Art Beeler, Retired Warden
This Congress’ theme that Reentry is Good Public Safety could not come at a more acute time. As the country struggles with the economic realities of a serious recession, Government revenues have dried up diminishing the resources available to correctional administrators. The intersection of this economic reality has coincided with the reality that more than 700,000 offenders will be released to the community this year. But more sobering is that according to national data, if not successful about 2/3’s of those released will be rearrested in three years with about 50% reconfined. Now some of those arrested and confined need it. Prison is a very necessary part of our society, yet, reentry needs to be a very necessary part of our society. The last thirty years of incarceration is making this change difficult for society and for correctional professionals. Correctional professionals must take the lead.
But reentry is much more than good programs working toward employment, housing and transportation, it is about attitude. An attitude where instead of “locking them up and throwing away the key,” an attitude of responsible restorative justice; and until this mind change occurs, all the efforts in the world will be measured only incrementally if at all. What many do not realize is this mind shift is about public safety! How many new crimes are committed to the offender who is unsuccessful at reentry? How much money is spent in enforcement and apprehension? How many victims are traumatized? The list could go on and on, but put in its purest form, we can no longer afford the strategy of locking up 1 in 100 or putting under supervision 1 in 31; therefore we must attack this two ways: prevention and reentry. For those of us who have worked with offenders for many years, we must embrace reentry. Public safety will be protected only if we continue to look for ways to embrace reentry and realize monies spent in this venue are much cheaper than necessarily building another prison cell.
For these and many other reasons, I look forward to new ideas, new strategies and new ways to continue to confront this intersection between fiscal reality and public safety. The last thing we want to do is simply release these folks to the street with no resources!
Art Beeler retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons with more than 30 years of experience. He is currently involved with reentry efforts in North Carolina and has for the past few months been an advocate for prisoner education as the NC Legislature struggles with budget issues.
Continue reading for Art's op-ed piece, "A Matter of Public Safety" which was published in the June 2009 issue of Corrections Today, and review the 2009 Congress Planning guide here.
Reentry: A Matter of Public Safety
By Art Beeler
Beginning in about 2000, the term reentry started coming into the lexicon, but reentry has been around as long as there have been inmates released from prison. Two stories to illustrate; first as I was researching this article, I was told of a 64-year old offender who 30 minutes after being dropped at a bus station by corrections personnel had entered a bank and demanded money. Then he quietly waited for the police to arrive. Why? Because, he had no family, no residence, no job. He had nowhere to go. Now was he really a threat to society? Probably not, but all of those people in the bank did not know he was simply looking for a quick way to go “home.” This illustrates the need for viable reentry as a public safety issue. I am reminded of James Whitmore, the librarian in The Shawshank Redemption, and I would have hoped we would have progressed further. Reentry has been an issue for a long time. In 1955, then Warden Chester Looney at the U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, stated that while we do a pretty good job in teaching inmates skills, we do not do such a good job following up in the community.1 What may have been characterized as a small problem in 1955 is a huge issue in 2009.
This Congress’ theme that Reentry is Good Public Safety could not come at a more acute time. As the country struggles with the economic realities of a serious recession, Government revenues have dried up diminishing the resources available to correctional administrators. The intersection of this economic reality has coincided with the reality that more than 700,000 offenders will be released to the community this year. But more sobering is that according to national data, if not successful about 2/3’s of those released will be rearrested in three years with about 50% reconfined. Now some of those arrested and confined need it. Prison is a very necessary part of our society, yet, reentry needs to be a very necessary part of our society. The last thirty years of incarceration is making this change difficult for society and for correctional professionals. Correctional professionals must take the lead.
But reentry is much more than good programs working toward employment, housing and transportation, it is about attitude. An attitude where instead of “locking them up and throwing away the key,” an attitude of responsible restorative justice; and until this mind change occurs, all the efforts in the world will be measured only incrementally if at all. What many do not realize is this mind shift is about public safety! How many new crimes are committed to the offender who is unsuccessful at reentry? How much money is spent in enforcement and apprehension? How many victims are traumatized? The list could go on and on, but put in its purest form, we can no longer afford the strategy of locking up 1 in 100 or putting under supervision 1 in 31; therefore we must attack this two ways: prevention and reentry. For those of us who have worked with offenders for many years, we must embrace reentry. Public safety will be protected only if we continue to look for ways to embrace reentry and realize monies spent in this venue are much cheaper than necessarily building another prison cell.
