Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on Reintegration
Programs (18-JUN-01, GAO-01-483).
The number of federal and state inmates released to communities
increased more than threefold from 1980 to 1998. Recividism rates
have been about 40 percent historically, since about 1980. Within
the group of recividists, the number of offenders reincarcerated
for violating parole or other release conditions increased more
than sevenfold from 1980 to 1998. Further, such reincarcerations
represent an increasing proportion of all prison admissions. The
Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 1997 survey found that most
federal offenders (62 percent) were imprisoned for drug offense
convictions, and almost half (47 percent) of all state offenders
were incarcerated for violent offense convictions. Also, the
majority of inmates in both correctional systems--federal inmates
(73 percent) and state inmates (83 percent)--had some history of
illegal drug use. BJS' survey also showed that 27 percent of both
federal and state exit cohort inmates participated in vocational
training programs, and 11 percent of federal and 2 percent of
state exit cohort inmates worked in prison industry jobs. In
addition, 33 percent of the federal inmates and 36 percent of the
state inmates participated in residential in-patient treatment
programs for alcohol and drug abuse. Generally, in the federal
correctional system, an inmate's preparation for reintegration is
to encompass all three phases of the system--the prerelease,
halfway house, and community supervision. Under the Offender
Reentry Initiative, federal discretionary grants would be
provided to help states and communities work together to improve
offender supervision and accountability--and essential support
services--in order to minimize public safety issues posed by
high-risk or special-needs offenders released from state prisons,
juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing
state prisoners. A solicitation for grants is expected by the end
of May 2001, and awards are expected to be made by the end of
September 2001.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-483
ACCNO: A00980
TITLE: Prisoner Releases: Trends and Information on
Reintegration Programs
DATE: 06/18/2001
SUBJECT: Drug treatment
Halfway houses
Offender rehabilitation
Parolees
Prisoners
Recidivism
Statistical data
DOJ/DOL/HHS Offender Reentry Initiative
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-483
Report to Congressional Committees
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
June 2001 PRISONER RELEASES
Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs
GAO- 01- 483
Page i GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3 Background 6 Inmate Releases and Recidivism Reflect a
Revolving Door Trend 7 Sentence Length, Criminal and Drug Use Histories, and
Program
Participation 12 Reintegration Addressed in Three Phases of Federal
Correctional
System 19 Implementation of the Young Offender Initiative Is Evolving 27
Agency Comments 32
Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 36
Appendix II Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers 40
Appendix III Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals 42
Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 46
Tables
Table 1: First- Time Offenders Released From Federal Prison and Returned
Within 3 Years 10 Table 2: Recidivism of Prisoners Released From State
Prisons in
1983 10 Table 3: Sentence Length Information for Inmates in 1997 13 Table 4:
Criminal and Drug Use Histories of Inmates in 1997 14 Table 5: Inmate
Participation in Prison Programs in 1997 16 Table 6: Substance Abuse
Treatment in Adult Correctional
Facilities in 1997 17 Table 7: Inmate Participation in Substance Abuse
Treatment or
Other Programs in 1997 19 Table 8: BOP In- Prison Programs for Inmates 21
Contents
Page ii GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Table 9: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers 40 Table 10: Pilot Reentry Partnerships (Sites
and Target Populations) 42 Table 11: Pilot Reentry Courts (Sites and Target
Populations) 43
Figures
Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and Returns for
Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions 8
Abbreviations
AOUSC Administrative Office of the United States Courts BJS Bureau of
Justice Statistics BOP Bureau of Prisons DOJ Department of Justice DOL
Department of Labor GED General Equivalency Diploma HHS Department of Health
and Human Services NIJ National Institute of Justice OJP Office of Justice
Programs TRIAD Treating Inmates? Addiction to Drugs SAMHSA Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services
Administration UNICOR Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
Page 1 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
June 18, 2001 The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy Chairman The Honorable Orrin G.
Hatch Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary United States
Senate
The Honorable James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman The Honorable John Conyers,
Jr. Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary House of
Representatives
American criminal justice policies and other factors in recent years have
resulted in record numbers of offenders being incarcerated in federal and
state prisons. 1 Although many inmates are serving longer sentences than
they would have a decade ago, most federal and state prison inmates are not
serving life sentences without the possibility of parole or release. 2 After
inmates complete their terms, they return to communities throughout the
nation. Although many are successfully reintegrated into society, other ex-
offenders are arrested for new crimes or violations of parole or supervision
and are returned to prison. In order to reduce recidivism 3 rates- and to
enhance public safety, alleviate fiscal pressures associated with ex-
offenders being returned to prison, and provide opportunities for ex-
offenders to straighten out their lives- policymakers,
1 On June 30, 2000, according to Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) data,
the total number of inmates in the custody of federal and state prison
authorities was 1.3 million. State correctional systems accounted for the
large majority (about 90 percent) of inmates nationally.
2 According to BJS data, for example, at the end of fiscal year 1997, only 3
percent of federal inmates and 8 percent of state inmates were serving life
sentences or had death sentences. For all other inmates, the data showed
that more than one- third of the federal inmates and more than one- half of
the state inmates were scheduled for release within 5 years.
3 Typically, recidivism is defined as the reincarceration of an ex- offender
after being convicted of a new crime or for violating a condition of
supervised release. Different studies may define recidivism as rearrest,
reconviction (which may or may not result in a prison sentence), or
reincarceration.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
correctional system administrators, and other concerned parties are looking
for ways to more successfully reintegrate ex- offenders into communities.
To provide data related to efforts to reintegrate prisoners, we addressed
the following questions:
What are the trends in the number of inmates released from federal and
state prisons and the extent of recidivism?
On the basis of available research, what is known about sentence length
and the criminal and drug use histories of federal and state prison inmates
and about the extent to which inmates participate in educational,
vocational, drug treatment, or other programs designed to address offenders?
needs or otherwise help offenders reintegrate into society?
Within the federal correctional system?s three phases-( 1) the in- prison
phase, which is sometimes called the prerelease phase; (2) the transitional
or halfway house phase, 4 which involves placement in a community- based
facility; and (3) the community supervision phase, in which probation
officers assist and monitor releasees- what are the programs for preparing
and assisting offenders with reintegrating into communities?
What is the status of the Young Offender Initiative, a federal interagency
initiative that would provide federal grants to assist states and local
communities with reintegrating offenders released from state prisons,
juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing state
prisoners? 5
As agreed, we addressed this report to you because of your legislative and
oversight responsibilities for criminal justice issues.
To answer these questions, we conducted a literature search; reviewed
applicable studies; and interviewed knowledgeable individuals, such as
selected correctional system managers and researchers. To address the
question regarding trends in prison releases and recidivism, we analyzed BJS
and other data. To determine what is known about sentence length, inmate
criminal and drug use histories, and participation in programs
4 The federal correctional system uses contractor- operated community
corrections centers- commonly referred to as halfway houses- for
transitioning inmates from a correctional facility to the community.
5 The full name of the interagency initiative is ?Young Offender Initiative:
Reentry Grant Program and the Demonstration Grant Program,? which is being
designed to target a population of offenders within the age range of 14 to
35 years old (Reentry Grant Program) and 14 to 24 years old (Demonstration
Grant Program).
Page 3 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
designed to address offenders? needs or otherwise facilitate reintegration
into society, we reviewed data obtained by BJS during its most recent (1997)
survey of federal and state prison inmates. To identify the federal
correctional system?s programs for preparing offenders to reintegrate, we
interviewed responsible officials and reviewed relevant documentation at (1)
the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), which is responsible for managing the
prerelease phase and the halfway house phase, and (2) the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), which develops and communicates
national community- supervision policies for probation officers. 6
Similarly, regarding the Young Offender Initiative, we interviewed
responsible officials and reviewed relevant documentation at the Departments
of Justice, Labor, and Health and Human Services (DOJ, DOL, and HHS)- the
three participating federal agencies.
We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards between May 2000 and April 2001. Appendix I presents more
details regarding our objectives, scope, and methodology.
The number of federal and state inmates released to communities has
increased more than threefold, from 148,867 in 1980 to 532, 136 in 1998, the
most recent year for which complete data were available. 7 For many
offenders, however, release from prison involves a revolving door- that is,
the releasees often are subsequently reincarcerated. Recidivism rates have
been about 40 percent historically, that is, since about 1980. Within the
group of recidivists, the number of offenders reincarcerated for violating
parole or other release conditions increased more than sevenfold, from
28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998. 8 Further, such reincarcerations
represent an increasing proportion of all prison admissions- for instance,
reincarceration of violators of parole or other release conditions
represented 17 percent of all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35
percent of admissions in 1998.
6 National community- supervision policies are established by the Judicial
Conference of the United States, which is the policymaking authority for the
federal judiciary. Each district court appoints officers and supervises the
implementation of policies in the probation system.
7 In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506, 049)
were state prisoners. 8 In 1998, of the total number of violators
reincarcerated, 98 percent (206,152) were returned to state prisons. Results
in Brief
Page 4 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Regarding sentence length, BJS? most recent (1997) survey data showed that a
smaller percentage of federal inmates than state inmates had less than a
year remaining on their sentences (27 percent versus 44 percent), whereas a
larger percentage of federal inmates than state inmates were serving
sentences of more than 5 years (31 percent versus 18 percent). 9 Also, the
1997 survey data showed that most federal offenders (62 percent) were
imprisoned for drug offense convictions, 10 and almost half (47 percent) of
all state offenders were incarcerated for violent offense 11 convictions.
Further, the 1997 survey data showed that the majority of inmates in both
correctional systems- federal inmates (73 percent) and state inmates (83
percent)- had some history of illegal drug use.
Regarding inmate participation in prison programs, survey data were less
extensive but indicate that some needs, such as drug treatment, may be
unmet. For example, the 1997 survey showed that 57 percent of federal and 70
percent of state inmates reported having used drugs regularly before prison.
Although not all drug users may need treatment, our analysis of inmates
scheduled to be released within 12 months of BJS? 1997 survey showed that 33
percent of the federal and 36 percent of the state inmates participated in
residential inpatient treatment programs for alcohol or drug abuse. 12
Further, BJS? 1997 survey data on inmates scheduled for release indicated
the following:
27 percent of both federal and state inmates participated in vocational
training programs;
11 percent of the federal inmates worked in prison industry jobs, compared
with 2 percent of the state inmates; and
9 All estimates presented from the BJS 1997 inmate survey data are
surrounded by a 95- percent confidence interval of plus or minus 5
percentage points or less. 10 According to AOUSC, the relatively high
percentage of inmates in federal prison for drug offense convictions (62
percent) can be attributed to the effects of longer sentences for such
convictions. Also, AOUSC noted that the percentage of defendants appearing
in federal courts with a drug offense as their most serious offense remained
fairly steady at 35 to 38 percent in the 1990s.
11 Violent offenses include murder, nonnegligent manslaughter, manslaughter,
rape and other sexual assault, robbery, and assault. 12 According to AOUSC,
because many non- drug felony offenses (e. g., fraud) have relatively short
sentences, the inmate population to be released within 12 months will always
have a lower proportion of drug offenders (who usually have long sentences)
than the prison population as a whole. Thus, AOUSC noted that more than half
of the drug offenders in the inmate population released will have
participated in drug treatment.
Page 5 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
37 percent of federal inmates participated in prerelease programs,
compared with 12 percent of state inmates.
Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate?s preparation for
reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the
process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in- prison phase
of the offender?s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue
during a transitional period in a community- based halfway house for a
period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further
continue during a 3- to 5- year period of community supervision by probation
officers. For the in- prison phase, BOP provides programs- including work,
education, vocational training, and drug treatment- to help many inmates
rehabilitate themselves. According to BOP, providing such programs not only
supports correctional management purposes, such as minimizing inmate
idleness and increasing the safety of staff, but also prepares inmates for
employment opportunities and successful reintegration upon release.
Moreover, BOP?s policy is that rehabilitation programming is to continue
during the halfway house phase. During this phase, for example, each
participating inmate is expected to find and keep a job and, if applicable,
continue to participate in drug or alcohol treatment programs. Further,
after an inmate is released from BOP?s custody, a probation officer is
expected to finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender in the
community. Under AOUSC guidelines, a supervision plan should reflect a
probation officer?s statutory responsibilities, which include reducing the
risk the offender poses to the community and providing the offender with
access to treatment, such as substance abuse aftercare and mental health
services. Recently, AOUSC reported that the probation system faces
challenges in supervising an offender population that not only is growing
but also poses higher risks and has greater needs than ever before. For
example, according to AOUSC, the population to be supervised increasingly
reflects higher numbers of offenders with violent criminal histories. To
help meet these challenges, AOUSC has contracted for a comprehensive
assessment of the system?s organizational structure, policies, and practices
and expects a final report in fall 2002.
Under the Young Offender Initiative, federal discretionary grants are to be
provided to help states and communities work together to improve offender
supervision and accountability- and essential support services- in order to
minimize public safety issues posed by high- risk or specialneeds offenders
released from state prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and local
facilities housing state prisoners. For fiscal year 2001-
Page 6 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
the first year of federal funding for the initiative- designated funding
consisted of $30 million from DOJ, $55 million from DOL, and $8 million from
HHS. The initiative was in the early stages of implementation at the time of
our review. For instance, DOJ, DOL, and HHS jointly developed a solicitation
for grant applications, which was issued June 1, 2001. Applications are to
be submitted to DOJ by October 1, 2001.
In commenting on a draft of this report, DOJ and AOUSC generally agreed with
the substance of the report and provided various technical clarifications,
which we incorporated where appropriate.
Given the record number of ex- inmates leaving prisons and returning to
communities, research and policy experts have begun to focus attention on
reintegration issues. In March 2000, for example, DOJ sponsored a symposium
for members of the judiciary and the courts, criminal justice professionals,
representatives of victims advocacy organizations, state legislators, and
academicians to discuss various sentencing and corrections issues, including
the topic of prisoner reintegration and its relationship to public safety.
13 Generally, the participants anticipated that without successful programs
of prisoner reintegration, prison systems would continue to grow in size and
cost. Also, in October 2000, a symposium for criminal justice researchers
and practitioners was convened by the Urban Institute for the purpose of
developing a research and policy agenda for prisoner reintegration. 14 The
organizers pointed out that the sheer volume of returning prisoners ?creates
unprecedented problems of reintegration.?
Symposium participants and other experts also pointed out that more needs to
be learned about what policies and programs are most effective in helping
offenders successfully reintegrate into communities. However, there seemed
to be a consensus among participants and other experts that the need to
address basic deficiencies- such as the lack of job skills and dependency on
alcohol or drugs- would likely continue. Further, experts
13 The symposium, titled Crime Policy in the 21st Century: Sentencing and
Corrections, was sponsored by DOJ?s Office of Policy Development and the
National Institute of Justice (NIJ) and was held in Washington, D. C., March
21- 22, 2000.
14 This symposium, titled Reentry Roundtable, was held in Washington, D. C.,
October 12- 13, 2000. The leadership for organizing the roundtable was
shared by the Urban Institute and Joan Petersilia, a researcher at
University of California, Irvine. Background
Page 7 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
assert that prisoner reintegration has emerged as a key policy issue, which
increases the importance of obtaining more evidence- based evaluations of
what types and levels of rehabilitative programs work.
The severalfold increase in the prison population in recent years has, in
turn, led to record numbers of offenders eventually being released and
returned to communities. The number of offenders released from federal and
state prisons surpassed the half- million mark in 1998. After being
released, many individuals- about 40 percent historically- later are sent
back to prison for committing new offenses or violating conditions of
release.
Nationally, the total inmate population in federal and state prisons
increased almost fourfold during the past 2 decades- from 329,821 at the end
of 1980 to about 1.3 million at the end of 1999. In consonance with the
trend of larger prison populations, the number of inmates who complete their
sentences and return to communities has also risen significantly in recent
years. Specifically, as figure 1 shows, the number of federal and state
inmates released to communities increased from 148,867 in 1980 to 532,136 in
1998, the most recent year for which complete data were available. 15 Also,
figure 1 shows that the number of offenders reincarcerated for violating
parole or other release conditions increased more than sevenfold, from
28,817 in 1980 to 209,782 in 1998. 16 These reincarceration data, as noted
in figure 1, do not include ex- offenders who were returned to prisons for
committing a new crime but were not under parole or supervised release.
Nonetheless, the reincarcerations shown in figure 1 represent an increasing
proportion of all prison admissions. For instance, reincarceration of
violators of parole or other release conditions represented 17 percent of
all prison admissions in 1980 but increased to 35 percent of admissions in
1998.
15 In 1998, of the total number of inmates released, 95 percent (506, 049)
were state prisoners. 16 In 1998, of the total number of violators
reincarcerated, 98 percent (206,152) were returned to state prisons. Inmate
Releases and
Recidivism Reflect a Revolving Door Trend
Increasing Number of Inmates Released From and Returned to Prison
Page 8 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Figure 1: Trends in Releases From Federal and State Prisons and Returns for
Violating Parole or Other Release Conditions
Note 1: For offenders released, no federal data were reported for 1990,
1991, and 1992. For these 3 years, the graph reflects only state prison
releases.
Note 2: For offenders reincarcerated, violations of parole or other release
conditions can consist of various technical violations, such as not keeping
appointments with probation officers or failing a urinalysis test for
illegal drug use. Supervision revocations and reincarcerations can also
result from the commission of a new crime, an act that violates the most
basic of release conditions. However, the reincarceration data shown in the
graph do not include returns to prison of ex- offenders who committed a new
crime while not under parole or other supervised release.
Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.
Available studies indicated that recidivism rates historically- since about
1980- have been about 40 percent. Generally, these recidivism rates reflect
the trend or pattern for federal as well as state prison offenders. No
national recidivism studies that were both current and comprehensive,
however, were available. For instance, some studies either were somewhat
dated or focused on selected groups, such as first- time offenders.
In its most recent survey of federal prison inmates- conducted in 1997- BJS
obtained extensive demographic information, including self- reported data
about current offenses and prior criminal histories. Although not a study of
recidivism, per se, the survey data indicated that 61 percent of federal
prison inmates had one or more prior sentences, and 40 percent had one or
more prior incarcerations. Recidivism Rates
Historically Have Been About 40 Percent
Recidivism of Federal Offenders
0 100,000
200,000 300,000
400,000 500,000
600,000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986 1984 1982 1980
Number of offenders Calendar year
Offenders released Offenders reincarcerated for violating parole or other
release conditions
148,867 28,817
532,136 209,782
Page 9 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
The most current BOP study we identified that focused specifically on
recidivism of prisoners released from federal prisons was completed in 1994.
In its study, BOP analyzed recidivism on the basis of a representative
sample of 1,205 federal inmates released to the community during the first 6
months of 1987. 17 Also, in this study, BOP compared results from its
earlier recidivism studies, which were based on releasees in 1970, 1978,
1980, and 1982. The 1994 study found that within 3 years of being released
from BOP, about 41 percent of the 1987 releasees had either been rearrested
or had their parole revoked. 18 Also, the study reported that recidivism
rates (rearrest or parole revocation) for the 1978, 1980, and 1982 releasees
were very similar, at around 40 percent. Further, the study noted that the
1970 releasees had a higher recidivism rate (about 52 percent), which may be
attributed to a disproportionate number of youthful car thieves among that
year?s releasees.
Another study we identified that focused specifically on recidivism of
prisoners released from federal prisons was prepared by the Urban Institute
and published by BJS in September 2000. The study focused on a 3- year
follow- up of first- time offenders- that is, offenders released from
federal prison for the first time during calendar years 1986 through 1994.
19 As table 1 shows, the study found that a total of 215,263 offenders were
released from federal prison for the first time between 1986 and 1994, and
of this total, 33,855 (16 percent) were returned to federal prison within 3
years. The table also shows that the return percentages increased annually
from 1986 to 1994, except for 1993.
It should be emphasized, however, that the return percentages shown in table
1 underestimate the overall prison return rates. For instance, the study?s
measure of recidivism did not include prisoners who entered state prisons or
jails after release from federal prison. Moreover, as designed, the study
focused only on offenders who were released from federal prison for the
first time during a specific period. Recidivism rates for those who have
been in prison more than one time are higher, according to other studies.
17 Miles D. Harer, BOP, Office of Research and Evaluation, ?Recidivism Among
Federal Prison Releasees in 1987: A Preliminary Report? (Mar. 11, 1994). 18
The study did not report any data on the number of former inmates who were
reconvicted or reincarcerated. 19 BJS, Special Report, ?Offenders Returning
to Federal Prison, 1986- 97? (NCJ 182991, Sept. 2000).
Page 10 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Table 1: First- Time Offenders Released From Federal Prison and Returned
Within 3 Years
Year of release
Number of releases
Number of returns to prison Returns as apercentage
of releases
1986 21,493 2, 440 11.4 1987 22,889 2, 942 12.9 1988 22,237 2, 995 13.5 1989
22,221 3, 225 14.5 1990 25,389 3, 948 15.6 1991 24,685 4, 291 17.4 1992
24,280 4, 429 18.2 1993 25,224 4, 593 18.2 1994 26,845 4, 992 18.6
Total 215,263 33,855 15.7
Note: Releases were in 1986 through 1994; returns were in 1986 through 1997.
Source: BJS and BOP data.
The most comprehensive national study we identified regarding recidivism of
prisoners released from state prisons was published by BJS in 1989. 20 BJS
officials told us that the 1989 publication was BJS? most current study of
state prisoner recidivism. The study was based on a projectable sample of
more than 16,000 prisoners released in 1983. More specifically, BJS
projected its findings to the universe of 108,580 persons released from
state prisons in 11 states, which accounted for 57 percent of all state
prisoners released in the nation during 1983. As indicated in table 2, BJS
reported that of the 108,580 prisoners released in 1983, an estimated 63
percent were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years,
47 percent were reconvicted, and 41 percent were returned to prison or jail.
Table 2: Recidivism of Prisoners Released From State Prisons in 1983 Time
after release Rearrested Reconvicted Reincarcerated
6 months 25.0% 11.3% 8.4% 1 year 39.3 23.1 18.6 2 years 54.5 38.3 32.8 3
years 62.5 46.8 41.4
Source: BJS data.
20 BJS, Special Report, ?Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1983? (NCJ
116261, Apr. 1989). Recidivism of State Offenders
Page 11 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Further, in this study, BJS reported that failure rates- rearrest,
reconviction, or reincarceration- in the first 3 months following release
were more than three times higher than failure rates in the last 3 months of
the follow- up period. 21
Also, in its most recent survey of state prison inmates- conducted in 1997-
BJS obtained self- reported data about current offenses and prior criminal
histories. Although not a study of recidivism, per se, the survey data
indicated that 76 percent of state prison inmates had one or more prior
sentences, and 65 percent had one or more prior incarcerations.
