HD7 - A Report of the Pre- and Post-Incarceration Services - An Evaluation Report

  • Published: 1984
  • Author: Department of Criminal Justice Services

Executive Summary:
The 1982 Virginia General Assembly budgeted $500,000 for the 82-84 biennium to provide pre- and post-release services to offenders who were being released from Virginia jails and state correctional institutions. The funds were provided to assist ex-offenders in their transition between incarceration and returning to society in order to reduce the recidivism of program participants. Two organizations were awarded funds, Offender Aid and Restoration, Inc. (OAR) and Virginia Community Re-Entry System (VIRGINIA CARES). VIRGINIA OAR was chosen to provide services to the jail prisoners being released in the metropolitan Richmond area. VIRGINIA CARES was chosen to provide services to felons released from state institutions in four VIRGINIA CARES' sites--Fairfax, Norfolk, Richmond and Roanoke.

The services provided to the clients in each program include pre- and post-release services which prepare them for release and provide services, such as counseling, referral for services, and employment assistance in the community.

The present evaluation was completed by the Department of Criminal Justice Services with assistance in obtaining data from both the Department of Corrections and the Virginia State Police. The evaluation consists of two major components. The first component provides a general description of both the OAR program and the VIRGINIA CARES program. Information is also provided on the number of clients and the types of services provided during the initial year of funding and an identification of any problems encountered. Data for this component were provided by the programs.

During the first year of funding, OAR of Richmond interviewed 877 misdemeanants and 313 felons and informed them of their services. A total of 1,732 services was requested. Thirty Pre-release Orientation Groups were held with 103 individuals completing the sessions. Forty-four (44) Family Life Groups were held with 30 individuals completing the sessions. The major problem OAR experienced was gaining access to and getting requests from the inmates in the Chesterfield jail. Both Richmond and Henrico jail staff appear to have been very cooperative.

During the first year of funding VIRGINIA CARES provided post-release services to 515 ex-offenders, exceeding their objective by 115. The majority of the ex-offenders receiving services were black (69.7%) and male (92.8%). The majority (72%) were on parole. The district probation and parole officers were the most frequent source of referrals to VIRGINIA CARES (45.4%). The overall percentage of successful employment placements was approximately 20.5%.

Additional funds provided to VIRGINIA CARES also enabled them to provide pre-release services during a six-month period. During this time 287 offenders were enrolled in the pre-release groups. Of this number, 238 completed the sessions. However, only 52 were actually released.

A number of issues in the VIRGINIA CARES program were apparent and centered around the need for greater cooperation between the Department of Corrections and VIRGINIA CARES, the definition of the targeted clients, the provision of unique services and the development of a client management system. Recommendations are included in the report.

The second major component of the report deals with VIRGINIA CARES' impact on recidivism. This is accomplished by comparing 177 VIRGINIA CARES' clients who were paroled during July 1, 1981 through December 1982 with a randomly selected group of 201 offenders paroled to the localities served by VIRGINIA CARES during the same time period. The data were provided by the Department of Corrections. The majority of both groups were black and males with a very similar median age (VIRGINIA CARES, 27.9 years and the comparison group 27.1 years). The majority of both groups were not married and had a similar educational background. Approximately half of each group had been paroled after serving time for a property offense. The majority of both groups had no prior commitments. Approximately half of both groups had no prior felony convictions.

Four measures of recidivism were analyzed. The first measure was any re-arrest following parole. Approximately thirty percent (29.9%) of the VIRGINIA CARES clients were rearrested for either a felony or a misdemeanor while 38.8% of the comparison group were rearrested. This difference in recidivism rates is not statistically significant and may have occurred through chance. However, the difference may indicate a trend. The second measure of recidivism is defined as a felony re-arrest. Approximately twenty percent (20.3%) of the VIRGINIA CARES clients .ere rearrested on felony charges while approximately twenty-eight percent (27.9%) of the comparison group were rearrested. Again this measure of recidivism is not statistically significant.

The third measure of recidivism used is any new conviction after parole. Approximately twelve percent (11.9%) of VIRGINIA CARES clients had a new conviction while 25.9% of the comparison group had a new conviction. This relationship is statistically significant indicating that the program participants have a lower recidivism rate than the comparison group.

The final measure of recidivism is a new felony conviction. Only 3.4% of the program participants had new felony convictions while 11.9% of the comparison group had new felony convictions. Again, this relationship is statistically significant indicating that the program participants do have a lower recidivism rate when defined as a new felony conviction.

The lack of statistically significant relationships in the measures of recidivism based on re-arrest suggest some need for further study. One would assume that if the actual program services had an impact on recidivism that all four measures would clearly show this. However, this is not the case. There may be some intervening variables which account for the differential recidivism rates as measured by reconviction. For example, VIRGINIA CARES' clients may have better access to legal representation, or VIRGINIA CARES' staff may intervene on behalf of their clients. Income has been shown to affect the type of legal representation retained and this has been shown to affect the court disposition. Income and the type of legal counsel were not variables in the present study. Thus, without further study, it is impossible to conclude unequivocally that VIRGINIA CARES' clients have lower recidivism rates than those not exposed to the program.

At first glance, it would appear that VIRGINIA CARES does indeed have an impact on recidivism defined as a reconviction. However, this conclusion must be tempered by the knowledge from the multivariate analysis findings presented in the report. These findings indicate that knowledge of whether a parolee is in VIRGINIA CARES or in the comparison group, plus knowledge of other theoretical relevant variables, does not increase the ability to predict their success or failure in terms of recidivism.

The conclusions in the report should be considered with some qualifications. The most important perhaps is that a longer follow-up period is suggested. The longer follow-up period would increase the number of cases in the analysis and would provide an increased confidence in the results of the recidivism study.