For these and many other reasons, I look forward to new ideas, new strategies and new ways to continue to confront this intersection between fiscal reality and public safety. The last thing we want to do is simply release these folks to the street with no resources!
Art Beeler retired from the Federal Bureau of Prisons with more than 30 years of experience. He is currently involved with reentry efforts in North Carolina and has for the past few months been an advocate for prisoner education as the NC Legislature struggles with budget issues.
Continue reading for Art's op-ed piece, "A Matter of Public Safety" which was published in the June 2009 issue of Corrections Today, and review the 2009 Congress Planning guide here.
Reentry: A Matter of Public Safety
By Art Beeler
Beginning in about 2000, the term reentry started coming into the lexicon, but reentry has been around as long as there have been inmates released from prison. Two stories to illustrate; first as I was researching this article, I was told of a 64-year old offender who 30 minutes after being dropped at a bus station by corrections personnel had entered a bank and demanded money. Then he quietly waited for the police to arrive. Why? Because, he had no family, no residence, no job. He had nowhere to go. Now was he really a threat to society? Probably not, but all of those people in the bank did not know he was simply looking for a quick way to go “home.” This illustrates the need for viable reentry as a public safety issue. I am reminded of James Whitmore, the librarian in The Shawshank Redemption, and I would have hoped we would have progressed further. Reentry has been an issue for a long time. In 1955, then Warden Chester Looney at the U.S. Penitentiary, Leavenworth, stated that while we do a pretty good job in teaching inmates skills, we do not do such a good job following up in the community.1 What may have been characterized as a small problem in 1955 is a huge issue in 2009.
Everyone knows for the last 30 years, we have had exponential growth in criminal justice populations. A Pew Research Center report issued last year reveals that one in 100 will serve some active correctional sentence in this country.2 Recently, Pew reported one in 31 were under correctional supervision in the United States, although the Bureau of Justice Statistics has been reporting the same since 2001.3 In 2009, there will be more people released from prison than were in prison in 1980.4 In a 1996 article, Richard Freeman announced that one in 50 of the male work force was incarcerated.5 When you look at the disparity between blacks and whites the number is even more striking. In 2005, the rate of incarceration for whites was 681/100,000 while the incarceration rate for blacks was 4,834/100,000.6 With more than 97 percent of inmates returning to the community at some time, the numbers are overwhelming.7 During the next 10 years it is estimated that more than 6.5 million offenders will be released to the community. If statistics are consistent, two-thirds of this number will be rearrested in less than three years8 and 42 percent returned to incarceration.9
In my home state of North Carolina, the N.C. Justice Center reveals the number of prisoners has doubled in the last 25 years to approximately 40,000.10 This means this year alone, about 27,000 will be returned to our communities. In 2007, this number reached 700,000 nationwide.11 Of the 27,000 being released, 18,000 will be rearrested by 2012. How many of these 18,000 will find their way back to prison? Of those released from prison, 90 percent are males with an average age of 33. More than half are black.12
There are some who say, just keep them locked up for life. Is that economically realistic? In 1987, Edwin Zedlewski reported the benefits of imprisonment exceeded the costs of imprisonment 17 to 1.13 Let us assume this is true, where are you going to put all the prisons and how are you going to fund them? This ratio was based on each criminal committing 180 crimes. A more realistic number of crimes is the 17.9 cited by Langan and Levin in 2002.14 The N.C. Justice Center indicates that in North Carolina it costs $80,000 to build a prison cell and $23,000 a year to maintain an offender in custody.15 So, if you simply double the population to 80,000 in the next 25 years this means the taxpayers of North Carolina will need to, in 2009 dollars, find an additional $920 million to confine these new offenders annually, along with an additional $3.2 billion in prison construction. This discounts any other construction needed to maintain the existing 40,000 inmates. Often, this cost is enough to stop folks from further considering the feasibility of mass incarceration. But what about the cost of crime, the costs to victims and the social costs to society — should they be a part of this calculation?