Regarding individual states, a June 2000 report by the New York State
Department of Correctional Services presents return- to- custody
(readmission) information regarding the 26,932 inmates released in 1996 from
the state?s correctional facilities. 22 According to the report,
40 percent (10,795) of the released inmates were returned to custody
within 3 years;
almost two- thirds of the 10,795 inmates who were returned were
recommitted within the first 18 months following release; and
of the 26,932 inmates released in 1996, 24 percent were returned for
violating parole, and 16 percent were returned committing new crimes.
Also, regarding readmission for committing new crimes, the report noted that
more offenders were returned to custody for committing a drug offense (45
percent) than any other offense category. For example, the next highest
readmission categories reported were property and other offenses (24
percent) and violent felony offenses (23 percent).
21 During our review, AOUSC officials questioned the value of an 18- year-
old study- that is, BJS? study of prisoners released from state prisons in
1983- and suggested that we delete reference to it. We retained reference to
the study because it was the most comprehensive national study we identified
regarding recidivism of prisoners released from state prisons.
22 New York State Department of Correctional Services, ?1996 Releases: Three
Year Post Release Follow- Up? (June 2000). New York State Study Reported
a Recidivism Rate of 40 Percent
Page 12 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Based on BJS? most recent (1997) survey of prison inmates, we developed
information on selected characteristics- such as sentence length, criminal
history, and drug use history- comparing federal and state inmates. 23
As table 3 shows, a smaller percentage of federal inmates than state inmates
were serving life sentences or death sentences (3 percent versus 8 percent).
For other inmates in federal and state prison systems, the median sentence
lengths across all types of inmates who were in prison in 1997 were 7 years
and 5 years, respectively. Also, in both federal and state prisons, violent
offenders received longer sentences than drug offenders, although the
difference in median sentence length between violent and drug offenders was
far less pronounced in federal prisons. A smaller percentage of federal
inmates than state inmates had less than a year remaining on their sentences
(27 percent versus 44 percent), whereas a larger percentage of federal
inmates than state inmates were serving sentences of more than 5 years (31
percent versus 18 percent).
Regarding federal offenders and criminal case processing, in February 2001,
BJS published more recent data showing that federal incarceration for drug
convictions and length of federal prison terms are increasing. 24 Among
other things, BJS reported the following:
Drug prosecutions constitute an increasing proportion of the federal
criminal caseload, rising from 21 percent of defendants in cases terminating
in U. S. district court during fiscal year 1982 to 36 percent during fiscal
year 1999.
The proportion of all federal defendants sentenced to prison increased
from 54 percent during fiscal year 1988 to 72 percent during fiscal year
1999. For this same time period, the proportion of federal drug offenders
sentenced to prison increased from 79 percent to 92 percent.
23 In a recent report, we used data from BJS? two most recent surveys (1991
and 1997) to present detailed information on inmate characteristics; see
State and Federal Prisoners: Profiles of Inmate Characteristics in 1991 and
1997 (GAO/ GGD- 00- 117, May 24, 2000). Also,
we used the BJS data to report more specifically on female inmates; see
Women in Prison: Issues and Challenges Confronting U. S. Correctional
Systems (GAO/ GGD- 00- 22, Dec. 28, 1999). 24 BJS, ?Federal Criminal Case
Processing, 1999? (NCJ 186180, Feb. 2001). Sentence Length,
Criminal and Drug Use Histories, and Program Participation
Violent Offenders Received Longer Sentences Than Drug Offenders
Page 13 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
The length of federal prison sentences imposed increased from an average
of 55.1 months during 1988 to an average of 58.1 months during 1999. During
this period, federal prison sentences imposed for drug offenses increased
from an average of 71.3 months to 75.4 months, and for weapon offenses,
sentences imposed increased from an average of 52.3 months to 99.5 months.
Table 3: Sentence Length Information for Inmates in 1997 Offender
characteristic Federal State
Life sentence a or death sentence 3% 8%
For those not serving life or death sentence Median sentence length b Length
in years
All offenders 7 5 Drug offenders 8 3 Violent offenders 9 7
Sentence time remaining c Percent of inmates
Less than 1 year 27 44 1 to 5 years 42 38 More than 5 years 31 18
Number of inmates 89,072 1, 059,607
Note: The percentages are based on numbers slightly smaller than the total
number of inmates because not all inmates responded to the question. a Some
offenders with life sentences may eventually be released, and some offenders
not serving life sentences may never be released. The latter include, for
example, older offenders who have very long sentences to serve and younger
offenders who have multiple, lengthy sentences to serve nonconcurrently. b
Sentence lengths are based on the number of years that the inmates are
anticipated to actually
serve, not the number of years in the court- imposed sentences. Actual time
served often is less than the number of months or years reflected in court-
imposed sentences for various reasons, such as reductions in prison terms
for good behavior. c Time remaining on sentence is computed from the time of
BJS? survey and not from the time of
admission to prison. Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.
Page 14 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
As table 4 shows, nearly two- thirds (63 percent) of federal inmates in 1997
were drug offenders, and 15 percent were violent offenders. In comparison,
one in five (21 percent) of the state inmates were drug offenders, and
nearly one- half (47 percent) were violent offenders. 25
Table 4: Criminal and Drug Use Histories of Inmates in 1997 All inmates
Releasees a Inmate history Federal State Federal State Current offense
Drug offense conviction 63% 21% 54% 28% Violent offense conviction 15 47 12
30
Past criminal history
Under supervision when arrested b 27 47 30 56 Prior incarceration 40 55 37
56 Prior sentence imposed 61 76 56 78
Illegal drug use before prison
Ever used any drugs 73 83 71 85 Used drugs regularly c 57 70 55 73 Used
cocaine or crack regularly c 28 34 26 36 Used heroin regularly c 9 15816
Number of inmates 89,072 1, 059,607 22,583 400,821
Note: The percentages are based on numbers slightly smaller than the total
number of inmates because not all inmates responded to the question. a
Inmates to be released within 12 months from the time of BJS? survey in
1997.
b Includes persons who were on parole, supervised release, or probation and
those who had escaped and been rearrested. c Used drugs at least once a week
for at least 1 month.
Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.
Further, regarding past criminal history, table 4 shows that 61 percent of
federal inmates and 76 percent of state inmates who were in prison in 1997
had been sentenced before, and 40 percent of federal inmates and 55 percent
of state inmates in prison in 1997 had served prior prison sentences.
Moreover, not all inmates had a long stretch of ?street time? between
sentences. Of the inmates who were in prison in 1997, more than
25 The type of offender (violent crime and drug offense) is determined on
the basis of the primary, or most serious, offense for which offenders were
currently sentenced to prison. The primary types of offenses- other than
those that involve violence or drugs- involve property offenses (e. g.,
burglary and larceny) and technical violations (e. g., violations of terms
of probation and parole). Drug or Violent Offenses
and Prior Incarceration Were Characteristics Common to Many Inmates
Page 15 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
one- quarter (27 percent) of federal inmates and nearly half (47 percent) of
the state inmates were under supervision at the time of the arrest that led
to their incarceration.
To provide the reader with an annual reintegration perspective, table 4 also
presents data about inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months from
the time of BJS? 1997 survey. Regarding current offenses, for example, table
4 shows that 54 percent of the federal and 28 percent of state inmates to be
released were drug offenders- a total of about 124,000 releasees. Further,
table 4 shows that 12 percent of the federal and 30 percent of state
releasees were violent offenders- a total of about 123,000 releasees. Table
4 also shows that 56 percent of the federal and 78 percent of state
releasees had a prior criminal sentence.
Table 4 shows further that it is not just criminal histories generally that
characterize the bulk of inmates in prison, but substantial histories of
drug use as well. More than 7 in 10 (73 percent) of the federal inmates and
8 in 10 (83 percent) of the state inmates reported having used illegal drugs
before their current admission. Nearly 6 in 10 (57 percent) of the federal
inmates and 7 in 10 (70 percent) of the state inmates reported having used
illegal drugs regularly. Approximately 1 in 4 (28 percent) federal inmates
and 1 in 3 (34 percent) state inmates reported having used cocaine or crack
regularly. Also, as table 4 shows, the percentages of releasees using
various drugs are similar to those for all inmates. For instance, 26 percent
of federal inmates to be released reported having used cocaine or crack
regularly, compared with 28 percent of all federal inmates in prison in
1997. 26
BJS? 1997 survey provided less extensive information about inmate
participation in prison programs. In table 5, we summarize available
information about inmate participation in various programs. About one of
every four federal and state inmates- 25 percent and 24 percent,
26 According to AOUSC, drug histories reported by federal inmates may be
overstated since 18 U. S. C. 3621( e)( 2)( B) authorizes BOP to reduce the
sentence (by up to 1 year) for any prisoner convicted of a nonviolent
offense after successful completion of drug treatment. On the other hand,
according to BOP, adequate safeguards are in place to prevent inmates who
are not drug addicts (or who do not have histories of drug abuse) from
participating in drug treatment programs and receiving reduced sentences.
Further, it should be noted that BJS? survey of inmates is conducted on a
basis of confidentiality. Thus, the survey results are not used for
programming services for individual inmates. Most Inmates Had Used
Illegal Drugs Before Prison Admission
Generally Low Inmate Participation in Prison Programs
Page 16 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
respectively- had participated in a drug treatment program since their
admission. Further, fewer than half of the inmates in either prison system-
federal (45 percent) and state (38 percent)- had been involved in education
programs since being admitted. And less than one- third of the inmates had
received any vocational training- federal (29 percent) and state (31
percent). Although 87 percent of federal inmates and 60 percent of state
inmates had work assignments, only 17 percent of federal and 3 percent of
the state inmates had assignments in prison industry jobs. Finally, only 13
percent of federal inmates and 8 percent of state inmates had participated
in prerelease programs. However, as would be expected, the data indicate
that participation in prerelease programs increased significantly among
inmates scheduled to be released within 12 months, particularly among
federal inmates (37 percent). Also, regarding the federal prerelease
programs, BOP officials said that, since the 1997 BJS survey, BOP has
provided more training to staff and placed additional emphasis on the
prerelease programs.
Table 5: Inmate Participation in Prison Programs in 1997 All inmates
Releasees a Type of program attended Federal State Federal State
Residential inpatient treatment 28% 33% 33% 36% Alcohol program 20 24 24 27
Drug program 25 24 28 29 Education classes 45 38 43 35 Vocational training b
29 31 27 27 Any work assignment c 87 60 87 56 Prison industry jobs d 17 3 11
2 Prerelease programs e 13 8 37 12
Number of inmates 89,072 1, 059,607 22,583 400,821
Note: The percentages show inmate participation since admission to prison
for current offense. They are based on numbers slightly smaller than the
total number of inmates because not all inmates responded to the question. a
Inmates to be released within 12 months from the time of BJS? survey in
1997.
b Vocational training includes in- class training and on- the- job training,
excluding institutional jobs. c Work assignments include institutional jobs
(e. g., food services, laundry, grounds maintenance, etc.) and prison
industry jobs. d Federal Prison Industries, Inc., called UNICOR, operates as
an income- producing business. Many
state prisons also have income- producing businesses. e These programs
include classes covering such topics as budgeting, stress reduction, and job
interviewing skills. Source: Compiled by GAO from BJS data.
