Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica

In an efforttoreduce the highratesof
recidivisminMichiganthissociallyjust
policyproposal forprisonerreentrybegins
withreviewingcurrentliterature ondata
supportingthe needforadditionally
positive supportnetworksandcase
managementservicesthatsupportformer
inmatesandpromotessuccessful reentry
of formerinmatesintotheircommunities.
Thispolicyproposal hasa focuson
communityparticipation,wellbeing,and
social justice byaddressingthe barriersto
successful reentry.
Socially Just
Policy:
Prisoner Reentry in Michigan
Prepared by:
Erica Canady &
Miriam Holbrook
April 21, 2014

SOCIALLY JUST POLICY FOR PRISONER REENTRY 1
Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry in Michigan
Literature Review
Beginning with the start of Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs” program in 1971 and the Sentence
Reform Act in 1984, which established mandatory minimum sentences, national incarceration
rates in the United States have climbed by almost two million. The U.S. now holds the highest
incarceration rate in the world. Yet, we are no safer as a result; crime rates have remained
relatively steady since 1970, and most of our prison inmates were not dangerous criminals to
begin with. Prisoners in the U.S. do have some things in common, however. They are poor,
uneducated, male, and disproportionately members of minority groups (Parkin, 2002).
One significant problem is the revolving door of
the prison system; in 2007, the national rate for
recidivism over a three-year period was 43.3
percent (PEW Center on the States, 2011). This
policy analysis will address the rate of
recidivism in the state of Michigan and how we
can work to further reduce it. In 2003, the state
held over 51,000 inmates and released 9,000
under parole each year. Of those paroled, 44
percent returned to prison within two years
(Association of State Correctional
Administrators (ASCA, 2004). Michigan was
spending 1.7 billion annually on corrections,
one-fifth of its general fund (PEW Center,
2011).
In 2003, Michigan was selected to receive two
grants to help address their high recidivism rate.
Michigan’s Prisoner Reentry Initiative (MPRI) was
launched soon afterward and was expanded
statewide by 2008. Michigan’s recidivism rate by
2008 was down to 31 percent, among the lowest in
the country (PEW Center, 2011). The state’s number
of inmates is currently at just over 43,000 and
falling. Because more prisoners are being released
from prison and fewer are returning, Michigan has
been able to close 21 correctional facilities, saving
the state $315 million annually. Supervising a
paroled prisoner costs approximately $2,000
annually; the cost to keep one in prison is $34,000
(Dwoskin, 2011). Crime rates (violent and non-
violent) have also continued to go down since
MPRI’s implementation (MPRI Progress Report, 2010).
foolocracy.com
foolocracy.com

Creating MPRI forced policy makers affiliated with the Department of Corrections to see things
from a completely different perspective- through science, rather than through their own
experiences and pro-social belief systems. Corrections captain, Doug Hooley explained that we
should not try to relate to criminals from our own perspectives; we need to learn to trust the
scientific research rather than limiting our trust to our own feelings since most of our own
experiences will not apply to most people in the prison system. Hooley argues the research
shows several best practices proven to lower recidivism, which are used by MPRI (2010). As
former Michigan Director of Corrections, Patricia Caruso recalled, “We had to change our entire
culture to focus on success. It was challenging, but fortunately, it worked” (PEW Center, 2011,
p. 22).
According to Hooley’s research, science based strategies to reduce recidivism start with a
collaboration of all criminal justice partners, with everyone in agreement on a program engaged
in evidence-based practices. MPRI starts with a risk/needs assessment, which will be predictive
of who is most likely to reoffend and find what motivates each offender on an individual basis.
Recidivism is typically associated with “criminogenic” factors, which
Hooley defines as internal factors in an offender’s life that
contributed to their breaking the law, rather than environmental
causes, such as a need for money or food. Criminogenic factors
contributing to recidivism include having an antisocial peer group,
a dependency on drugs or alcohol, lack of self-control, and an
antisocial belief system. Hooley argues that we can provide for a
person’s environmental needs, but if we do not address their
criminogenic needs, this will not affect the risk of their
committing another crime in the future (2010). MPRI assessed
inmates from the time they first enter prison, so interventions can
be designated right away with the correct cognitive behavioral
strategies and skills individualized for each person. Research has
shown that inmates who receive self control training plus behavioral
rehearsal are less likely to recidivate; follow up support or booster sessions
likely further reduces these rates (Dollard, 2001).
Once the offender is released, MPRI collaborates with other service organizations to provide
ongoing support in the community. Since peer groups have the strongest influence over whether
a person will recidivate, particularly those who were previous gang members, a strong and
positive and supportive parole and probation system provides the best chance of countering these
influences. Reaching out for positive family support, offering in-home counseling and home
visits initiated by the family service worker also reduces the likely hood of recidivism (Ryan,
2005).
Other factors found to significantly reduce recidivism
include drug and alcohol treatment, income,
employment, and housing. MPRI works with landlords
and housing managers in the re-entry community,
promising to closely monitor those recently released.
“The mission of prisoner reentry is to
significantly reduce crime and enhance
public safety by implementing a seamless
system of services for offenders from the
time of their entry to prison through their
transition, community reintegration and
aftercare in their communities.”
(Michigan Department ofCorrections)
Positive reinforcement is more
effective than sanctions.
“Human beings rapidly adapt to
even the most negative
environments…the sanctions
that you can offer in a
constitutionally-run prison
quickly become meaningless to
them” (Hooley, 2010).