Just a bit of research reveals that, according to DiIulio and Piehl (1991), each new crime costs in 2008 dollars an average of $834.16 Each victim’s pain, suffering and economic loss costs approximately $3,600. So, using 18,000 as a base, between now and 2012 if every person released from a North Carolina prison commits one crime before being arrested, their new criminal activity will cost about $3,700 in crime and victim costs. This equates in North Carolina to $66 million. But assume these 18,000 commit 18 crimes each before being arrested, then we are talking about $2 billion. Spread over a three-year period, this is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. But how do you tell this to the victim? Nationwide in 1991, it is estimated that crime and victim costs amounted to more than $15 billion. Using a Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, this would amount to more than $38 billion today, and over the course of three years, $114 billion. Now we are talking some real money. These costs do not include incarceration costs and they exclude capital cases.
Just a bit of research reveals that, according to DiIulio and Piehl (1991), each new crime costs in 2008 dollars an average of $834.16 Each victim’s pain, suffering and economic loss costs approximately $3,600. So, using 18,000 as a base, between now and 2012 if every person released from a North Carolina prison commits one crime before being arrested, their new criminal activity will cost about $3,700 in crime and victim costs. This equates in North Carolina to $66 million. But assume these 18,000 commit 18 crimes each before being arrested, then we are talking about $2 billion. Spread over a three-year period, this is not a lot of money in the scheme of things. But how do you tell this to the victim? Nationwide in 1991, it is estimated that crime and victim costs amounted to more than $15 billion. Using a Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, this would amount to more than $38 billion today, and over the course of three years, $114 billion. Now we are talking some real money. These costs do not include incarceration costs and they exclude capital cases.
Social costs are much harder to find. After reading several reports on the hidden costs of incarceration and the social costs of incarceration, I am convinced there is no good summary cost because no one defines social costs in the same manner. In 1997, R. Krop defined social costs as welfare costs, food stamps and nutritional programs, employment assistance, medical assistance, social security, and unemployment insurance.17 Others include the cost of education attainment or the lack thereof, maintaining contact with loved ones, and the loss of tax revenue.18 While it probably exists, I could not in all the economic perspectives find a social cost average per incarceration. I then asked a chief U.S. probation officer his guess, and he said at least twice the cost of incarceration. Since that seems very conservative from all the papers and articles reviewed, for the sake of discussion, I have decided to use it. Again, just using North Carolina with its estimate of $23,000 per offender, the social cost would equal $46,000. For 40,000 offenders this equals $1.8 billion per year. Of course, these same social issues translate into perpetuation of the system. In 2006, 55 percent of state prisoners had children, with 58 percent being 10 years old or less.19 In 2009, 2.3 percent of all minor children had a parent in prison.20
Prisons do serve a valuable place in our society. They keep dangerous offenders away from the rest of us. And that is what they should do. Hopefully, along the way, offenders who desire to make a change have the opportunity to do so. It is this group of offenders we need to target for reentry. A large number of inmates want to “make it” upon release; of this I have no doubt. They understand that though they might not achieve the entire American dream, they hope to have parts of it. They know to do this they must have a job which pays a livable wage and hopefully health care benefits. They know they must have somewhere to live and they know they must extricate themselves from their previous relationships with other criminals. But what many do not have is patience. When the same chief probation officer and I talk about work force development we discuss how we have no more than 90 to 120 days before an offender will return to what is familiar. If we are going to be successful in public safety, we must be successful with reentry. The two are not mutually exclusive, in fact, they are the same.
