Dismas House Research Paper

The need for a substance abuse recovery home in Starke County, Indiana is a need that is unmistakable in the county based on the hefty number of individuals that suffer from substance abuse and dependency in the county which is clearly displayed by the recent number of crimes that are related to or involve illicit and prescription drugs. In attempt to meet this need and create an opportunity for individuals suffering from substance abuse and dependency to receive local substance abuse treatment in a recovery home the proposal will be presented to several stakeholders within the Starke County community. The term stakeholder “refers to those people who are affected, or could be affected, by the service” (Canadian Career Development Foundation, n.d.) that is being proposed. The proposal for the creation of a substance abuse recovery home will be presented to five key stakeholders including Ms. Becky Anspach the director of Community Services of Starke County, Starke County Community Corrections director of operations Mr. Robert Hinojosa, Ms. Dee Lynch the director of the Indiana Department of Child Services of Starke County, Porter Starke Services facilitator of intensive outpatient program treatment (IOP), and Ms. Rhonda Adcock the director of Starke County CASA.

In the United States, each day approximately 1,600 adults are released from state and federal penitentiaries to reintegrate back into the community (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013). Reentry programs have been created all over the nation to help offenders successfully transition from prison into society. Offenders are confronted with numerous obstacles when attempting to reintegrate back into society. Ninety-five percent of offenders are released to reintegrate back into the community (Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2013). Upon release, ex-offenders realize that despite the fact that they are no longer incarcerated, they face many restrictions. The restorative justice development rose to address the disappointment of the criminal justice framework to manage victims, offenders, and communities in an integrated way. A core focus of this development has been to expand the role of the community in advocating changes that will avert the issues and conditions related with crime and the demand for a criminal justice intervention (Hass & Saxon, 2012).

During the past decade, there has been a newly found interest in prisoner reentry. This is due to a change in many of the factors surrounding the release of convicted felons and their reentry into to the community (Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. 2003). The number of people incarcerated in the United States prisons has quintupled and correctional facilities are working on getting them back into the community. Over half of the convicted felons that are released from prison return to correctional systems within one year of their release date. One of the most common reasons for their return into the prison systems is because many

Community Based Corrections programs, also known as halfway houses or Residential Reentry facilities, were established as an alternative for prisoners to complete their term of incarceration in a community setting. Residential Reentry facilities provide a structured environment for low, minimum, and high-risk offenders while allowing them to integrate back into society. Specifically, Residential Reentry facilities provide offenders the opportunity to gain employment, establish financial responsibility, and obtain suitable housing. With the overcrowding of prisons, the ability to participate in Community Based Correction programs enables the convicted criminals as well as prison staff to lessen the loads that come with working in a prison as well as improve the lifestyle that comes with incarceration. As with all things in life, there are positive as well as negative outcomes to the participation of these convicted criminals in community-based programs. In viewing the positive and negative outcomes, the end

Reintegration’s goal is to use the time criminals spend under correctional supervision as a means to prepare the, to be able to reenter/reintegrate back into free society as well equipped as possible (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.10). It is not too far from rehabilitation, but can be more realistic because it focuses on concrete programs such as job skill training or experience building rather than just changing an offender’s attitude.

One major problem of prison overcrowding is the effect it has on prison organizational stability. The more prisoners and people put in jail have made it harder for prison guards and staff to monitor and control them. The entire prison system must make enormous changes in order to accommodate for the number of inmates versus the number of prison guards (O’Leary). This often results in a misclassification of offenders. Many who come through the system are classified based on the amount of space available instead of on the security level and programs that would be most suitable for them (Howard). “It is not uncommon to find inmates, classified as medium security, incarcerated in maximum security institutions, while other inmates are in medium security who were previously considered candidates for maximum security” (Howard). Misclassifying offenders often leads to “slow progress through the corrections system as well as a slow exit” (Howard). This in turn only prolongs and increases the overcrowding problem (Howard). The corrections programs should be reformed to meet the needs of the inmates rather than the inmates having to adjust to meet the requirements of the system. Offenders need to be on specific rehabilitation programs that are customized to fit their needs, such as alcohol and drug abuse programs and so forth.