Page 17 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
To obtain additional perspectives on substance abuse treatment in federal
and state prisons, we reviewed data compiled by HHS? Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). In 1997, at the request of
the Office of National Drug Control Policy, SAMHSA designed and conducted
the first national survey of substance abuse treatment services in adult and
juvenile correctional facilities. For adult correctional facilities, as
table 6 shows, the survey results showed that on a given day in 1997,
about 12,500 federal inmates and about 99,000 state inmates received
substance abuse treatment and
most of these inmates were treated within a general facility population
setting versus a specialized unit, hospital, or psychiatric unit.
Table 6: Substance Abuse Treatment in Adult Correctional Facilities in 1997
Prison inmates in treatment Treatment setting Federal State
General facility population 6,693 66,119 Specialized unit 5,744 30,697
Hospital or psychiatric unit 71 2,162
Total 12,508 98,978
Note: The data reflect the number of prison inmates in treatment on a given
day in 1997, not all year. Source: SAMHSA, Substance Abuse Treatment in
Adult and Juvenile Correctional Facilities
(Apr. 2000).
At a congressional hearing in October 2000, a SAMHSA representative
testified as follows about substance abuse treatment for offenders: 27
?A disturbingly high percentage of offenders are high on drugs or alcohol
when they commit crimes. Under the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring ? program
funded by the Department of Justice, detained arrestees in at least 23 urban
jurisdictions throughout the United States are tested periodically to
determine the extent of illegal drug use. In 1999, sixty- eight percent of
detained arrestees tested positive for one or more illegal drugs. Those
arrested are not tested for alcohol use. If they were, the percentage of
persons who are high when arrested would clearly be greater than 68 percent.
27 Testimony of Bruce C. Fry, Social Science Analyst, Center for Substance
Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA, HHS, before the Subcommittee on Crime, Committee on
the Judiciary, U. S. House of Representatives, October 2, 2000. Additional
Perspectives on
Inmate Participation in Drug Treatment Programs
Page 18 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
?When incarcerated in ? state prisons and jails, these offenders are
unlikely to receive appropriate substance abuse treatment, although the
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment program operated by the Department of
Justice is substantially increasing the availability of treatment in state
prisons. Earlier this year SAMHSA?s Office of Applied Studies issued a
report analyzing whether treatment is provided in correctional settings.
Forty- five percent of state prisons and 68 percent of jails have no
treatment of any kind. 28 More seriously, in most cases where treatment is
provided it is minimal. Only 21. 8% of all prisons provided treatment in
segregated settings, which research shows is the most effective approach.
Finally, please note these studies only address whether there is any
treatment in these facilities- not whether there are enough treatment slots
in these facilities.
?It is estimated that about 70 percent of persons in state prisons need
treatment. Since most are not treated in prison, when they leave prison they
are at extremely high risk of relapse, and are likely to commit crimes again
and again until they are caught and put back into prison, where the cycle
begins all over again.?
During our review, while agreeing that there is a need for more substance
abuse treatment, BJS officials offered a cautionary comment about statistics
that quantify this need. For instance, the officials commented that not all
drug users are addicts. Also, the officials noted that BJS? most recent
(1997) survey of federal and state prison inmates showed that the percent of
alcohol- or drug- involved prisoners- who, since admission to prison,
participated in treatment or other substance programs- increased as the time
to expected release decreased.
As table 7 shows, for example, among the alcohol- or drug- involved federal
inmates, about 20 percent of the inmates serving their final 6 months
reported receiving treatment, compared with 10 percent of the inmates with
more than a year until release.
28 In commenting on a draft of our report in May 2001, SAMHSA officials
emphasized that these percentages were based on 1997 data. Also, the
officials commented that the quoted material, which reports that 68 percent
of jails have no treatment, might exaggerate the lack of treatment in
correctional facilities given that a very low proportion (6 percent) of
federal prisons do not provide treatment.
Page 19 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Table 7: Inmate Participation in Substance Abuse Treatment or Other Programs
in 1997
Time to expected release Treatment a Other programs b Federal prisoners
Greater than 1 year 10.0% 24.2% 6 to 12 months 12.5 28.4 Less than 6 months
20.5 36.9
State prisoners
Greater than 1 year 12.6 31.0 6 to 12 months 16.3 32.4 Less than 6 months
18.6 34.0
Note: These data show inmate participation since admission to prison for
current offense. a Includes residential facilities, professional counseling,
detoxification units, and maintenance drug programs. b Includes self- help
or peer counseling groups and educational or awareness programs.
Source: BJS, Special Report, ?Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and
Federal Prisoners, 1997? (NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.
Generally, in the federal correctional system, an inmate?s preparation for
reintegration is to encompass all three phases of the system. That is, the
process is to begin immediately and extend throughout the in- prison phase
of the offender?s incarceration in a BOP correctional facility, continue
during a transitional period in a community- based halfway house for a
period not to exceed the final 180 days of the sentence, and further
continue after the offender?s release during a 3- to 5- year period of
community supervision by probation officers. BOP oversees inmate activities
during the in- prison phase and the halfway house phase, and U. S. Probation
Offices oversee the community supervision phase.
At the end of 1999, BOP housed 125,682 inmates in 98 correctional
facilities. For the in- prison phase, BOP provides various programs-
including education, work, vocational training, and drug treatment programs-
to help inmates rehabilitate themselves. For example, BOP requires all
federal inmates to work if they are medically able. BOP recognizes that
release preparation begins at initial intake or classification 29 and
encourages inmates to begin preparing for their release
29 In the context of correctional systems, the term ?classification? refers
to the systematic subdivision of inmates into groups on the basis of their
security and program needs. Reintegration
Addressed in Three Phases of Federal Correctional System
In- Prison Phase: BOP Provides Various Programs
Page 20 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
from prison upon their arrival at the institution. Table 8 describes the
programs generally available to inmates during incarceration. As noted in
the previous section of this report, not all federal prisoners participate
in these programs.
According to BOP, providing inmates with such programs not only supports
correctional management purposes, such as minimizing inmate idleness and
increasing the safety of staff, but also prepares inmates for employment
opportunities and successful reintegration upon release. As supporting
evidence, BOP has cited the results of long- term evaluations of its drug
treatment and work training programs. For example:
Drug treatment. In fall 2000, BOP reported that an evaluation of its
residential drug abuse treatment program showed that offenders who completed
the program and had been released to the community for 3 years were less
likely to be rearrested or to be detected for drug use than were similar
inmates who did not participate in the program. The multisite evaluation-
referred to as the TRIAD project (an acronym for ?Treating
Inmates? Addiction to Drugs?)- represented an interagency agreement between
BOP and the National Institute on Drug Abuse. 30
Work training. In a postrelease employment project, BOP evaluated the
impact of prison work experience and vocational and apprenticeship training
on offenders? behavior after release to the community. Begun in 1983, the
evaluation collected data through 1987 on more than 7,000 offenders. On the
basis of the evaluation, BOP concluded that inmates who participated in work
and job skills programs were less likely to be returned to federal prisons-
even as many as 8 to 12 years after being released. 31
30 BOP, Office of Research and Evaluation, ?BOP TRIAD Drug Treatment
Evaluation ThreeYear Outcome Report- Executive Summary? (Sept. 2000). 31
William G. Saylor and Gerald G. Gaes, ?Training Inmates Through Industrial
Work Participation and Vocational and Apprenticeship Instruction,?
Corrections Management Quarterly (Spring 1997), pp. 32- 43.
Page 21 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Table 8: BOP In- Prison Programs for Inmates Program type Program
description
Literacy programs are to allow inmates without a high school diploma (or its
equivalent) to earn a General Equivalency Diploma (GED). Under provisions of
the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (P. L. 104- 134), inmates lacking
high school credentials must participate and make satisfactory progress in
the GED program in order to earn the maximum amount of good time credit,
which may reduce sentence length. According to BOP, 3,962 federal inmates
successfully passed the GED test during the first 9 months of fiscal year
2000. Education
An English- as- a- second- language program is to allow inmates with limited
English fluency skills to achieve at least an eighth grade English
proficiency level. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1990 mandates that
non- English- proficient inmates participate in this program until they
function at the eighth grade level in English competency. According to BOP,
18,852 federal inmates (15 percent of the total federal inmate population)
were eligible for the English fluency program during calendar year 1999.
Work Inmates are to learn job skills in institutional job assignments, such
as food service worker,
orderly, plumber, painter, warehouse worker, or groundskeeper. Also, some
inmates work in Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (UNICOR) factories that
produce, for example, metal products, furniture, electronics, or textiles.
According to BOP, most inmates have institutional job assignments, and the
other inmates work in UNICOR factories- although a small percentage of
inmates have no work assignments due to medical conditions. Occupational or
vocational training BOP reports that it has occupational or vocational
training programs that encompass 86
different skill areas, and inmates are provided with opportunities to
develop work skills by onthe- job training through institution work
assignments and prison industry jobs. For fiscal year 1999, BOP reported
that 8, 711 federal inmates completed at least 1 occupational training
program. Also, as of March 2000, BOP data showed that 9,427 federal inmates
(about 9 percent of total federal inmate population) were enrolled in an
occupational training program. Drug treatment According to BOP, its drug
treatment programs include substance abuse education,
nonresidential substance abuse treatment and counseling, and residential
substance abuse treatment. BOP data indicate that approximately 34 percent
of the total federal inmate population have a diagnosed substance abuse
disorder. For fiscal year 2000, BOP reported that 12, 541 federal inmates
participated in its residential drug abuse treatment program. Mental health
Psychologists are to provide professional diagnosis, counseling, and
treatment on an individual
or group basis. In calendar year 2000, BOP data showed that 14,369 federal
inmates (10 percent of the total federal inmate population) were diagnosed
with a mental health need. Release preparation Designed to help inmates
transition from prison to the community, this program is to offer
courses in six core areas-( 1) health and nutrition, (2) personal growth and
development, (3) personal finance and consumer skills, (4) employment, (5)
release requirements and procedures, and (6) information on community
resources. Beginning approximately 24 months before release, inmates are
encouraged to enroll in and complete at least one course in each core area.
Generally, each core area may offer various courses. For example, the health
and nutrition core area may include courses about disease prevention,
including AIDS awareness, as well as courses about weight management and how
to eat nutritionally. Inmate placement This program is to encourage federal
correctional institutions to plan and hold mock job fairs to
help inmates hone their job search and interview techniques. In addition,
the inmate placement program is to provide job placement services to
inmates, help inmates prepare release folders (which include such documents
as a social security card, education certificates, and vocational
certifications), and help institutions establish onsite employment centers.
According to BOP, between 1996 and 2000, the inmate placement program
conducted 127 mock job fairs at 66 institutions, with approximately 5, 000
inmates participating.
Source: GAO analysis of BOP data.
Page 22 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
The same types of programs as those presented in table 8 are also available
to inmates during their transition back to the community (i. e., during the
inmates? halfway house stay or during the offenders? term of community
supervision). For example, inmates with diagnosed substance abuse addictions
who were receiving treatment in prison are to continue that treatment during
their transitional period at contractor- operated halfway houses and after
release to supervision. Also, inmates who are prescribed medications for
diagnosed mental illness are to leave the institution with a 30- day supply
to begin their halfway house stays.
