measures:
Recidivism was calculated by dividing the number of former sentenced inmates who recidivated by the number who were released during 2013 to 2018 while comparing the rate to the baseline rate of recidivism.
Results:
The control group is the baseline cohort of 2011 and the experimental groups included sentenced individuals released from custody from FCSO between 2013 through 2018.
 Our baseline study was the control group. The yearly recidivism rate for the 133 clients released in the calendar year of 2011 – before evidence based treatment existed at FCSO, was a one year recidivism rate of 23.7%. Using the same methodology for each year, we analyzed the yearly recidivism rates for each of the clients who left the facility from 2013-2018, showing a modest reduction each year as compared to the baseline. |
 This slide shows similar data, except that we looked at two years worth of data. The control group showed a two year recidivism rate of 45.5% – almost double the one year rate. Using the same methodology for each year, we analyzed the yearly recidivism rates for each of the clients who left the facility from 2013-2017, showing a more sizable reduction each year as compared to the baseline. |
 This slide shows similar data, except we looked at three years worth of data. The control group showed a three year recidivism rate of 53%. Using the same methodology for each year, we analyzed the yearly recidivism rates for each of the clients who left the facility from 2013-2015, showing a reduction each year as compared to the baseline. |
Based upon these metrics, FCSO achieved a reduction in recidivism by 39.2% .
Measuring success in this field is very hard and filled with many contradiction and inconsistencies, but one thing remains perfectly clear – the people that we serve deserve to receive the best, most humane and effective treatment/care available.