Many criminals are sent to jail on a day to day basis. Once they have completed their sentence they are faced with many problems once they are “free”. These problems can be but are not limited to housing, employment, and substance abuse. The prisoner, once they are released, has a tendency to go back to their old ways and to continue the life of crime they were a part of prior to prison. To avoid this, while a prisoner is in prison, the staff creates a reentry program for the prisoner. The reentry program takes affect once the prisoner leaves prison. These programs are created within the community to help the offender from committing new crimes and to integrate them back into society. These programs are also created to help with

The early resurgence of halfway houses in the 1950s was due to the inability of institutional corrections to effectively rehabilitate offenders and limit further criminal behavior (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Therefore, halfway houses provided offenders transitional support to bridge the gap between imprisonment and free society, and most early halfway houses focused on individualized treatment, counseling, and substance abuse counseling, which conformed to the medical model used in prisons (Latessa & Smith, 2011). Furthermore, the need for halfway houses garnered additional attention from the federal government, and in 1965, the Prison Rehabilitation Act was enacted permitting the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to create community-based residences

The Federal Bureau of Prisons contracts with Residential Re-entry Centers (RRCFs), also known as halfway houses, to provide assistance to inmates who are nearing release. Traditional RRCF’s provide a structured, supervised environment offering employment assistance and preparation, clinical counseling, mentoring and other services; ergo, each halfway house is unique in regards to the programs offered and the type of clients they serve. As a prisoner re-entry program, halfway houses help inmates to progressively repair their relationship to the community and expedite supervising the offenders' activities during this rehabilitation stage. This dissertation is dedicated to examining Dismas House of Kansas City Missouri (DHKC).

Second Chances-Stanhope House is a non-profit residential facility for women ex-offenders located in Norfolk, VA. Second Chances was established in 1999, sponsored by the city of Norfolk, and operating under the organizational umbrella of The Garden of Hope, Inc. This program is designed to assist non-violent women ex-offenders with transitional supportive services that lead to economic and social stability. “Since 1990, the number of women in America’s jails and prisons has tripled. The number of women on probation nearly doubled from 1990 to 2003, while the number on parole more than doubled. Considered collectively, the needs of thousands of women transitioning from some form of correctional confinement to the community

In the course of recent years, exploration has demonstrated that some recovery gatherings are successful. At the ACI, sex offenders, aggressive behaviour at home and substance misuse treatment program bolster this claim. The Rhode Island Adult Correctional Institute Evaluation apparatus has discovered every one of the three projects as successful methods for restoring

A Program offer for inmates is the Second Chance Program, which is offer at Alvin S Glenn Detention Center. Second chance programs offer intimates and ex-convicted felons, both genders (males and females), the opportunity to reevaluate their problems and learn from prior mistakes. This approach opens many doors and avenues to conquering new beginnings for inmates. However, majority of intimates are not aware of these programs. From volunteering at Alvin’s S. Glen Detention Center, learning that the program offers intimates the sole possibility to rebuild inmate’s lives. Problem that occurs is many intimate do not take the opportunity to use these programs.

Halfway houses are non-confining residential facilities intended to provide an alternative to incarceration as a period of readjustment to community for offenders after confinement. Halfway houses are used by parolees while they seek out employment and adjust to the outside world. Halfway houses aim to give the parolee a transitional shelter so that they may adjust and reintegrate into the community. Freedoms are often restricted and parolee activity is also monitored.

This office works with local criminal justice officials and community and state agencies to provide safe, meaningful reentry into the community. This is done by providing opportunities for offenders to change behaviors or situations, which brought about their incarceration. Possibly one of the most crucial offices within the DRC is the Office of Research and Evaluation. This Office develops information reporting systems regarding recidivism, prepares regular reports, conducts program evaluations, and provides research studies to aide in policy-making. The offices described above are by no means representative of every office and function within the Ohio DRC; they are merely a snapshot of the major functions that keep the system running. It is common knowledge that no organization can function without people; thus, we must also address the personnel and their demographics.

Even in the face of community programs aimed at aiding released offenders with their bids at reintegration, job training programs within the jails themselves, and boot camp release programs, there are often significant roadblocks to successful reintegration. Along with a general feeling of disapproval from the people within their social circles, reporting to or being visited at