BOP uses contractor- operated community corrections centers, commonly
referred to as halfway houses, for transitioning inmates from a federal
institution to the community. In 2000, BOP contracted for 282 halfway houses
that provided 6,911 beds and served 18,113 inmates.
Normally, 11 to 13 months before each inmate?s probable release date from a
federal correctional facility, BOP staff are to decide whether the inmate is
eligible or appropriate for halfway house placement. According to BOP, in
calendar year 2000, of the total 40,674 inmates released from a federal
correctional facility, about 55 percent (22,561 inmates) were ineligible or
inappropriate for halfway house placement or were initially deemed eligible
but were not transferred to the halfway house. BOP officials explained this
to us as follows.
Deportable aliens are the largest category of federal inmates ineligible
for halfway house placement. 32 Other ineligible or inappropriate categories
include (1) sex offenders; (2) inmates undergoing inpatient medical,
psychological, or psychiatric treatment; (3) inmates serving sentences of 6
months or less; (4) inmates who refuse to participate in an institution?s
Release Preparation Program; and (5) inmates who pose a significant threat
to the community.
Some of the reasons an eligible inmate may not be transferred to a halfway
house are the inmate?s sentence was too short or a change of plans occurred
that precluded halfway house referral; difficulties were experienced in
relocating the inmate to an appropriate supervision district; or the halfway
house declined to accept the inmate.
32 BOP data indicate that 13, 519 deportable aliens were released from
federal correctional facilities in 2000. Halfway House Phase:
BOP Provides a Transition Period
Page 23 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Under BOP policy, inmates ineligible or inappropriate for halfway house
placement or otherwise not transferred to a halfway house are to complete
their sentences in a federal correctional facility, and a unit team is to
prepare these inmates for life after prison.
In 2000, of the total 40,674 inmates released from a federal correctional
facility, about 45 percent (18, 113 inmates) were transferred to a halfway
house. Generally, the halfway house transition period is not to exceed the
final 180 days of an inmate?s sentence. 33 During this period, the inmate
must find and keep a job, pay a subsistence charge to help defray the cost
of the halfway house stay, 34 continue to participate in applicable drug or
alcohol treatment programs, and follow all other rules and regulations of
the halfway house- or else risk being returned to the BOP institution.
According to BOP officials, approximately 40 percent of inmates living in
halfway houses are enrolled in drug treatment programs. If the inmate
graduated from a federal correctional facility?s residential drug abuse
treatment program, BOP policy requires the inmate to participate in the
halfway house?s drug treatment program.
According to BOP, about 90 percent of inmates successfully complete their
halfway house transition periods and are released from BOP custody and
transferred to probation offices for supervision in the community by
probation officers. The 10 percent of inmates who do not successfully
complete their transitions in a halfway house are returned to federal
institutions because, for example, the inmates refused to find and keep a
job while living in the halfway house, disregarded curfew, or failed a drug
urinalysis test.
Typically, 90 days before releasing an offender for community supervision,
BOP is to notify the U. S. Probation Office in the jurisdiction where the
offender was originally sentenced and where the offender will be supervised,
if different from the sentencing jurisdiction. Once notified, the Probation
Office is to assign a probation officer to the case. Typically, the
probation officer then is to verify or assess the suitability of the
offender?s proposed residence and prospective employment. Just before
release, BOP is to send the Probation Office an updated information packet
on the
33 According to BOP data, the average halfway house stay length was 104 days
in calendar year 2000. 34 This charge is 25 percent of the inmate?s gross
income not to exceed the average daily cost of the halfway house placement.
Page 24 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
offender. The packet is to include, for example, the progress reports of the
offender?s conduct while serving his or her sentence, medical treatment
received (including drug treatment), and the extent of schooling.
As of September 30, 2000, according to AOUSC, there were 2,097 probation
officers appointed by 93 district courts dedicated to supervising 101,081
ex- offenders. AOUSC?s Federal Corrections and Supervision Division- which
has responsibility for general oversight and program support for the federal
probation and pretrial services system- provides policy and program guidance
to probation officers, whose primary responsibility is the community
supervision of federal offenders.
Within 72 hours after being released from BOP custody, each offender under
supervision is to contact a designated probation officer. At this contact,
the probation officer is to conduct an interview, which marks the beginning
of a 60- day period, generally referred to as the ?initial
assessment period.? During this period, a probation officer is expected to
finalize a supervision plan for managing the offender. Under AOUSC
guidelines, a supervision plan should reflect a probation officer?s
responsibilities 35 to (1) enforce the conditions of supervision; (2) reduce
the risk the offender poses to the community; and (3) provide the offender
with access to treatment, such as substance abuse aftercare and mental
health services. 36
Some offenders require more intensive supervision than others because, for
example, they have a substance abuse problem. Still others suffer from more
than one problem, such as offenders with a dual diagnosis of substance abuse
and mental illness. For all such cases, AOUSC policy encourages probation
officers to develop supervision plans to cover multiple treatment modalities
to address all of an offender?s problems. In addition, BOP and AOUSC have
signed an interagency agreement that calls for a continuation of the type of
substance abuse treatment in the community that was provided in prison and
halfway houses and explains the coordination necessary to request the court
to modify the conditions
35 Title 18, section 3583 of the U. S. Code provides for inclusion of a term
of supervised release after imprisonment. Section 3603 specifies the duties
of probation officers. 36 AOUSC, Supervision of Federal Offenders- Monograph
109 (revised Aug. 11, 1993). In March 2001, AOUSC officials told us that
Monograph 109 was currently under revision. Community Supervision
Phase: Probation Officers Are to Assist and Monitor Offenders
Page 25 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
of release. At the time of our review, BOP and AOUSC were in the process of
developing a similar agreement regarding mental health treatment.
To help probation officers determine appropriate levels of supervision and
assess the risks that offenders pose to communities, the Federal Judicial
Center developed a Risk Prediction Index. This tool is to be used to
summarize an offender?s background characteristics relevant to potential
recidivism- characteristics such as the offender?s age, criminal history,
drug use history, education level, family situation, and the outcome of
prior periods of supervision.
Offenders are typically supervised in the community for a period of 3 to 5
years. During this time, the probation officer is expected to maintain an
awareness of the offender?s conduct as well as problems related to family
discord, residence or employment instability, educational deficiencies, or
financial concerns. According to AOUSC:
A probation officer, through timely and active intervention, can reduce
the number of violations and revocations- and equally important, decrease
the risk of danger to the community.
Each probation office has at its disposal a wide variety of supervision
tools and community- based social services to assist offenders with
reintegration issues. 37 These resources can be used, as needed, to address
offenders? needs. For instance, even though probation offices do not have a
GED program, per se, the offices can help offenders locate, register, and
attend classes to obtain a GED.
In the most recent decade, the population of federal offenders under
community supervision increased by 22 percent- from about 83,000 at the end
of fiscal year 1991 to more than 101,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000.
AOUSC projects that the community supervision population, which includes
probationers, parolees, mandatory releasees, and supervised releasees, 38
will increase an additional 21 percent by 2006.
37 Appendix II presents an overview of the supervision tools and community-
based social services available for probation officers to use in assisting
offenders with reintegration. 38 Supervised release is a sentence created by
the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 that requires supervision of
offenders for a term of 3 to 5 years once they are released from prison to
the community.
Page 26 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
In recent years, supervised releasees have been the only growing segment of
the federal community supervision population. Since 1991, the number of
supervised releasees increased more than 400 percent- from about 12,000 at
the end of fiscal year 1991 to about 65,000 at the end of fiscal year 2000.
According to AOUSC:
Increasing numbers of offenders sentenced in recent years to community
supervision following a period of incarceration are more hard core- that is,
more and more have serious criminal histories of violent crimes and weapon
violations.
The increasing population of hard- core offenders under community
supervision poses greater risks to federal officers and the public. Thus,
these offenders require close supervision, which places increased workload
demands on probation officers.
AOUSC projects that increasing numbers of offenders released from federal
prisons in fiscal year 2001 and beyond will be in high- risk supervision
categories that is, offenders with serious criminal histories. This
projection reinforces an observation that we reported in 1997:
?During fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the number of offenders sentenced
with serious criminal histories grew at a significantly greater rate than
did those with less serious criminal histories. Further, available data
suggest that inmates released from BOP prisons in fiscal years 1997 through
2001 may include a greater number of high- risk offenders than did the
population released through fiscal year 1996.? 39
On September 30, 2000, to help address the challenges that the probation
system faces, AOUSC awarded a contract for a comprehensive assessment of how
well the system?s current organizational structure, policies, and practices
support its mission. 40 The study is to be divided into three stages over
approximately 24 months, with a final report expected in late 2002. The
report is to include sections covering the program areas of substance abuse
and mental health. In addition, the report is to address a number of
specific reintegration issues, including the following:
39 Federal Offenders: Trends in Community Supervision (GAO/ GGD- 97- 110,
Aug. 13, 1997), p. 5. 40 AOUSC awarded the contract to
PricewaterhouseCoopers. The Urban Institute and Wooten Associates (a
supervision consulting firm located in Laytonsville, MD) are subcontractors.
Page 27 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Are the probation system?s supervision policies and practices effective?
What percentage of offenders under supervision violate conditions of
release?
How often do offenders successfully complete supervision without
committing new crimes?
Are the federal judiciary?s substance abuse and aftercare programs
effective, and are some better than others?
What has been the experience of other jurisdictions using alternative
structures or approaches, and how do they compare with the current federal
system in terms of effective service delivery and cost?
In addition to the ongoing external assessment, AOUSC recently established
an internal committee to update the agency?s strategy and policy for
reintegrating (i. e., supervising and assisting) offenders newly released to
communities. Also, AOUSC has started a lecture- anddiscussion series to help
create a dialogue with experts in the field of criminal justice. One purpose
of the series is to provide information to a supervision workgroup of
probation officers, supervisors, and AOUSC officials. The workgroup, in
turn, is to develop recommendations for updating pretrial services and
postconviction supervision policies. Further, AOUSC is considering options
for improving the surveillance of sex crime and other offenders under home
confinement. According to AOUSC, these reintegration measures are being
taken to enhance public safety, provide correctional treatment, and help
ensure that offenders comply with conditions of supervision.
DOJ, DOL, and HHS- in response to the large number of offenders being
released from state prisons and returning to communities- are developing a
federal grant program, the ?Young Offender Initiative: Reentry Grant Program
and the Demonstration Grant Program.? Under the Reentry Grant Program
component, applicants are to target a population of young offenders (within
the age range of 14 to 35 years old) returning to the community from
incarceration (minimum of 12 consecutive months for adults, 6 consecutive
months for juveniles) who pose a risk to community safety. The Demonstration
Grant Program component is to fund separate awards for communities to target
young offenders (within the age range of 14 to 24 years old) who are already
involved in the criminal justice system or gangs- or who are at risk of such
involvement.
The goal of the interagency initiative is to help states and communities
work together to improve offender supervision and accountability and
essential support services in order to enhance community safety through
Implementation of the
Young Offender Initiative Is Evolving
Page 28 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
the successful reintegration to the community of high- risk or special- need
offenders released from state prisons, juvenile correctional facilities, and
local facilities housing state prisoners.
For fiscal year 2001, the first year of federal funding for the Young
Offender Initiative,
DOJ designated $30 million to support development of reintegration
programs that are to focus on offender supervision and accountability
through various law enforcement efforts,
DOL designated $55 million to be used for employment and training services
for offenders, and
HHS designated $8 million to provide a continuum of substance abuse and
mental health services for offenders.
