SOTMP Program Analysis

Dependent Variable. The effectiveness and the impact of the drug court will be assessed by analyzing the recidivism rates between the treatment group and the comparison group of probationers. Recidivism will be measured by examining both felony and misdemeanor charges and arrests, and drug related arrests will further be examined. Outcome data pertaining to arrests will be collected from the months of June, July, and August of 2016, allowing for an average follow-up time of 517 days. The data to be collected will include official rearrest results upon the completion of the drug treatment program and upon the completion of a probation sentence for the comparison group. Through the arrest results, further examination will be conducted on the severity of the crimes committed and whether they involved drug offenses.

Sex offender registry laws were intended to increase public safety and to reduce the reoffending rates of sexual offenders. However, this paper will argue that registration has no effect on recidivism rates and that the law actually negatively impacts rehabilitative goals because of the unforeseen issues stemming from registration. An analysis of the existing body of literature concerning registration from the United States will address the

The primary goal of the Proposition 36 program is to divert substance using offenders from likely incarceration into the community where they can access and benefit from substance abuse treatment (Evans et al, 2011). With this goal in mind thousands of offenders who were destined for a jail cell could receive the proper treatment needed and our states recidivism rate would go down. This was not only a goal of Proposition 36 but a great success. SACPA is considered a successful program with tens of thousands of offenders enrolling each year, resulting in outcomes comparable to those commonly observed in residential treatment facilities.

While evaluating the drug court programs several types of dependencies were discovered. One dependency was created because of multiple measures of criminal behavior during the same time of the follow-ups. Each evaluation had to utilize a particular research sample so that statistical independence could be maintained. An odds-ratio effect size was used because this type of format is most appropriate effect size for the outcomes referring to recidivism. The coding of the effect size was done in such a way that positive effect sizes indicated the treatment group had more of a favorable outcome than the comparison group. The researchers coded an effect size that quantified each court's effects on recidivism. There was also the coding of drug court programs, research methodology, and samples (Mitchell et al., 2012). The results of the study showed that participants in the drug court programs have lower recidivism rate than nonparticipants. These rates show to be less following their removal from the drug court programs. These findings express the need for continuous funding, development, and operation of drug court programs as they prove a reduction in recidivism. However, when it comes to drug courts in the juvenile judicial system, the finding are considerably less than adult drug

Most studies vary on the rate of recidivism amongst releasees. This is mainly due to where the studies take place, the sample size of the study, and when the study takes place. A popular study often referenced to by sociologists and criminologists when studying recidivism rates is one that was conducted in 1994 by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The sample of this study consisted on over 272,000 released individuals in 15 states. According to the study, over 67% of the individuals were rearrested, 47% were re-convicted, and 25% were re-sentenced to prison for the new crime (Langan & Levin, 1994). James Henslin breaks the study of re-entry into the correctional system down into even more by stating that 40-45% individuals relapse within one year of release, while 66-68% relapse within three years of release (Henslin). The image below illustrates the recidivism rates in United States prisons by each crime.

Therefore, in this case, the researcher will be required to test the effectiveness of MHC plan to the long-term success of recidivating. After the research, the study will actually indicate the rate of recidivism after the completion of MHC. If the rate of recidivism will be high after eighteen months, this implies that the, intervention is ineffective otherwise, the intervention is effective. However, this rate will actually be, gotten by comparing them to same rates of recidivism by the individuals who have fully completed their sentencing under the traditional court

A more recent study, published in the same journal, by Looman et al in 2000 suggests the opposite. Of the released sex offenders they studied they found a 23.6 percent recidivism rate for those treated while a 51.7 percent rate for the untreated group. They also conducted an analysis separately on the outcome for men who had previous sexual convictions. Those with no previous sexual offense convictions had a 20.9 percent recidivism rate of the treated men compared to 42.9 percent of the untreated men. Of

Recidivism has caused some changes in offender characteristics, such as their arrest rates. The overall rate of recidivism has decreased slightly . Recent findings have found that California experienced a drop in the return-to-custody, but that it is recently has begun to increase . This could be a sign that the realignment is ineffective, or this could a normalization of the rate due to the influx of released prisoners. Following that it is found that released offenders arrested within a year has declined slightly, but the population that is arrested multiple has increased . The multiple arrests could be the result of having more time on the street. There are higher conviction rates, which suggested that prosecutors are becoming more efficient. In result, prisoners with multiple convictions has increased. The evidence would suggest that the inmates are not committing more

This program can be evaluated by in a couple of different areas. The most important area of evaluation being the ability to compare the recidivism rates from previous years to the years following the implementation of the program. It can also be evaluated by looking at the degree of success past offenders achieve after being released from prison; the job retention they hold. Another form of evaluation available is by looking at the number of participants in the program compared to each prison’s population as well as the number of those who complete it after entering

In order to determine whether or not focusing on re-entry services helps reduce overcrowding in prisons a longitudinal outcome evaluation study will be used. The study will be completely voluntary and consent will be required at the beginning of the study. Participants are not required to complete the study; however, a monetary reward will be given for successful completion. Other than the monetary reward, no other incentives will be offered to participants. The focus will be on two prisons, one prison will have already implemented the re-entry services policy and the other will not. Our sample will consist of inmates who have served five to twenty years in prison and will soon be released. The ideal sample would consist of at least 50 inmates from each facility. Various demographic information will be collected such as, age, race, gender, highest level of education, and home city at time of arrest. Other basic information that will be gathered will include, whether or not they had familial support while incarcerated, and whether or not they have familial support upon release.

program argue too many people abuse the program. They state people who are not actively

Over many years there has been great debate about whether rehabilitation reduces the rate of recidivism in criminal offenders. There has been great controversy over whether anything works to reduce recidivism and great hope that rehabilitation would offer a reduction in those rates. In this paper I will introduce information and views on the reality of whether rehabilitation does indeed reduce recidivism. Proposed is a quasi-experiment, using a group of offenders that received rehabilitation services and an ex post facto group that did not? I intend to prove that rehabilitation services do

The dependent variable entails examination of records concerning recidivism rates for those participating in the gender-response after-care program. As with the traditional gender-specific program recidivism rates will be measured one year after completion of the after-care program. The same data

Reasoning and rehabilitation focused on helping the offender stop and think before acting. Moral recognition uses textbooks and group exercises. Aggression replacement focuses on role-playing in order to teach the offenders to control their behavior and anger. Thinking for a chance has a 22 group exercise that focus on controlling the way the offender thinks. Cognitive intervention program focus on the offenders behaviors that caused them to commit the act. Some of the programs where actually used on real offenders but some were just demonstration and practices. Treatment was given to the offenders, and the providers had little to no training in cognitive behavior. The effects on recidivism was influenced characteristics and treatment. Success rate was greater for those in treatment groups rather than being in control groups. The chance of those not recidivating after the 12 month programs was greater among the individuals that were in treatment groups than those in control groups. Which reduced the recidivism rate in the control group by 50 percent and about .19 in the treatment groups. Design produced three variable: randomized, matched or neither. Design program focuses on treatment and control groups. Out of the 58 studies 6 from the random studies were actual conducted in the real world as for the rest where just demonstration and

Participation in this program even for as little as four months reduced the chances of violent reoffending after a prisoner leaves the jail by 83 percent.