MPRI staff also work to convince employers to hire reentering prisoners and offer ongoing
voluntary mental health and substance abuse treatment services in the community.
Community based substance abuse treatment has been shown to be effective in reducing both
substance abuse and recidivism (Pimlott, Arfken, & Gibson, 2009). Length of treatment is also a
predictor of recidivism, as is substance abuse by a significant other (Gibbs, 2000). The
continuous availability of mental health and substance abuse treatment services is essential to
maintaining a reduction of recidivism. Michigan needs to be able to provide the funding and
offer easy availability of these services throughout the state. With the recent cuts, the treatment
that did exist will now be more difficult for those in desperate need to find.
Michigan State House Representative (Congressman) Fred Durhal, Jr. stated, “Michigan is
actively working to reduce recidivism.” However, Michigan does keep prisoners incarcerated for
longer periods of time than anywhere else. This is due to the Truth in Sentencing Act, which
requires inmates to fulfill a minimum sentence of five years (personal communication, March 17,
2014). MPRI also does not extend community services to those who were imprisoned before the
program began. Michigan also has one of the harshest policies for juvenile criminals in the
country. There is clearly more work to be done.
Unfortunately, however, Michigan’s current governor has recently chosen a huge step in the
opposite direction instead. Despite MPRI’s success and significant savings, Gov. Rick Snyder
has cut the MPRI program by half. Michigan’s House and Senate agreed last year to cut funding
in 2014 for local services providers from $22.7 million to $13.8 million and to reduce funding
for prisoner reentry programs from $23.5 million to $12.9 million (Michigan League for Public
Policy (MLPP), 2013). MPRI used evidence-based practices to help its most desperate
populations rehabilitate themselves to become participating and contributing members of the
community. Michigan’s reentry program has showed significant progress reducing crime to
create safer neighborhoods, and continued to save the state more money every year. MPRI
should be a stepping-stone to a better, more inclusive, and culturally expanded program.
Community Participation
Community participation is the main force that drives this
proposal for a socially just policy for prisoner reentry
in Michigan. Eversole states that in order to achieve
effective community participations across communities
and organizations, workers need to become
participants as well (2012). In addition, Congressman
Fred Durhal, Jr. stated that “there is a need to
formulate policies and programs from the executive
level to create funding for jobs and cultural
advancement” (personal communication, March 17,
2014). The need for community participation to effect
policy change at the executive level is an essential
force behind the proposal for the revision of the MPRI
Policy.
“The problem of participation is not that
participation is impossible to achieve;
but rather, that it is impossible to
achieve for others. Future community
development practice is not, in the end,
about meeting the challenge of how to
convince others to participate in our
worldviews and institutions.Rather, the
challenge of participation is about how
to become participants in our own right:
choosing to move across institutional
and knowledge terrains to create new
spaces for communities and
organizations to ‘participate’ together”
(Eversole, 2012, p. 37).

The Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry included gathering
information from the community by interviewing community seven
members identified through a snowball sampling process of
identifying key stakeholders to interview. The stakeholders are
people who are actively involved in social action, social change, and
advocacy for prisoner reentry policy revision and implementation
within the community of Detroit, Michigan. Interviewees included
politicians, American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) elders and
traditional teachers, Community Organizations whose clients are
former prisoners, and AI/AN mental health and substance abuse
workers who are currently working within prison systems
(names of most individuals interviewed are confidential).
Definition of Community and Identified Prisoner Reentry Needs
An important aspect of community participation in policy is to first identify the community and
the level of involvement and relationships between policy, community stakeholders, and the
community being served (Arnstein, 1969; Bardach, 2008). Arnstein’s Ladder of Participation
(Figure 1) shows that the level of community participation with the proposed policy is at the
stage of Tokenism and is in the Consultation phase. Should this policy be approved and
implemented the design will allow for community participation to climb to Citizen Power
through the utilization of partnerships (Arnstein, 1969). The major themes identified during the
seven interviews conducted with community stakeholders between January - April 2014
includes:
 Case Management: providing services to help people learn how to access resources in
their communities, develop realistic plans and goals through addressing:
o Employment: Job training and placement to help former inmates obtain and retain
meaningful employment
o Education, training and certification: in order to increase job skills and
employability we need a focus on trade work skills to obtain higher paying jobs
o Housing: access to housing to prevent homelessness
o Family and child resources: help families cope with the consequences of
incarceration, provide parenting classes, and access to affordable child care
o Substance abuse and mental health treatment: culturally integrated care to learn
coping skills
o Women: Programs specific to addressing the needs of women who have
experienced domestic violence and are reentering their communities
Figure 1: Arnstein’s Ladder ofParticipation

o Transportation: need for drivers licenses, bus passes, access to reliable and safe
transportation
o Veterans: assisting with and obtaining access to services through the VA
 Minority groups: addressing unique cultural needs of minorities and natural supports
within their communities
o Traditional cultural teachings, ceremonies, and activities: need for programming
that is culturally relevant and provides traditional teachings for AI/AN and other
indigenous populations
o Positive Support: utilization of natural supports available through AI/AN
reservations and urban communities to provide positive support to former
inmates; connections to other minority community supports providing access to
cultural connections
o Community Protection: need for culturally relevant programming to provide
protection of victims and other community members in a culturally appropriate
way. For example, utilizing AI/AN elders and traditional teachers, who are also
“Gatekeepers”, are expected to fulfill their responsibilities in their role as
members of the Bear Clan and as protectors of their community.
Community Participation for Socially Just Policy
Stakeholders for the Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry were
included through interviews and the identification of common
themes addressing the needs of former inmates as well as the needs
of the community. The theories that support the approach to
community involvement for prisoner reentry include the Healing
Forest Model, which is the basis for supporting community change
and healing within Native American or non-native communities for
the Wellbriety Movement (Coyhis, 2008). Social support theories
also show that focusing on using the natural support systems already
in place within communities helps to reduce recidivism (Pettus-
Davis, 2011).
The Socially Just Policy for Prisoner Reentry will support the
following components of community participation: development of
peer support groups; positive support networks; community based
agreements with culturally appropriate programming for minority
groups; a community collaborative to address community concerns regarding prisoner reentry;
and provide opportunities to share resources through the development of a community
collaborative. The implementation of this policy will provide opportunities for community based
organizations to work in an urban setting with politicians, residential communities, cultural
agencies providing access to traditional teachings for minority and indigenous groups, former
inmates, and inmates preparing for release back into their communities from incarceration. The

next section will discuss well-being by addressing issues that contribute to recidivism,
community safety, and quality of life for prisoner reentry.
Well Being
Reducing recidivism rates through wrap around services that include: employment, housing,
mental and substance abuse training will increase the chance that former inmates will be able to
successfully transition to self-sufficiency in their communities. They will be less likely to
commit new crimes, which will increase public safety. Access to child care, education, and
employment will contribute to the tax base and allow the new community member to support
others and lead to stronger families, all of which result in more stable communities.
One of the most notable exclusions to MPRI is the failure to address the state juvenile
corrections policies and the school-prison pipeline. Michigan is currently among the top four
states with prisoners sentenced as juveniles
serving life sentences without parole. Juveniles
who are sentenced to adult prisons are more
likely to recidivate than those sentenced to
juvenile correction facilities (Schill, 2013).
Children are put in jail before they learn many of
the skills necessary to overcome recidivism and
usually lack outside support. They are also more
likely to be released back into the community
lacking the education and skills to obtain
employment. The goal of this policy change is to
reduce juvenile incarceration by 30 percent and
to stop sending juveniles to adult prisons.
Many have argued that releasing more people from prisons is more dangerous for our
communities, and this would be true if we did not provide services for them, as they would be
more likely to commit new crimes. However, providing services which address the needs of
those transitioning back into society reduces and prevents crime. MPRI has safely increased the
number of prisoners paroled while the recidivism rate and crime rate have both gone down
(MLPP, 2013).
Our families are most at risk, particularly in
African American homes. One in every three
African American males will go to prison in
their lifetime, making paternal imprisonment
fairly commonplace. One of every four African
American children born in 1990 had a father
who went to prison (Wildeman & Western,
2010). Reducing recidivism will ensure that once
an offender has been released, he will have the
services necessary to ensure he will stay out of
prison and stay with his family. Washtenaw
County resident, Harry Hampton had been in
Office of Legislative Support (www.cga.ct.gov)
michiganradio.org