By making federal grants available, the goal of the interagency Young
Offender Initiative is to help state and local agencies and communities
develop reintegration programs. 41 Such programs are intended to reduce
recidivism by allowing grant recipients to create broad- based state and
local partnerships to provide a combination of surveillance, sanctions,
incentives, and support services for offenders.
Under the Young Offender Initiative, interagency resources are to jointly
target the same communities, especially areas with high concentrations of
returning offenders. And communities are to be encouraged to target
offenders who pose significant public safety risks and who are likely to
benefit from structured interventions. According to DOJ:
Special emphasis is to be placed on high- risk offenders returning to the
community from incarceration (minimum 12 consecutive months for adults and 6
consecutive months for juveniles).
Also, a focus is to be given to offenders with special needs, such as
those who need job training or substance abuse treatment, as well as those
diagnosed with both substance abuse and mental illness disorders.
41 According to an Office of Justice Programs (OJP) official, nonprofit
organizations may be eligible for Young Offender Initiative grants if the
organizations are partnered with the appropriate state and local agencies.
Focus on High- Risk
Offenders and Communities
Page 29 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Resources are to be targeted to offenders 14 to 35 years of age because
this group accounts for a large portion of the offender reentry population
at risk.
However, resources also are to be used for assisting a select number of
jurisdictions in developing reentry programs for youth in custody of the
juvenile justice system.
In May 2001, in commenting on a draft of this report, SAMHSA provided us
with information explaining that inmates with certain impairments or
deficits will require extensive planning for aftercare following release
from correctional facilities. SAMHSA noted, for example, a need to focus on
individuals who have neurological impairments caused by fetal
alcoholassociated brain damage and individuals who have two or more physical
and/ or mental disorders occurring simultaneously, such as substance abuse
and diabetes. Regarding impairments due to prenatal alcohol exposure,
according to SAMHSA:
Empirical evidence suggests that afflicted individuals are at heightened
risk for involvement with the criminal justice system.
Such offenders, whether male or female, are multi- problem individuals who
have great difficulty living independently; thus, aftercare should be
extended as long as possible.
Generally, SAMHSA emphasized that high- risk offenders probably will need
comprehensive services that include, among others, educational help, job
training, and substance abuse and mental health treatment.
DOJ, DOL, and HHS have joint responsibility for developing solicitations for
grant applications from jurisdictions interested in applying for federal
funds available under the Young Offender Initiative. The first solicitation-
for the Reentry Grant Program component of the Young Offender Initiative-
was issued June 1, 2001. Applications are to be submitted to DOJ by October
1, 2001. To ensure quality applications in response to the solicitation, the
federal agencies anticipate holding a preapplication workshop and using
other means to respond to questions that prospective applicants have
regarding the Initiative?s goals, program elements, and other reentry-
related issues. Also, the agencies anticipate jointly selecting grantees and
making awards. According to the solicitation, approximately $79 million is
available to fund approximately 25 grants of up to $3.1 million each to
applicants that demonstrate a collaborative effort and broad- based
community support. Joint Efforts for
Developing Grant Solicitations and Selecting Applicants
Page 30 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
A second solicitation- for the Demonstration Grant Program component of the
Young Offender Initiative- is to be issued at a future date. According to
the federal agencies, this grant program will fund separate awards totaling
up to $11.5 million for communities to target young offenders within the age
range of 14 to 24 years old.
Applicants may apply for awards under both solicitations. However, according
to the federal agencies, applicants are to be eligible to receive only one
award for the same or similar target populations.
Generally, according to DOJ, the expectation is that the federal funds will
be used to establish broad- based coalitions to support the reintegration of
offenders. In establishing such reintegration coalitions, grant applicants
may use various models or approaches, including, for example, reentry
partnerships, reentry courts, and juvenile reentry programs. Generally,
these models or approaches are reflected in the pilot projects that preceded
and contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative. 42
Reentry partnerships are to have representatives from numerous entities,
such as state, local, or tribal law enforcement agencies (including
corrections agencies); businesses, municipalities, and faith- based groups;
and other governmental and community organizations. The partners are to work
together to develop and implement reentry plans for offenders scheduled for
release. The plans are to encompass a network of community resources,
including, for example, employment and treatment resources. One or more of
the partnering entities are to take the lead in managing the reentry
process. However, to ensure accountability and supervision, law enforcement
agencies are to be required partners.
42 Appendix III provides information about various (1) pilot projects that
preceded and contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative and
(2) legislative proposals that would provide federal grants to states and
local communities, similar to the Young Offender Initiative. Various Models
or
Approaches for Reintegration Programs
Reentry Partnerships
Page 31 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Reentry courts- similar in concept to drug courts 43 -are to help reduce
recidivism and improve public safety through the use of judicial oversight
of returning offenders. For instance, reentry courts are to
review offenders? reentry progress and problems,
order offenders to participate in various treatment and reintegration
programs,
use drug and alcohol testing and other checks to monitor compliance,
apply graduated sanctions to offenders who do not comply with treatment
requirements, and
provide modest incentive rewards for sustained clean drug tests and other
positive behaviors.
Juvenile reentry programs are to address the public safety concerns and
needs of youth in custody of the juvenile justice system. Jurisdictions
receiving grants to develop juvenile reentry programs are to use either a
reentry partnership or a reentry court approach. Law enforcement agencies,
including juvenile justice correctional agencies, are to be required
partners in the reentry programs.
Under current plans, in order to fully assess reentry programs to identify
what works, the Young Offender Initiative is to have a national evaluation
component. According to an OJP official, a contract for national evaluation
probably would be awarded to an external research entity, as was done for
the ongoing national evaluations of the various pilot projects that preceded
and contributed to formulating the Young Offender Initiative. 44 For
example, in October 2000, NIJ contracted with the University of Maryland?s
Bureau of Governmental Research to evaluate eight pilot reentry
partnerships.
Regarding the prospective national evaluation of the Young Offender
Initiative, the OJP official explained that
43 A drug court is a special court given the responsibility to handle cases
involving less serious drug- using offenders through supervision and
treatment programs, which include frequent drug testing; judicial and
probation supervision; drug counseling, treatment, and educational
opportunities; and the use of sanctions and incentives. See Drug Courts:
Information on a New Approach to Address Drug- Related Crime (GAO/ GGD- 95-
159BR, May
22, 1995) and Drug Courts: Overview of Growth, Characteristics, and Results
(GAO/ GGD- 97- 106, July 31, 1997). 44 The pilot projects are discussed in
appendix III. Reentry Courts
Juvenile Reentry Programs An Evaluation Component to Identify What Works
Page 32 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
tentative plans call for all sites, involving a total of about 25 grant
awards, to be included in the national evaluation and
because all sites are to be part of the national evaluation, each grant
recipient will be expected to collect and report a core set of data.
In reference to core data requirements, the OJP official said that the
participating federal agencies- DOJ, DOL, and HHS- were engaged in
continuing discussions and that final decisions were not expected before
fall 2001.
We provided a draft of this report for comment to DOJ, DOL, HHS, and AOUSC.
During the period May 17- 30, 2001, we received written or oral comments
from all of these agencies.
On May 24, 2001, DOJ?s Audit Liaison Office (Justice Management Division)
provided us with a written response indicating that the draft had been
reviewed by representatives of OJP, BOP, and the Criminal Division. DOJ
generally agreed with the substance of the draft and provided various
technical clarifications and updated information, which we incorporated in
this report where appropriate. Also, a representative of NIJ- a component of
OJP- commented essentially as follows regarding inmates? need for drug
treatment:
Estimates showing that most inmates need drug treatment are based on the
results of BJS survey questions to inmates about their drug use.
BOP has used other questions from the federal inmate survey to approximate
the DSM- IV 45 criteria applicable to determining substance abuse and
dependence to produce an estimate of 34 percent of inmates who ?need?
treatment, that is, have a diagnosable condition.
While the scope of our work did not include reviewing DSM- IV criteria, we
acknowledge that there can be a distinction between regular drug use and
drug addiction. Also, there can be multiple methods- including selfreporting
and diagnostic assessments- for determining what percentages of inmate
populations need treatment for substance abuse. Each of these methods has
limitations and may not produce a ?right? percentage.
45 American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders - Fourth Edition (DSM- IV), Washington, D. C., 1994. The
manual is the main diagnostic reference of mental health professionals in
the United States. Agency Comments
Page 33 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Nonetheless, there is general recognition that the need for substance abuse
treatment exceeds the availability of existing programs, particularly in
reference to state prisons. For example, at a congressional hearing in
October 2000, a SAMHSA representative testified that 45 percent of state
prisons had no treatment of any kind.
In further commenting on a draft of this report, the NIJ representative
noted the following regarding recidivism:
No one really knows what the recidivism rate is in the United States,
although the rate presumably is around 40 to 50 percent.
The 1994 BOP report on recidivism was based on a sample of inmates
released in 1987. There are now many more drug offenders in federal custody,
and it is unclear how they compare with those who were in federal prisons in
the 1980s.
Also, BJS? 1997 survey of inmates reveals next to nothing about recidivism
rates, given that many of these inmates have been in prison for many years
and may have many years yet to serve.
As indicated previously, we found no national recidivism studies that were
both current and comprehensive, although available studies indicated that
recidivism rates historically have been about 40 percent. The 1994 BOP study
was the most current study we identified that focused specifically on
recidivism of prisoners released from federal prisons. The 1994 study, which
now is somewhat dated, nonetheless was comprehensive in that it was based on
a representative sample of federal inmates released in 1987. To reiterate,
the 1994 study found that within 3 years of being released from BOP, about
41 percent of the 1987 releasees had either been rearrested or had their
parole revoked. Regarding drug offenders in federal custody, the scope of
our work did not include comparing current inmate populations and
characteristics with those of the 1980s. We do note, however, that BJS data
show that drug prosecutions constitute an increasing proportion of the
federal criminal caseload, rising from 21 percent of defendants in cases
terminating in U. S. district court during fiscal year 1982 to 36 percent
during fiscal year 1999. Regarding BJS? 1997 survey of inmates, we
acknowledge that the survey is not a study of recidivism, per se. But the
survey results are relevant and informative in that they tend to reinforce
the perspective that recidivism rates are high. For example, the survey
results showed that 40 percent of federal and 55 percent of state prison
inmates in 1997 had one or more prior incarcerations.
Page 34 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
In another comment on a draft of this report, the NIJ representative
questioned the statistical validity of using BJS? 1997 data to calculate
prison program participation percentages for inmates scheduled to be
released within 12 months (see table 5). We conducted these analyses at the
suggestion of knowledgeable BJS staff. Also, in preparing to conduct the
analyses, we discussed the design of our work with the BJS staff, who had
earlier used the 1997 survey data to analyze inmate participation in
substance abuse treatment programs. Specifically, as presented in a January
1999 report, BJS analyzed program participation in reference to time
expected to release- less than 6 months, 6 to 12 months, and greater than 1
year. 46 See table 7 for a summary of BJS? analysis.
On May 30, 2001, DOL provided us with oral comments. These comments
generally were technical clarifications and updated information, which we
incorporated in this report where appropriate.
