Inmates coming from within incarceration are being released into civic society every year with most not being prepared nor ready to transition into societal life. Ex-offenders face great barriers when attempting to transform into a productive member of the community and oftentimes these barriers lead them to either re-incarceration or poverty. The barriers released prisoners may face are difficulty securing and maintaining employment and housing, connecting with family, overcoming stigma and severe disenfranchisement as people are reluctant to accept and hire those with felony records. The employment opportunities that are available to most ex-offenders are low quality jobs which provide few benefits and little to no pay/opportunities for advancement in the workplace. These former inmates also struggle with obstacles in public and private sector jobs since they have limited educational and vocational training access.
When limited employment opportunities and resources are available, individuals struggle with maintaining their new lifestyle and fall back into criminal behavior, thus becoming more likely to reoffend. Without support, nearly 34% of adult ex-offenders in Indiana will return to prison within three years after release, according to the Indiana Department of Correction (IDOC). Offenders often have very low literacy and math levels, poor to no job experience, and no idea how to properly fill out job applications and market themselves to potential employers. In order for inmates to be successful upon release, they need resources to address the trauma, drug abuse and mental health issues they struggle with and skills training to pursue a new path.
If current inmates are given effectively administered rehabilitative programming (i.e., vocational training, educational resources, post incarceration training), it can significantly aid in the transition from prison to civic life and change their social behavior and outlook on life. Prisons are supposed to be about rehabilitation, not severe punishment. My research so far has shown that nonprofit organizations that work with current and former inmates on post incarceration life and skills training do more for inmates than government ran programs which are not accessible to all inmates nor ran properly. This has the power to lower recidivism rates in Indiana overall and thus save the state money on rearrests and incarceration and have more able bodied people working in the economy. Not to mention, this will lower crime rates and allow Americans a second chance at life.
In my research thesis, I looked to answer two questions:
- What factors affect the quality of rehabilitation programs?
- Do seemingly higher quality rehabilitation programs impact recidivism rates within the state of Indiana?
Data Collection
I connected my data primarily through interviews and written questions sent to current inmates currently incarcerated in the Monroe County Jail, Plainfield Correctional Facility and Marion County Jail (See Appendix A for the written questionnaire sent to current inmates). I also had the opportunity to speak to formerly incarcerated individuals and current inmates in Nashville, Tennessee through the Nashville branch of Dismas House who provide services to jails and prisons throughout Tennessee. As for my quantitative data, I utilized the Indiana Department of Correction Annual Recidivism Reports to view the decrease/increase in recidivism rates, type of crime and which facilities have faced the most inmates being re-incarcerated within three years of post-incarceration. I also had the opportunity to interview a Judge and Advocate in the Allen County Re-Entry Court and gauge their experiences and thoughts on re-entry and the main causes of recidivism and whether rehabilitation programming truly works on decreasing the tendency to reoffend. My written responses were sent out to all of the jail/prison institutions my non-profits work with and I received 50 responses back from current inmates; held interviews with 10 former offenders; and interviewed a Judge and a Court Reentry Program Director.
I believe it is vital to conduct thorough interviews with willing current and ex-offenders to ask about their experiences within the system, whether they had access to prison rehabilitation programs, if they did, how it was organized, and finally, if they believed it was effective in helping them with the transition from prison to civic life and what barriers they had to overcome. I also asked them if they utilized the help from nonprofits and how that aided them in their transition as well as how it shaped their skills within prison/jail. I asked open ended questions about the impact rehabilitation programs have had on the interviewee’s transition out of prison as it will give me far richer data than if I chose a quantitative path solely. I also gave the opportunity to inform me of anything they would like to say or add. Interviews can give the researcher and readers a front row seat into one’s personal experience and how that plays a part in their future decisions. I coded the responses and categorized them to better establish a consistency, which I found. Out of all the responses I received, 100% of respondents stated they received little to no help from the jail/prison they are incarcerated in, no access to rehabilitation programs and if they had access to it, it was not well funded or properly structured and would not allow certain drug offenders to have access to it. Most of these offenders, precisely 90%, reached out to nonprofits and started rehabilitation programming with them stating that they did finally get the help they needed and feel as if they have a support network and a path to follow in terms of ending addiction and reforming their behavior. About 70% of respondents stated that they write back and forth weekly with a mentor who has helped in reforming writing skills, resume help and understanding how to fill out simple paperwork such as a loan or job application.
My sample came from a few rehabilitation nonprofits in the state of Indiana who work with ex-offenders and offenders reaching the end of their sentence to help them get back on their feet. I reached out to several nonprofits in rural and urban Indiana as they both are different in terms of job opportunities and mindsets (i.e, Indianapolis may be more willing to accept ex-offenders into society than Jeffersonville). Out of 10 non-profit organizations I reached out to, only four responded and were willing to work with me on this thesis. Those organizations are: New Leaf, New Life; Victim and Offender Restoration Program (V.O.R.P); Dismas House and the Midwest Pages to Prisoners Project.