prison four times. When he was released the first three times, he received no help. “I didn’t know
what to do but go back to what I was used to,” he explained. The fourth time he was released
from prison, MPRI had been implemented; he received help getting a place to stay and a job. He
now runs his own transportation service, helping others who have no way of getting around.
“I’ve got a life. I’m living the American dream” (Graham, 2013). It is possible to create new
lives from those thought hopeless; to bring families back together and contribute to a stronger
community, all while saving money and reducing crime.
(
Social Justice
Recidivism is a racial issue, as people of color are
considerably overrepresented in our prison system. The War
on Drugs allowed prejudicial police practices to make
matters far worse, as the number of African American males
in prison increased fivefold in the two decades following
1980 (Butterfield, 2002). People of color are much more
likely than whites to be stopped by police while driving.
Since minorities are typically poorer than whites, they often
have to depend on court appointed public defenders and are
more likely to be convicted (Sentencing Project, 2013).
Incarceration rates remain significantly biased along racial
lines in the state of Michigan; almost sixty percent of the
state’s prisoners are African American, while they make up
only 14 percent of the total population. (PEW Center, 2011)
Social workers must understand the forms and
mechanisms of oppression and discrimination
(Council on Social Work Education,
Competency 5.1). Social justice involves
providing equal opportunities for employment
and enhancing quality of life through reduction
of collateral consequences that increase the risk
for recidivism. To deny mental health and
substance abuse treatment to prisoners and
wrap around services at the time of reentry to
the community is to deny along racial lines.
Programs that work to decrease recidivism
rates are programs that keep minorities free. As
a country that passed the civil rights act in
1965, just five years before the prison
population began to rise, we have essentially
allowed the bigotry of segregation to continue
through the façade of our prison system.
The Sentencing Project advocates for better racial impact awareness in the policy change
process. Prior to legislative deliberation, racial impact statements can show legislators how a
Police arrested black youth for drug
crimes at more than twice the rate of
white youth between 1980 and 2010.
Yet a 2012 study fromthe National
Institute on Drug Abuse found that
white high school students were more
likely to have abused illegal drugs than
black students.
thesentencingproject.org

certain policy change may affect racial and ethnic disparities in the justice system. Legislators
can then see ahead of time if a proposal is projected to have a disproportional impact and vote to
support it or consider other options (Sentencing Project- 55). A Racial Equity Impact Assessment
will work in much the same way, which is recommended here. MPRI relied on research from
studies using samples of predominantly male inmates, since they make up the bulk of the prison
population. However, according to Schram and Morash (2002), it is important to customize skills
programs to address the special needs of female inmates (support from family/friends,
employability, coping and stress, parenting, and childcare services), which are different than
those of male inmates while in prison and after reentry in their community. More research is
needed in order to develop more customized interventions for women and other minority groups,
such as the American Indian and Latino populations. Vocational and technical training and other
educational services need to be offered so that those reentering the community may have the
skills that can help them compete in a world that changes faster now than it ever has.
A community collaborative will need to be
developed or strengthened, which will include all
stakeholders: community employers, school
administrators, housing managers/landlords,
trainers, counselors, parole, corrections, and court
officers, county health and food service workers.
Through collaborative partnerships with state and
local agencies, stakeholders will work together
with previous inmates and their families to provide
wrap-around services to those returning to their
communities. Previous inmates’ suggestions and
concerns must be addressed throughout their
transition and the proper support services ready to
work with them, remaining as customized as
possible in order to best serve the individual and
their families. It is important that the former
inmate is a major participant and decision maker in
his or her own transition. While we must be sure
our prison system punishes, we also must provide
full opportunities for rehabilitation (ASCA,2004).
Recommendations
Prior to implementing the proposed policy revision for prisoner reentry, there should be a Racial
Equity Impact Assessment (REIA) of the proposed policy to ensure policy effectiveness and
minimize any adverse consequences of the policy. Conducting an REIA prior to implementation
of this policy will help to support the effectiveness of the policy and programs the policy will
support (ARC, 2013). The policy revision of MPRI will incorporate the highest possible level of
service (represented in Appendix B) where former inmates will work hand-in-hand with
stakeholders within the community. Bazemore & Stinchcomb state that the goal is “to plan and
execute tasks that build collective efficacy” (2004, p. 19). The model for Civic Engagement
Model of Reentry appears to be the most practical evidence-based practice for effective
community-based prisoner reentry.
prisonpolicy.org