On May 18 and 30, 2001, we received written comments from SAMHSA, a
component of HHS. These comments were mainly technical clarifications and
updated or additional information, which we incorporated in this report
where appropriate. Regarding high- risk offenders, for example, SAMHSA
provided information explaining that inmates with certain impairments or
deficits- for example, individuals with neurological impairments caused by
fetal alcohol- associated brain damage- will require extensive planning for
aftercare following release from correctional facilities. Also, SAMHSA noted
the following:
Regarding co- occurring disorders in prison populations, applicable
inmates should receive treatment for both substance abuse and mental
illness; recidivism can be expected to be higher if only one problem is
addressed.
The sheer number of people in state prisons and jails with mental illness
and dual diagnoses dwarfs the number in federal prisons.
The National Commission on Correctional Healthcare has developed standards
for mental health and substance abuse treatment in prisons, jails, and
juvenile justice settings. On May 17, 2001, we received written comments
from AOUSC. Overall, AOUSC said that the draft report accurately described
the judiciary?s
46 BJS Special Report, ?Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal
Prisoners, 1997? (NCJ 172871, Jan. 1999), p. 9.
Page 35 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
reintegration programs. Also, AOUSC provided technical clarifications, which
we incorporated in this report where appropriate.
We are providing copies of this report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member, Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts, Senate
Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Youth
Violence, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking
Minority Member, Subcommittee on Crime, House Committee on the Judiciary;
the Attorney General; the Secretary of Labor; the Secretary of Health and
Human Services; the Director of BOP; and the Director of AOUSC. We will also
make copies available to others on request.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report or wish to discuss
it further, please contact me at (202) 512- 8777 or Danny R. Burton at (214)
777- 5600. Other key contributors are acknowledged in appendix IV.
Laurie E. Ekstrand Director, Justice Issues
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 36 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Our review focused on the following questions:
What are the trends in the number of inmates released from federal and
state prisons and the extent of recidivism?
On the basis of available research, what is known about sentence length
and the criminal and drug use histories of federal and state prison inmates
and about the extent to which inmates participate in educational,
vocational, drug treatment, or other programs designed to address offenders?
needs or otherwise help offenders reintegrate into society?
Within the federal correctional system?s three phases-( 1) the in- prison
phase, which is sometimes called the prerelease phase; (2) the transitional
or halfway house phase, which involves placement in a community- based
facility; and (3) the community supervision phase, in which probation
officers assist and monitor releasees- what are the programs for preparing
and assisting offenders with reintegrating into communities?
What is the status of the Young Offender Initiative, a federal interagency
initiative that would provide federal grants to assist states and local
communities with reintegrating offenders released from state prisons,
juvenile correctional facilities, and local facilities housing state
prisoners? 1
In addressing these questions- and to obtain historical and contemporary
perspectives- we reviewed a variety of reports and studies on correctional
treatment or programming for inmates and offenders under community
supervision. The literature presented a variety of conclusions or
observations ranging from ?nothing works? to ?some things work for some
types of offenders and more research is needed.? We did not attempt to
systematically or thoroughly review the literature to synthesize research
results regarding the efficacy of correctional treatment or programming. We
do, however, provide references to research studies or other source
documents we used in addressing the objectives of this review.
To determine trends in the number of inmates released from federal and state
prisons and the extent of recidivism, we used data collected or published by
two agencies- the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and the Bureau of
Prisons (BOP). More specifically, regarding number of inmates released, we
obtained information from BJS? series of publications on
1 The full name of the interagency initiative is ?Young Offender Initiative:
Reentry Grant Program and the Demonstration Grant Program,? which is being
designed to target offenders within the age range of 14 to 35 years.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology Objectives
Scope and Methodology
Trends in Prisoner Releases and Recidivism
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 37 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
correctional populations and national prisoner statistics. Similarly,
regarding recidivism, we extracted information from relevant BJS and BOP
reports. According to BJS and BOP officials, at the time of our review,
these reports were the most current studies of recidivism they had
conducted. Further, although not a study of recidivism, per se, we reviewed
data from BJS? most recent survey of prison inmates, conducted in 1997,
which collected extensive demographic data, including information on prior
sentences and prior incarcerations.
Also, as suggested to us by a BJS official, we contacted the New York State
Department of Correctional Services to discuss its research or studies of
recidivism regarding inmates released from that state?s correctional
facilities (see p. 11).
Regarding sentence length, criminal and drug use histories, and inmate
participation in prison programs, we summarized selected information from
the results of BJS? most recent (1997) survey of inmates in federal and
state prisons. An overview of the scope of BJS? survey is as follows:
The survey population consisted of 91 federally owned and operated
facilities and 1,409 state prisons that held sentenced inmates as of June
30, 1996- 89,072 sentenced inmates in the custody of federal facilities and
1,059,607 inmates in state correctional facilities.
From this population, the final survey sample selection consisted of 40
federal facilities and 275 state facilities.
At the selected facilities, inmate interviews were conducted from June to
October 1997. A total of 4,041 federal inmates and 14,285 state inmates were
interviewed regardless of the inmates? sentence length.
On the basis of the survey sample data, BJS used weighting factors to
yield national estimates of the characteristics of the federal and state
prison populations at the middle of 1997.
Based on generalized variance estimates provided by BJS, all of the national
estimates that we present in this report are surrounded by a 95percent
confidence interval of plus or minus 5 percentage points or less.
To obtain additional perspectives on substance abuse treatment in federal
and state prisons, we reviewed data compiled by the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) of the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS). In 1997, at the request of the Office of National
Drug Control Policy, SAMHSA designed and conducted the first Sentence
Length, Criminal
and Drug Use Histories, and Participation in Prison Programs
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 38 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
national survey of substance abuse treatment services in adult and juvenile
correctional facilities.
To obtain an overview of federal correctional system programs, we reviewed
BOP?s currently applicable guidance documents covering relevant in- prison
and halfway house programs and functions. Similarly, at the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC), we reviewed currently applicable
guidance used by probation officers for supervising offenders in the
community.
We interviewed responsible BOP officials at headquarters and at two field
locations in Texas: the South Central Regional Office in Dallas, which is
one of BOP?s six regional offices, and the Federal Corrections Institution
at Seagoville, which we toured. We selected these locations because our
assigned staff were based in Dallas. Further, we interviewed staff of BOP?s
contractor- operated halfway house in Hutchins, TX. We also toured this
facility.
To better understand the problems and challenges of supervising federal
offenders in communities, we reviewed various reports and studies, including
two BJS special reports: Federal Offenders under Community Supervision,
1987- 1996 (NCJ 168636, Aug. 1998) and Offenders Returning to Federal
Prison, 1986- 1997 (NCJ 182991, Sept. 2000). Also, in Washington, D. C., we
interviewed officials at AOUSC, the Federal Judicial Center, the U. S.
Sentencing Commission, and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Further, we
interviewed probation officers in the U. S. Probation Office in the Northern
District of Texas.
Regarding the status of the Young Offender Initiative, we contacted
officials at the three federal departments- DOJ, Department of Labor (DOL),
and HHS- participating in the Initiative. These officials provided us with
information on the Young Offender Initiative?s purposes and components, as
well as the various pilot projects that preceded and contributed to
formulating the Young Offender Initiative. Further, we discussed with DOJ,
DOL, and HHS officials the amounts and uses of federal funds designated for
the Young Offender Initiative and the plans for interagency management of
the funds and grant activities.
In addition to interviewing responsible federal officials, we reviewed
budget submissions, appropriations bills, and other available documentation
that provided information on the status of the Young Offender Initiative.
For example, among other sources, we reviewed the Federal Correctional
System Reintegration Programs
Status of the Young Offender Initiative
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 39 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Proposed FY 2001 Offender Reentry Initiative Preliminary Plan (Dec. 21,
2000), which was prepared by DOJ?s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and
submitted to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees in response to a
requirement in the explanatory language of the conference report for H. R.
4942.
Also, we reviewed a Web site (www. ojp. usdoj. gov/ reentry) established by
OJP that is dedicated to providing reentry information. The Web site
includes an electronic link so that individuals can subscribe to the
?Reentry Report,? which is a quarterly newsletter published to facilitate
information sharing among reentry initiatives sponsored by OJP. The Web site
also provides descriptions of reentry initiatives in participating states.
We reviewed these descriptions; however, we did not physically visit any of
these reentry locations to make first- hand observations.
Finally, to provide a broader contextual perspective, we identified and
reviewed four recent legislative proposals that would provide federal grants
to local communities (similar to the Young Offender Initiative). Two of the
legislative proposals (S. 2908 and H. R. 5563) were introduced during the
106th Congress, and the other two proposals (S. 194 and S. 304) were
introduced in the 107th Congress.
Appendix II: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers
Page 40 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
To assist offenders with reintegration issues, AOUSC policy encourages
federal probation officers to develop individualized supervision plans
through the use of appropriate supervision tools and community- based social
services. Table 9 presents examples of the various resources- tools and
services- used by federal probation officers to assist offenders with
reintegration issues.
According to AOUSC officials:
Approximately 3,000 local vendors provide a variety of services, such as
vocational training, literacy and educational training, drug- and
alcoholabuse treatment, and mental health treatment.
Through national contracts, vendors provide urine testing services and
electronic monitoring equipment and monitoring services. Vendors do not
directly supervise offenders. Rather, the monitoring done by vendors is
limited, for example, to alerting probation officers that the monitoring
equipment has been tampered with or that the person has left the designated
areas.
Probation officers perform all the direct supervision services, including,
for instance, using a portable (? drive- by?) electronic monitoring unit to
detect whether an offender wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of a
designated location.
Table 9: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers Tools and services Description
Basic services Probation officers may need to help offenders obtain
services, such as welfare and food stamps, to meet basic needs. Officers
also may make arrangements for emergency temporary housing and financial
assistance for the purchase of necessities, such as food, clothing,
medicine, and child care. In addition, referrals may be made to anger
management, parenting, and money management counseling services. Also,
transportation may be arranged for offenders to travel to and from treatment
facilities, vocational training, or placement programs. Employment
assistance Probation officers may refer offenders for testing and work
skills evaluations,
preemployment training, classroom training, and skill- development community
service placements. Also, probation officers may make direct referrals to
employment or job placement agencies. Further, medical examinations may be
obtained to determine employment suitability. Literacy, education, and
vocational training Literacy, GED, and vocational training programs are
available, as is access to higher
education institutions. According to AOUSC, stipends are available for
clients attending such programs. Diagnostic assessment of substance abuse A
formal substance abuse assessment may be conducted by a licensed
professional. The
assessment may include a comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing,
followed by a prognosis report and treatment plan. Detoxification services
Probation officers may request inpatient and outpatient detoxification
services. Such
services may include, for example, a physical examination and report;
medication, such as methadone, antabuse, or trexan; laboratory work; and
residential placement.
Appendix II: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers
Appendix II: Supervision Tools and Community- Based Social Services Used by
Federal Probation Officers
Page 41 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Tools and services Description
Substance abuse treatment Educational, counseling, residential, and medical
approaches to treatment are available to address substance abuse problems of
varying types and seriousness. These approaches or programs include
substance abuse prevention and treatment readiness groups; individual,
family, and group substance abuse counseling; intensive outpatient group or
individual treatment; short- term residential treatment; longer term
placement in a therapeutic community setting; and methadone maintenance.
