Mandatory Re-Evaluation Of Ex-Offenders : Case Study

More than 700,000 prisoners are discharged from Federal and state prison every year, while another nine million cycle through regional prisons. Surprisingly, more than two-thirds of these inmates are arrested again within three years of their discharge and many of them end up reincarcerated (White House, 2011). Such high rates of relapse and recidivism are adding a huge burden on the current criminal justice system, calling for the public support for improvements and promotion of effective offender reentry programs in local communities.

Reintegration back to society for ex-convicts involves numerous hurdles to overcome. Each day, roughly 1,600 prisoners are released (Petersilia, 2003 pg3) back to their communities. Easier said than done, these individuals have to continue where they left off. The issues that come along with this all relate to how these individuals will succeed at their second chance. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2011-2012 an estimated 40 percent of federal and state inmates reported having chronic medical conditions (Berzosky, 2015). Other research suggests that 75 percent of inmates are illiterate at the 12th-grade level (Rosario, 2010). Medical conditions, lack of social skills, lack of work-training, and lack of education, along with a criminal history is a recipe for hardship that ex-convicts face; often leading to recidivism.

I interviewed Karen Rodgers, a nurse educator, and she states that “effective communication is essential in

There are several ways to effectively handle the reduction in corrections budgets by finding new ways to reduce the prison population. Austin describes reducing the sentences of incarcerated persons, such as implementing good time (2010). Another model Austin discusses is working with parolee’s who violated terms of their parole. There are the offenders who committed new crimes and should serve the sentence for the crime committed, however, the “technical” parole violators should receive a brief sentence in a local jail as long as they are nonviolent offenders (Austin, 2010). Lastly, Austin discusses giving drug and alcohol offenders probation sentences rather than sentencing them to prison (2010). Implementing some of these reforms would

Program evaluation is an important tool to show that the health interventions have been effective and they also intend to improve the health of the target population. Evaluation helps define the worth of a program. It is imperative to conduct program evaluation in order to provide feedback to improve the effectiveness of the program. Evaluation plans should be developed at the beginning of the health program interventions. The CDC framework for program evaluation is comprised of the following steps:1) Engage stakeholders; 2) Describe the program; 3) Focus on evaluation design; 4) Gather credible evidence; 5) Justify conclusions; 6) Ensure use and share lessons learned. Also listed are the four standards for assessing the quality of evaluation activities: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy (CDC, 2013). According to an article

Finally, the findings will be combined into a report that will be forwarded to the different stakeholders. This evaluation plan begins by identifying the stakeholder involved in the program. They involve CDC, local government, and the population. The second segment contains a detailed description of the program and the methods used to implement it. The third segment outlines the logic model used to implement the CPPW program. The fourth segment is the evaluation design followed by evidence gathering. The last segment outlines how the findings will be communicated and used.

The policy cycle is fundamental in deciding how to allocate scarce resources to competing programmes taking into account existing trade-offs. Evaluation can accompany the policy cycle by working closely with policy makers and define specific goals, targets and design the programme consistently with these. Methods of ex-ante policy evaluation may be used in conjunction with impact assessment to assess distributional impact of policies and orient policy making towards policies that are more adequate to achieve specific

Program evaluation is an important tool to show that the health interventions have been effective and they also intend to improve the health of the target population. Evaluation helps define the worth of a program. It is imperative to conduct program evaluation in order to provide feedback to improve the effectiveness of the program. Evaluation plans should be developed at the beginning of the health program interventions. The CDC framework for program evaluation is comprised of the following steps:1) Engage stakeholders; 2) Describe the program; 3) Focus on evaluation design; 4) Gather credible evidence; 5) Justify conclusions; 6) Ensure use and share lessons learned. Also listed are the four standards for assessing the quality of evaluation activities: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy (CDC, 2013). According to an article in the CDC (2013), “As noted in the

In general, policy evaluation is the process of objectively understanding how a policy was implemented and what effects did it have, for whom, how and why. There is a wide range of evaluation options available, however, each needs to be tailored to the type of policy, program or intervention or delivery of service considered. Brownson, Chriqui and Stamatakis (2009) explain that evaluation of public health policies can take the form of three primary types: process evaluation, which aims to understand approaches to enhance the likelihood of policy adoption; content evaluation, which aims to identify specific policy elements that are likely to be effective; and outcome evaluation, which aims to document the potential impact of policy. Regardless

Rehabilitation is available both within prison, and within the community following an offender’s release from prison, on Resettlement Programmes. Community support for ex-offenders is typically provided by Probation Services and other organisations, stipulated as a condition of early release, or to ease the transition into the community. However, despite all the rehabilitation work achieved within the prison many ex-offenders still experience difficulties whilst reintegrating into society. Despite this, many who are not obligated to participate in

In public health, evaluation is getting to know what is effective and yields good outcomes. The evaluation of health programs is essential to determine whether

It is important to observe that policymaking is very important in program evaluations. Trust is essential in the government issues. Evaluations consist in the discussion of the programs, thus, participants have the opportunity disburse their concerns and discuss their differences. They agree with the evaluation modules and standards. Trust makes contributors feel more confident regarding their conflict of interests. Trust is built by involving all interested members in the process of evaluation (IPDET, 2007).

In recent times, many departments and agencies are coming under review to determine their effectiveness. The organizations’ capacity to manage or effectiveness in what it sets out to do is what is a question. In the article, “Do you want a Performance Audit or a Program Evaluation?”, by Dwight F. Davis, the author distinguishes these two practices. The author defines performance audits as it “…involve[s] a determination of the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of government organization…” (Davis, 1990, pg35). While program evolution is the “…systemic application of social research procedures in assessing the conceptualization and design, implementation and utility…”(Davis, 1990, pg35).

deLeon (1983) this week also explained the concepts of policy evaluation, which is a multidisciplinary approach of the policy process. He also explained the role it has on program termination. However, the author argued there is an integration of evaluation and termination that has occurred in many programs. He further highlighted that these two frameworks are essential in the policy process. There are several motivating factors that the author suggested that can lead to

This research paper will focus on the effectiveness of providing intervention (MHC) at stage three (problem solving courts) and its effects on recidivism. In an effort to address mass incarceration and reduce the risk of re-offending, society and the criminal justice system must prioritize interventions. There are five points at which justice involved individuals can be diverted into a more rehabilitative alternative: (1) law enforcement/emergency services, (2) booking / initial court hearings, (3) jails/courts, (4) re-entry, and (5) corrections/community support (Heilburn et al., 2017). The mental health treatment courts focus on intervention and support at the corrections/community section of an individuals’ life. The goal is to intercept as early as possible for the purpose of limiting interaction with the criminal justice system and to eliminate the public burden created by the high