Gaynes, Lalley, Lubow & McDaniel state that there are three components that need to be part of
effective prisoner reentry: economic opportunities, social networks within the community, and
formal and informal services and supports (2005). The following goals for the revision to the
MPRI policy have been determined based on evidence suggesting that civic engagement, social
support, and community-based programming for prisoner reentry has the highest possibility for
successfully reducing recidivism:
Proposed Policy Goals
The primary goals of the MPRI policy revision from the start of 2015 and end of 2016 Fiscal
years is:
 to reduce recidivism of adult/juvenile offenders by 30%; and
 to reduce juvenile incarceration rates by 30%, therefore making youth ineligible for
incarceration on the “front-end” (Congressman Fred Durhal, Jr., personal
communication, March 17, 2014).
The secondary goals for the proposed MPRI policy revision will include:
 development of a community-wide collaborative that includes community stakeholders
(workforce development, MDOC, agencies supporting traditional and cultural treatment
for minorities, family members of former inmates, former inmates, public school system
administrators, parents of children in public school systems, court systems, institutional
facility administrators, etc.); and
 establish wrap-around case management services through agencies identified as primary
service providers for community-based prisoner reentry by the collaborative.
Recommendations for MPRI Policy
Hamilton and Campbell also emphasize the need for
continued exploration of the added and varying risks
for failure of prisoner reentry programs associated with
community corrections interventions, the primary
failure being a return to prison (2013),(see Appendix A
for a comprehensive list of predictors of prisoner
reentry failure). The following two recommendations
for policy revision and implementation to the MPRI
address the multifaceted issues surrounding prisoner
reentry through identifying natural, positive,
community support to reduce former inmate risk of
recidivism. Equally emphasized is the importance of
community and civic engagement of the reentry
process of former inmates. The community
involvement should be grounded in a theoretical
framework and propose solutions to prisoner reentry
through Restorative Practice, Skill Building, and
Collective Efficacy (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004).
The need for community-based prisoner reentry interventions is great, according to Congressman
Fred Durhal (personal communication, March 17, 2014). During the interview Congressman
“Ultimately, in a theoretically grounded
restorative justice framework, democratic
participation, civic service, and informal
social control and support should be mutually
reinforcing elements. For example,
enfranchisement and democratic participation
would make possible a variety of gateways to
prosocial connections.Civic service, along
with restorative processes that engage
communities in decisionmaking, social
control, and support may, in turn, increase
prospects for public acceptance of felon
enfranchisement and an overall change in the
public image of persons undercorrectional
supervision” (Bazemore & Stinchcomb, 2004, p.22).