So the next question is, what do we do to enhance public safety? We can start by following the December 2008 recommendations from The Urban Institute’s monograph, Putting Public Safety First. It provides 13 recommendations for enhancing the parole supervision. And while one may disagree with some of the recommendations, it is clear these recommendations both from an operational and a policy basis give those who supervise released offenders salient direction. These recommendations include to:
• Define success as recidivism reduction and measure performance (Move more from surveillance and external control to risk reduction and behavioral change strategies);
• Tailor conditions of confinement (Base conditions of supervision on criminogenic needs of the individual);
• Focus resources on moderate- and high-risk releases;
• Front load supervision resources (Arrest nearly doubles in the first month compared to the 15th month);
• Implement earned discharge;
• Implement placed-based supervision (Put officers where releasees are, much like community policing);
• Engage partners to expand intervention capacities;
• Assess criminogenic risk and needs;
o History of anti-social behavior
o Anti-social personality pattern
o Anti-social cognition
o Anti-social associates
o Family and/or marital support
o School and/or work
o Leisure and/or recreation
o Substance abuse
• Balance and implement supervision case plans that balance surveillance and treatment;
• Involve releases to enhance their engagement in assessment, case planning and supervision;
• Engage informal social contacts;
• Incorporate incentives and rewards into supervision process; and
• Employ graduated problem-solving responses to violations in a swift and certain manner.
But why should we wait until supervision to think about public safety? It is my contention that reentry planning should begin with conviction. During pre-trial supervision the offenders should receive assessments concerning their criminogenic and job-assessment needs. These assessments should be shared with prison officials. Prison officials should encourage inmates to become involved in programs that address the needs demonstrated in these assessments. Now the hard part, there has to be a link between prison and employment. There is an absolute plethora of articles published since 2000 describing the vital linkage between reentry success and employment, including a number of articles which examine employer’s perspectives toward hiring ex-offenders. However, what we do not have are many employers who are willing to take the risk of hiring ex-offenders, even with tax incentives and bonding guarantees. One exception is Meineke Car Care Centers. As most know, Meineke runs franchises all over the country which complete automobile maintenance functions. Dave Holland, director of Meineke’s national accounts, indicates that the corporation needs upwards of 2,500 trained technicians a year just for their operations. And he said that no longer is the company able to find many who complete high school or vocational training wanting to complete this work. So Meineke is looking to hire ex-offenders who are trained in prison to fill part of the gap. Holland said that Meineke is not alone —Jiffy Lube, Midas, Sears, Wal-Mart, etc. are all facing the same dilemma. Personally, I applaud Meineke, who has been attempting to make inroads for the past three years through the bureaucracy of public institutions to make this program work. This working within the bureaucracy would have turned off most companies, and for public/private enterprises to work, the government must reexamine its definition of procurement as it relates to learning and vocational training. Believe it or not, people are afraid of the term partnership, as it implied a fiduciary relationship. But if reentry is going to be successful, these “partnerships” will need to proliferate, and ways to get around the bureaucracies will need to be either developed or legislated.
The excellent work of Pam Lattimore (2006) and others with the Serious and Violent Reentry Initiative, tells us the most pressing issues for those recently released from prison. Not surprisingly, these issues revolve around employment and housing. Why is employment so important? Only one in three had a legitimate job before being confined and fewer than half of released prisoners had a job a year after release.21 As Taxman and Byrne articulated in 2002, many of released offenders’ issues seem simple enough to accomplish (such as obtaining a driver’s license, a social security card and picture identification); but, we in the field often fail to help with these significant barriers.22
Freeman’s 1996 assessment discloses that, in 2009 dollars, if we can keep each released offender from committing a new crime, an expenditure of $73,000 is warranted. Of course the big question is keeping the person from committing a new crime. What happens at one, two or three crimes verses reincarceration? Is it still worth the costs? Perhaps a more telling analysis came from the RAND Corp. in 1995 when it demonstrated that for less than $1 billion a year, training incentives and other programs would double the measure of crime reduction.23
So, what can we corrections professionals do to remain focused on reentry? Well, we have to stay involved in the reentry dialogue and make sure that it is a continuum, much like good health care. We have to collaborate more with our colleagues and attempt to at least see over our own silos. We have to get over the fear of working with formerly incarcerated offenders and alter codes of conduct to allow corrections personnel to volunteer with community-based organizations which include ex-offenders. Finally, we can serve as mentors for ex-offenders. If we are going to talk the talk, we need to walk the walk. Who better than corrections personnel to serve as mentors? We generally know the system; we know and recognize both the good and the not so good. But rarely do you find any professional willing and able to serve in these roles. If you are not able to be a mentor, serve on a board of directors or an advisory board of a faith- or community-based organization. None of us who work in corrections are naïve about the motivation and success of many who have been released. It is not about being a “do gooder” but a matter of public safety and fiscal responsibility. I am reminded of what Anthony Thompson contends in his recently published Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming Communities, “Individuals who have been arrested and incarcerated have become the pariahs who continue to be denied many of the fundamental rights of citizenship despite having paid their debt to society. Seemingly no consequence is too harsh for consideration as an obstacle to reentry.”24 Whether you agree with Thompson or not, the realization that we collectively have to work on reentry as a mission of public safety should not be an issue of debate. The numbers and economics are too high to continue to lament as Warden Looney did in 1955.