Drug detection Probation officers and service providers may collect urine
specimens, which are sent for
analysis to a national laboratory under contract with AOUSC. On- site drug
testing laboratories are utilized in some districts to analyze specimens and
provide results in less than 1 hour. Hand- held, portable drug- testing
devices are also used to produce results in 5 to 10 minutes. Further, in
conjunction with other testing methods, a sweat patch may be used to detect
the presence of drugs in perspiration. Alcohol detection Hand- held
breathalyzers and saliva swabs can be used to detect alcohol use. In some
districts, remote alcohol detection equipment- connected to a telephone
line- is used to measure the alcohol content in a breath sample and
immediately transmit the results over the telephone line. Also, some
districts use a vehicle ignition lock device, which links a breathalyzer to
an offender?s vehicle. The ignition cannot be started unless the offender
blows into the device and registers a breath alcohol content level below a
prescribed point. Diagnostic assessment for mental health Probation officers
may arrange for psychological and psychiatric evaluations, which
include comprehensive diagnostic interview and testing, followed by a
prognosis report and a treatment plan. Mental health treatment Mental health
services include individual, family, and group counseling and prescriptions
for psychotropic medication. Community and home confinement A probation
officer may recommend that the court require an offender to reside in a
community corrections center or to remain in his or her residence for all or
part of the day. Both of these options are used as alternatives to
incarceration, permitting the officer to work with the offender in the
community. Community service Probation officers may use a variety of civic,
nonprofit, public, and private organizations to
place offenders required to perform community service. Such placements are
generally designed to (1) benefit the community and may also include
elements that use any special skills the offender may possess, (2) enhance
the offender?s awareness of the consequences of his or her actions, and (3)
sharpen the offender?s employment skills. Sex offender treatment Sex
offender management includes the use of polygraph examinations and penile
plethysmograph testing, as well as special sex offender therapy programs.
Remote location verification Continuously signaling electronic monitoring
devices may be used to monitor compliance
with a home confinement condition. This tool is used to detect, for example,
whether an offender wearing a tamper- resistant transmitter ?bracelet? is
within 150 feet of a monitoring device attached to a telephone in the home.
In driving by a particular location, a probation officer may use a portable
(? drive- by?) electronic monitoring unit to detect whether an offender
wearing a bracelet is within 300 feet of that location. An automated
telephone contact system that combines caller identification and voice
verification technology may be used to determine whether an offender is at a
particular location. Also, according to AOUSC, global positioning systems
that use the military?s satellite network are being fieldtested for use in
remote location verifications.
Source: AOUSC data.
Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals
Page 42 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
This appendix discusses (1) various pilot projects that preceded and
contributed to formulating the Young Offender Initiative and (2) four
legislative proposals (S. 2908, H. R. 5563, S. 194, and S. 304) that address
prisoner reintegration.
Eight pilot reentry partnerships and nine pilot reentry courts preceded and
contributed to formulation of the Young Offender Initiative. These 17
pilots, which were planned or implemented before fiscal year 2001, were
initiated largely with state and local resources, with some technical
assistance support from OJP. According to DOJ officials, the various pilot
sites may be eligible to apply for funding under the Young Offender
Initiative when the grant solicitation period becomes effective.
In May 1999, state correctional administrators from several sites met with
DOJ representatives to discuss reentry challenges and approaches. The site
representatives discussed, for instance, the profiles of returning offenders
in their communities, existing reentry efforts, and approaches to building
collaborations to support reentry. Subsequently, according to OJP, a number
of jurisdictions interested in exploring reentry management developed
concept papers, and OJP offered to provide technical assistance support for
eight pilot reentry partnerships (see table 10).
Table 10: Pilot Reentry Partnerships (Sites and Target Populations) State
Site Target population
Florida Lake City (Columbia County) Offenders returning to Columbia County.
As of October 2000, 50 inmates from across the state had been selected to
participate in the initial reentry partnership group. Maryland Baltimore (3
neighborhoods) Male offenders returning to target site. Massachusetts Lowell
Offenders released upon completion of their sentences with no
supervised release requirement Missouri ZIP codes with Weed and Seed a sites
Male and female offenders with children under 18 years of age returning
to the target sites. Nevada Clark County (ZIP codes with Weed and
Seed sites) Offenders returning to the target sites. South Carolina Columbia
(specific ZIP codes) Offenders released to the target sites under
supervision. Vermont Burlington (Old North End neighborhood) Offenders
furloughed to the target site. Washington Spokane (specific ZIP codes) High-
risk offenders released to the target site from one of four institutions.
a Weed and Seed is a community- based multiagency program to ?weed out?
crime from targeted neighborhoods and then ?seed? the sites with a variety
of programs and resources to prevent crime from recurring. See Federal
Grants: More Can Be Done to Improve Weed and Seed Program Management (GAO/
GGD- 99- 110, July 16, 1999).
Source: OJP.
Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals
Pilot Projects That Preceded the Young Offender Initiative
Eight Pilot Reentry Partnerships
Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals
Page 43 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
In September 1999, OJP announced a ?call for concept papers? from
jurisdictions ?willing to test the concept of a reentry court.? According to
an OJP official, this outreach effort gave applicants the flexibility to
target juvenile populations, if desired. The announcement also stated that
selected jurisdictions would be invited to participate in three technical
assistance cluster meetings- with the first anticipated in February 2000-
over a 15- month period to discuss issues, approaches, progress, and
challenges; and
while there is no programmatic funding available, OJP will cover travel
expenses for the cluster meetings and offer technical assistance to the
selected sites.
Of the 21 proposals received from jurisdictions throughout the country, OJP
selected nine (see table 11). As indicated, one of the pilot reentry courts
(West Virginia) was to target juvenile offenders.
Table 11: Pilot Reentry Courts (Sites and Target Populations) State Site
Target population
California San Francisco Sheriff?s Department Violent felony offenders whose
state sentences were suspended in lieu of county jail time and lengthy
postrelease supervision. As of April 2000, the site plans to oversee 12
offenders per month. Colorado El Paso County High- and low- level offenders
with substance abuse problems and mental
illness. As of April 2000, program plans called for serving 30 to 60
parolees. Delaware Superior Court, New Castle County Offenders sentenced to
community service as a condition of release. As of
September 2000, 18 offenders had entered the program. Delaware Delaware
Superior Court, Sussex County Domestic violence offenders sentenced to
community service as a condition of
release and who are at risk of re- offending. As of September 2000, 18
offenders had begun the program. Florida Broward County, Florida Drug Court
Nonviolent third- degree felons with substance abuse problems.
Department of Corrections- Des Moines Offenders discharged from prison
without community supervision. Department of Corrections- Waterloo Offenders
with dual diagnoses of substance abuse and mental illness. Iowa
Department of Corrections- Cedar Rapids/ Iowa City Offenders with mental
health disorders. Kentucky Louisville/ Jefferson County and
Lexington/ Fayette County Probationers with substance abuse problems. New
York Division of Parole, Harlem Nonviolent parolees sentenced for drug
possession or sale who are Harlem
residents. Ohio Richland County, Adult Probation
Department Offenders subject to postrelease control supervision or judicial
release. As of April 2000, program plans called for targeting up to 90
postrelease control
offenders and approximately 110 judicial release offenders returning to
Richland County. West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and
Public Safety, Division of Juvenile Affairs
Violent juvenile offenders who will be released in certain counties. As of
September 2000, three 16- year- old offenders were enrolled.
Source: OJP.
Nine Pilot Reentry Courts
Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals
Page 44 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
In October 2000, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded a grant to
the University of Maryland?s Bureau of Governmental Research to evaluate the
eight pilot reentry partnerships. According to NIJ, the grantee plans to
complete the evaluation and submit its evaluation report to NIJ by fall or
winter 2001.
Also, at the time of our review, NIJ was still in the process of selecting a
contractor to evaluate the nine pilot reentry courts. NIJ anticipated that
the evaluation would start in October 2001 and last about a year.
In addition, some of the pilot reentry partnerships and pilot reentry courts
have begun self- evaluation efforts. According to an OJP official, as
volunteer participants, the pilot reentry partnerships and pilot reentry
courts were not required to conduct self- evaluations, but OJP encouraged
the pilot participants to track their progress so that mid- course
corrections, if needed, could be made.
In the 106th Congress, two bills were introduced that addressed prisoner
reintegration. In July 2000, Senator Joseph Biden introduced the ?Offender
Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2000? (S. 2908) and in October 2000,
Representative Henry Hyde introduced an identical bill (H. R. 5563) before
the House of Representatives. Neither of these bills was enacted during the
106th Congress.
Also, in the 107th Congress, two bills that address prisoner reintegration
were introduced. In January 2001, Senator Biden reintroduced the
?Offender Reentry and Community Safety Act of 2001? (S. 194). In February
2001, Senator Orrin Hatch introduced S. 304, the ?Drug Abuse Education,
Prevention, and Treatment Act of 2001?; Title VI of the bill is the ?Program
for Successful Reentry of Criminal Offenders into Local Communities.? As of
May 2001, neither of these bills had been enacted.
These bills seek to address the public safety threats of offenders returning
to communities by providing funding to
establish projects in several federal judicial districts, the District of
Columbia, and BOP, using new strategies and emerging technologies to help
successfully reintegrate released offenders into the community;
establish court- based programs to monitor released offenders, using court
sanctions to promote positive behavior;
establish state offender reentry projects, using government and community
partnerships; Evaluation of Pilot
Projects Legislative Proposals
Appendix III: Pilot Reentry Projects and Legislative Proposals
Page 45 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
establish intensive aftercare projects for juvenile offenders; and
evaluate these reentry programs to determine their effectiveness. S. 2908,
H. R. 5563, and S. 194 would authorize, over 5 fiscal years (2001 through
2005), approximately $6 million to BOP, $18.7 million to the federal
judiciary, and $23.6 million to the Court Services and Offender Supervision
Agency of the District of Columbia. Also under S. 2908 and H. R. 5563, grant
funding totaling $60 million annually for fiscal years 2001 and 2002- plus
any sums necessary for fiscal years 2003 through 2005- would be available to
local grantees. Under S. 194, grant funding totaling $60 million annually
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003- plus any sums necessary for fiscal years
2004 through 2006- would be available to local grantees. Under all three
bills (S. 2908, H. R. 5563, and S. 194), the $60 million would be provided
to local grantees as follows: $40 million would be used to establish adult
offender state and local reentry partnerships; $10 million would be used to
establish state and local reentry courts; $5 million would be used to
establish juvenile offender state and local reentry programs; and $5 million
would be used to conduct reentry program research, development, and
evaluation.
S. 304 would authorize, over 3 fiscal years (2002 through 2004),
approximately $3.4 million to BOP, $11.2 million to the federal judiciary,
and $13.9 million to the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency of
the District of Columbia. Also under S. 304, grant funding of $47 million
for fiscal year 2002- plus any sums necessary for fiscal years 2003 and
2004- would be available to local grantees. Of this $47 million, $40 million
would be used to establish adult offender state and local reentry
partnerships; $5 million would be used to establish juvenile offender state
and local reentry programs; and $2 million would be used to conduct reentry
program research, development, and evaluation. No grant funding would be
provided to establish state and local reentry courts under S. 304.
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 46 GAO- 01- 483 Prisoner Release Trends and Reintegration Programs
Laurie E. Ekstrand, (202) 512- 8777 Danny R. Burton (214) 777- 5600
In addition to the above, David P. Alexander, Ann H. Finley, Michael H.
Little, Donna M. Leiss, Mary K. Muse, Ronald J. Salo, Andrea Sellers,
Douglas M. Sloane, Susan Wallace, and Ellen T. Wolfe made key contributions
to this report. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments
(182095)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***