Durhal expressed that the issue of incarceration and recidivism “should be addressed through
prevention programs for youth to make them ineligible for incarceration in the first place”
(Congressman Fred Durhal, Jr., personal communication, March 17, 2014). Implementing
prevention programs for youth as a form of intervention will address the “front-end” to reduce
incarceration rates and in turn reducing recidivism by breaking the cycle of incarceration. This
can be accomplished by bringing programs into elementary, middle, and high schools or
partnering with community-based organizations and schools. Listed below are two
recommendations for reinvesting and enhancing the MPRI policy for reducing recidivism
through 1) implementing prevention programs for youth, and 2) providing community-based
prisoner reentry programming:
1. “Youth for Success” Implements funding from the state to provide community prevention
programs to minority youth to stop the school-to-prison cycle as a form of intervention to
reduce recidivism by making youth ineligible for incarceration in the first place. This
policy will provide opportunities for community based agreements to be funded by the
state and allow community organizations to partner with school systems to engage youth
in positive extracurricular activities, learning life skills and soft skills to prepare them for
their futures and provide stable positive and supportive environments that promote youth
well-being.
2. “Prisoner Reentry for Community-Supported Wellbeing” Community-wide allocation of
funding for the state prison budget provides prisoner reentry programming to current and
former inmates to allow for case management services that assist inmates during the first
year of transitioning back into their communities. The prison-to-community policy will
establish a positive social support network that links natural support with case
management services to address and reduce current and former inmate risk of recidivism.
The next section will discuss the Evaluation Plan for the MPRI policy revision recommendations
by defining the Evaluation Questions, Activities, Outcomes, and Data Source/Indicator.
Evaluation Plan
The recommendations and evaluation plan
suggested for the revision of the MPRI policy
focuses on evidence-based research that
emphasizes the utilization of positive community
supports to reduce high rates of recidivism.
Petersilia states that for prisoner reentry
programs to be effective the policy should be
driven by evidence-based research and vice-versa
(2004). The Evaluation Plan developed for the
revision of the MPRI utilizes the evidence-based
research described in the Literature Review and
is designed to incorporate the common themes
identified from the interviews of key stakeholders
within the community regarding the needs of
effective prisoner reentry programming, initiatives, and policy.
“Interest in prisoner reentry has brought a new-
found enthusiasmfor rehabilitation programming.
Correctional practitioners are working hard to
identify and implement programs that reduce
reoffending after prison. At the same time,
academics are trying to amass a body of literature
that will guide practitioners' choice of programs.
Yet, when one looks closely at the two
enterprises, there is little evidence that research is
driving policy, or that policy is driving research”
(Petersilia, 2004, p. 8).

EVALUATION PLAN
Goals Evaluation
Questions
Activities Outcomes Data Source/Indicator
Primary
Goal 1
1.1 Was recidivism
reduced for
adults/juveniles by
30% for institutional
facilities in Southeast
MI?
1.1 Were inmates
contacted prior to
release to develop
case-management
plans incorporating
wrap-around
services?
1.1 75% of participants
will successfully
complete the “Prisoner
Reentry for
Community-supported
Wellbeing” program.
1.2 Re-arrest of
adults/juveniles will be
reduced by 30%.
1.1 Program service
coordinators will
monitor, track, and
report participant arrest
status during service
delivery, at 3, 6, 9 mo.,
and 1 year after release
to measure recidivism
rates of participants
enrolled in the program.
1.2 Participant rearrests
will be monitored
through the MDOC
inmate locator available
on their website.
Primary
Goal 2
2.1 Were juvenile
arrests reduced by
30% for institutional
facilities in Southeast
MI?
2.1 All 5th - 12th
grade students in
public schools will
have the opportunity
to participate in the
youth prevention
program designed by
the collaborative.
2.1 75% of 5th - 12th
grade public school
students will
successfully complete
the “Youth for
Success” program.
2.2 Arrests of 5th -
12th grade students
will be reduced by
30%.
2.1 All schools
participating will report
the number of students
who were referred and
signed up for the
program on a quarterly
basis.
2.2 Program service
coordinators will
document and report:
-the number of youth
who have successfully
completed the program
-the number of
participants who were
arrested during service
delivery, and after
program completion at 3,
6, 9 mo., and 1 year
intervals.
Secondary
Goal 1
3.1 The MPRI will
establish a
community-wide
collaborative of key
stakeholders
(mentioned in
Recommendations
section)
3.1 At least one
person from each key
stakeholder will
represent their
community in the
collaborative.
3.2 During the first
three months of
3.1There will be at
least 12 active
members representing
their community for the
MPRI Collaborative.
3.2 90% of
collaborative meetings
will be held and
3.1 All collaborative
meetings will be
documented and
reported to the MPRI
quarterly and at the end
of the Fiscal Yr. 2016.
3.2 A sign-in sheet will
be present at each