ENDNOTES
1 Johnston, J (2005). Leavenworth Penitentiary: A history of America’s oldest federal prison. Leavenworth, Kan.: author.
2 Public Safety Performance Project. 2008. One in 100: Behind bars in America. Washington, D.C.: Pew Center on the States.
3 Sabol, W. and H. West. 2009. Prison inmates at mid-year 2008. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
4 Goldenson, J and M. Hennessey (2009). Correctional health care must be recognized as an integral part of the public health sector. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 36(2): S3-S4.
5 Freeman, R. 1996. Why do so many young American men commit crimes and what might we do about it. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 10(1):25-42.
6 Marbley, A. and R. Ferguson. 2005. Responding to prisoner reentry, recidivism, and incarceration of inmates of color. Journal of Black Studies, 35(5):633-649.
7 Serin, R. 2005. Evidenced-based practice: Principles for enhancing correctional results in prison. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Corrections.
8 Langan, P. and D. Levin. 2002. Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
9 Serin, R. 2005.
10 Schofield, R. 2009. Representing clients when criminal civil worlds collide – An examination of arrest, conviction, incarceration and reentry. Speech presented at the Durham County Bar Association, 11 February in Durham, N.C.
11 Sabol, W. and H. Couture. 2008. Prison inmates at mid-year 2007. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
12 Visher, C. and P. Lattimore. 2008. Major study examines prisoners and their reentry needs. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
13 Zedlewski, Edwin. 1987. Making confinement decisions. Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
14 Langan, P. and D. Levin. 2002.
15 Schofield, R. 2009.
16 DiIulio, J. and A. Piehl. 1991. Does prison pay?” Bookings Review, 4:29-35.
17 Krop, R. 1997. The social returns to increased investment in education: Measuring the effect of education on the cost of social programs. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corp.
18 Cohen, M. 2000. Measuring the costs and benefits of crime and justice. In Measurement and analysis of crime and justice, volume 4, 263-316. Available at www.ncjrs.org/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04f.pdf.
19 Travis, J., E. McBride and A. Solomon. 2006. Families left behind: The hidden costs of incarceration and reentry. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute.
20 Sabol, W. 2009. The correctional landscape. Speech presented at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Corrections and Public Health Consultation: Expanding the Reach of Prevention, 25 March in Atlanta.
21 Winterfield, L, P. Lattimore, D. Steffey, S. Brumbaugh and C. Lindquist. 2006. The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative: Measuring the effects of service delivery. Western Criminology Review, 7(2): 3-19.
22 Taxman, F., D. Young and J. Byrne. 2002. Offenders’ views of reentry. College Park, Md.: Bureau of Governmental Research. Available at www.bgr.umd.edu/pdf/May_2003_OffenderViews.pdf.
23 Greenwood, P., K. Model, C.Rydell and J. Chiesa. 1995. Diverting children from a life of crime: Measuring costs and benefits. Santa Monica, Calif: RAND Corp.
24 Thompson, A. 2008. Releasing prisoners, redeeming communities: Reentry, race and politics. New York: New York University Press.
Art Beeler is warden of the Federal Correctional Complex, Butner, N.C.