Conclusion
What factors affect the quality of rehabilitation programs?
After coding the data, I noticed a consistency in the respondents written answers and the interviewees responses. In terms of what they believed were factors in efficient rehabilitation programs, the words “support system”, “free”, “mentor”, “therapy” and “training” came up several times in all responses. Naturally, funding plays a large role in the quality of services and resources rehabilitation programs have-but the implementation of these programs is what is most important. Nearly 95% of respondents and interviewees stated that support networks are crucial in motivating and encouraging incarcerated individuals to stay consistent with the programs they are in and seek substance abuse help. Support networks provide encouragement to individuals who are reentering civic society to stay consistent on a path and not reoffend the same or another crime. Respondent #3 wrote several times in his letter that when no one is there to hold you accountable or encourage you to stick with drug therapy, it is easy to relapse. He has been working with Dismas House in Nashville, TN for the past five months and remained consistent in substance abuse therapy and is up for easy release in the next three months. Many incarcerated individuals lack support systems like family and friends after they have entered the system-so most are alone but have found friendships through the non-profits they work with.
As I have mentioned previously, cost of rehabilitation programs and therapy is a significant factor in not just the accessibility of the program but the quality of the program itself. When offenders are released from prison/jail, they lose the health care coverage they once had and struggle to find the funds to pay for housing and groceries, let alone substance abuse therapy and behavioral therapy. Organizations like Dismas House and New Leaf, New Life fund therapy sessions for the individuals they work with at no cost to them. They are able to attend and learn and stay on a consistent path without worrying about money and the costs related to therapy.
Do seemingly higher quality rehabilitation programs impact recidivism rates within the state of Indiana?
The answer is yes. In Indiana, of all offenders who recidivated, approximately 32.5% returned to IDOC for the commission of a new crime, compared to approximately 67.5% for a technical rule violation of post-release supervision. In terms of race, the recidivism rates differed in 2021. African American offenders had a rate of 38.8%. Recidivism rates for Caucasian offenders was 32.2%, while rates for Hispanic offenders was 23.1% (IDOC). Racial bias and profiling also play a role in the higher rate for Black recidivism rates as well as access to programs and opportunities if it is not offered in the communities in which they reside or are not given preference to a program over their White counterparts. Out of my respondents, 15% were Black and all wrote that they felt racially targeted at times behind bars by guards or directors of the programs and sometimes were not allowed to attend without reason. Rehabilitation programs should be equitable and accessible for all inmates on non-violent charges.
The reports from New Leaf, New Life and V.O.R.P have shown that from all their clients who had their first intake meeting three years ago, only 30% from NLNL and 38% from V.O.R.P reoffended and are back in jail. NLNL is in Bloomington and V.O.RP is in Indianapolis. Of course, the goal is to lower this number as well, but the fact that is less than half is proof enough that properly implemented quality rehabilitation programs work and have the power in lowering recidivism rates if nonprofits like these are set up in more regions of Indiana or if they are joint with the Indiana Department of Corrections.
SO, WHY DOES THIS MATTER?
When ex-offenders are attempting to readjust to society once they are released, they face barriers such as disenfranchisement, prejudice and employment/housing rejection which can play an active role in the tendency to re-offend. It is necessary for Indiana lawmakers to understand how the criminal justice system can better rehabilitate their inmates and work with society to help mitigate these barriers, lower recidivism rates and job/housing discrimination. This study aimed to show a relationship between effectively administered rehabilitation programs and the feasibility in readjusting to civic life as well as the potential to lower recidivism rates in the state of Indiana. It is my hope that other researchers in this state will feel inspired by this knowledge and thesis and look into conducting their own research on rehabilitation over re-incarceration and its impact in the state of Indiana.
Every state prison and jail have a different administration style and budget priority and can affect the outcome of rehabilitation programming on inmates. This is where nonprofits come in by helping offenders and spending time and money on providing treatment and employment help due to the prisons being unable to fund programs for all inmates or grazing over those who desperately need help but are overlooked. This research is meant to encourage Indiana lawmakers to educate themselves on if these programs play a crucial role in helping ex-offenders and current offenders reform their behavior and transition into civic life efficiently, explore the history behind incarceration spikes, and the benefits of establishing an effective and efficient rehabilitation program behind bars in private and public prisons. There is not enough information nor data present regarding this topic in Indiana and thus, this research will aid in presenting the information needed.
Shibani Mody is a senior at Indiana University O’Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs studying Law and Public Policy and Holocaust and Genocide Studies. She would like to thank her incredible advisor, Paul Helmke for all his guidance and help during this process. If you have any questions or would like a complete copy of this research paper, contact her at ssmody@iu.edu.
Leave a Reply