program
implementation,
collaborative will
meet bi-weekly and at
least once a month
for the remainder of
the fiscal year.
3.3 The collaborative
will organize and
facilitate at least 4
community-wide
outreach events
throughout the fiscal
year: 2 for “Youth for
Success” and 2 for
“Prisoner Reentry for
Community-
supported
Wellbeing”.
attended by at least
75% of collaborative
members throughout
the fiscal year 2015 and
2016.
will organize and
facilitate 100% of the
required community-
wide outreach events.
collaborative meeting
and turned in with the
MPRI reports.
will provide a report for
each event stating the
activities planned; action
items for each
collaborative member;
date, time, and location
of event; the number of
attendees; number of
potential program
participants recruited;
and advocacy and
awareness materials
distributed during the
event.
Secondary
Goal 2
4.1 The MPRI will
assign a primary
service provider to
facilitate contracted
case management
wrap-around services
for program
participants.
4.1 The primary
service provider will
develop community
based partnerships
through the assistance
of the collaborative to
provide resources that
meet the needs of
former inmates.
4.2 Primary service
provider will
facilitate at least 10
weeks of group
sessions 4times
throughout the Fiscal
Yr. 2015-2016 for all
program participants
and will incorporate
positive social
support and social
networking within
their group
curriculum.
4.1 At least 20
partnerships will be
established to assist
primary service
provider with open
access to housing,
employment,
education, medical,
mental & behavioral
health,
cultural/traditional
services, and
transportation services.
4.2 Primary service
provider will meet the
goal of facilitating
100% of required
group sessions for
program participants.
4.3 Primary service
provider will create and
implement a
curriculum for group
sessions based on
positive social support
networks and social
identity development
models.
4.1 The primary service
provider will be
responsible for recruiting
and managing
partnerships through
Community Based
Agreements; which will
be provided to the MPRI
Collaborative via
reports.
4.2 Primary service
provider will monitor
and track all group
session dates,times, and
maintain attendance
record for MPRI reports.
4.3 Primary service
provider will be present
a thoroughly developed
curriculum designed
after evidence-based
practice for prisoner
reentry for 10 week
group sessions and
present to the MPRI
Collaborative within 60
days of assignment as
Primary Service
Provider.

References
Applied Research Center (ARC) (2013). Racial equity impact assessment toolkit. Race Forward:
The Center for Racial Justice Innovation. Retrieved on April 16, 2014 from
https://www.raceforward.org/practice/tools/racial-equity-impact-assessment-toolkit
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 35(4), 216-224. Retrieved from http://lithgow-schmidt.dk/sherry-
arnstein/ladder-of-citizen-participation.html
Association of State Correctional Administrators. (2004). Correctional best practices: Directors’
perspectives. Middletown, CT: Reginald Wilkinson, Ed.
Bardach, E. (2008). A practical guide for policy analysis (3rd ed.). Washington, DC:
Congressional Quarterly Press.
Bazemore, G., & Stinchcomb, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of reentry: Involving
community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68(2), 14-24.
Butterfield, F. (2002, Aug. 28). Study finds big increase in black men as inmates since 1980.
New York Times. Retrieved from www.nytimes.com/2002/08/28/.../28PRIS.html
Coyhis, D., & Simonelli, R. (2008). The Native American healing experience. Substance Use &
Misuse, 43(12/13), 1927-1949. doi:10.1080/10826080802292584
Dollard, K. M. Impact of self control training on re-offense rates of rural county jail inmates.
Dissertation Abstracts International. 62(2). 1074B.
Dwoskin, E. (2011, Dec. 1). Michigan lets prisoners go and saves a bundle. Bloomberg
Businessweek Magazine. Retrieved from www.businessweek.com/magazine/11_50.html
Eversole, R. (2012). Remaking participation: Challenges for community development practice.
Community Development Journal, 47(1), 29-41.
Gaynes, E., Lalley, J., Lubow, B., & McDaniel, M. (2005). Reentry - Helping former prisoners
return to communities: A guide to key ideas, effective approaches, and technical
assistance resources for making connections cities and site teams. Baltimore, MD: The
Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Gibbs, T. (2000). Substance abuse treatment and recidivism: An assessment of predictive factors
from a residential program. Dissertation Abstracts International, 61, 1174A.
Graham, L. (2013, Sept. 9). Snyder administration to cut program that has saved hundreds of
millions in prison costs. Retrieved from http://michiganradio.org/
Hamilton, Z., & Campbell, C. (2013). A dark figure of corrections: Failure by way of
participation. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 40(2), 180-202.

Hooley, D. (2010). Six evidence based practices proven to lower recidivism: Learning to trust
the research. Retrieved from www.correctionsone.com/writers/columnists/doug-hooley/
Mauer, M. (2009). Racial impact statements: Changing policies to address disparities. Criminal
Justice, 23(4).
Michigan Prisoner ReEntry Initiative (MPRI). (2010). Progress Report: Making strides in public
safety. Retrieved from http://www.publicpolicy.com/upload/pdfs/Publications/MPRI_
2010_Progress_Report.pdf
Michigan League for Public Policy. (2013). Michigan house and senate reach agreement on
fiscal year 2014 corrections budget. Lansing, MI: Lanthrop, Y. M.
Parkin, J. T. (2002). Throwing away the key: The world’s leading jailer. International Socialist
Review. 21, Jan-Feb. Retrieved from http://isreview.org/issues/21/prisons.shtml
Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence.
Federal Probation, 68(2), 4-8.
Pettus-Davis, C. (2011). Incorporating naturally occurring social support in interventions for
former prisoners with substance use disorders: A community-based randomized
controlled trial (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of North Carolina at
Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.
PEW Center on the States. (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons,
public safety performance project. Washington, DC: The Pew Charitable Trusts.
Pimlot, K. S., Arfken, C. L, & Gibson, E. S. (2009). Departments of corrections as purchasers of
community based treatment: A national study. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment.
36(4). 420-427.
Ryan, J. P. (2005). Family contact and recidivism: A longitudinal study of adjudicated
delinquents in residential care. Social Work Research, 29(1), 31-39.
Schill, R. (2012, Jan. 27). Youth transfers to the adult corrections system more likely to reoffend.
Juvenile Justice Information Exchange. Retrieved from http://jjie.org/
Schram, P. & Morash, M. (2002). Evaluation of a life skills program for women inmates in
Michigan. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34(4), 47-70.
Sentencing Project. (2013). Report to the United Nations Human Rights Committee regarding
racial disparities in the United States criminal justice system. Washington DC: Mauer,
M.,Ed.
Wildeman, C. & Western, B. (2010). Incarceration in fragile families. The Future of Children.
20(2). Retrieved from future ofchildren.org/publications/docs/20_02_ 08.pdf

Appendix A
Table 1: Predictors of Prisoner Reentry Failure (Hamilton & Campbell, 2013, p. 188)
 Age – Age at time of release measured in years Continuous – Range 19 to 60
 Children – Does the participant have children?
 HS/GED – Possesses a high school diploma or GED at time of release
 History of education problem – History of grade repetition, learning disorder, or
expulsion
 Total number of arrests – Total number of prior arrests Continuous – Range 1 to 22
 Family deviance history – Immediate family member has prior conviction and/or
substance abuse history
 Prior treatment – Participated in substance abuse treatment prior to current incarceration
 Prior incarceration – Two or more prior incarcerations
 Drug age – Participants’ age of first drug use Continuous – Range 7 to 22
 Daily use – Prior to incarceration participant was using substances daily
 LSI-R – General recidivism risk score computed with the Level of Service Inventory–
Revised Continuous – Range 0 to 54
 ASI – Score on the Addition Severity Index Continuous – Range 1 to 10
 Prior felony – Convicted of a felony prior to the current incarceration
 Prior juvenile – Convicted as a juvenile prior to the current incarceration
 Companion risk – Rated as high risk on the LSI-R subscale
 Instant offense – Conviction type for current incarceration: drug, violent, weapon,
property, or parole violation
 Primary substance – Preferred substance of choice reported: heroin, cocaine/crack,
marijuana, alcohol, or other drug
 Sentence length – Duration of incarceration in years: Continuous – Range 1 to 7
 Co-occur – History of co-occurring mental health issue
 Treatment benefit – Participant reports he or she would benefit from further treatment
 WPT – Wonderlic Personnel Test rating of vocational aptitude

Appendix B
Table 2: A Continuuum of Community Work Service Based on Different Levels of Stakeholder Involvement and Impact (Bazemore
& Stinchcomb, 2004, p. 20)

Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica

Recomendados

Recomendados

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Mais procurados (20)

Destaque

Destaque (9)

Semelhante a Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica

Semelhante a Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica (16)

Mais de Miriam Holbrook

Mais de Miriam Holbrook (20)

Recidivism Socially Just Policy Miriam and Erica