T O EN F J TM U U.S. Department of Justice R S T A I P C E E D

B

O Office of Justice Programs J C S F A V M F O I N A C I J S R E BJ G O OJJ DP O F PR National Institute of Justice JUSTICE National Institute of Justice R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f Jeremy Travis, Director December 1996 Issues and Findings Work Release: Recidivism and Discussed in this Brief: Two NIJ- sponsored evaluations of Washing- Corrections Costs in Washington State ton State’s work release program, conducted between 1991 and by Susan Turner, Ph.D., and Joan Petersilia, Ph.D. 1994. The first study analyzed a cohort of 2,452 males released Each year U.S. release more than During the 1970s work release from Washington prisons in 1990, 400,000 criminal offenders to their com- programs expanded considerably, but nearly 40 percent of whom spent a munities. Most of those released will not they have declined in recent years. Al- part of their sentences on work re- lease, to describe how work re- remain free, and national statistics though 43 States have existing statutes lease operates and how success- show that within 3 years of release, 40 authorizing work release, only about one- 1 fully inmates perform in the pro- percent will be returned to prison or jail. third of U.S. prisons report operating gram. The second compared the Experts debate the reasons for such high such programs, and fewer than 3 percent recidivism of 218 offenders; ap- recidivism rates, but all agree that the of U.S. inmates participate in them.2 proximately half participated in lack of adequate job training and work work release and half completed opportunities is a critical factor. Offend- Despite public disenchantment with their sentences in prison. ers often have few marketable skills and work release (see “Reasons for the De- cline of Work Release”), the State of Key issues: In contrast to the na- training and, as a result, have a difficult time securing legitimate employment. Washington has maintained its commit- tional decline of work release as a ment to the program since initiating it in means of preparing imprisoned of- With no legitimate income, many resort fenders for reintegration into the to crime. 1967. The Washington work release pro- community, Washington has allo- gram permits selected inmates to serve cated more than one-third of its Since the early 1920s, corrections offi- the final 4 to 6 months of their prison community corrections budget to cials have attempted to remedy the prob- sentences in privately run, community work release. The releasees obtain lem through prison work release residential facilities, where they are re- daytime jobs, live in community fa- programs. Work release programs permit quired to be employed, submit to drug cilities, and contribute to their selected nearing the end of testing, and abide by curfews and numer- room and board. Key issues ex- their terms to work in the community, re- ous program rules. plored in the studies were correc- turning to prison facilities or community tions costs, the consequences of residential facilities in nonworking hours. It is not that Washington has been immune participants committing infractions to the challenges faced by other States. while on work release, and recidivism. Such programs are designed to prepare inmates to return to the community in a Washington’s prison population has Key findings: The results of the relatively controlled environment, while jumped 71 percent since 1980, while the evaluation were mostly positive: they are learning how to work produc- State’s general population has grown just tively. Work release also allows inmates 13 percent. Citizens are frustrated with • Nearly a quarter of all prisoners high levels of crime and violence, as is evi- released in Washington made a to earn income, reimburse the State for part of their confinement costs, build up denced by their legislature’s enactment of successful transition to the the Nation’s first “three strikes” law—in community through work release. savings for their eventual full release, part a reaction to a felon’s committing a continued . . . and acquire more positive living habits. R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Issues and Findings rape while on parole. Observers have Study 2 evaluated the impact of work re- continued . . . wondered how the program can continue lease on recidivism and on corrections • Less than 5 percent of the work to operate successfully when the empha- costs by comparing a sample of inmates releasees committed new sis is on punitive policies and politics. who participated in work release with a while on work release, 99 percent comparable sample of inmates who com- of which were less serious property This Research in Brief presents findings pleted their sentences in prison. Investiga- offenses, such as forgery or theft. from two studies of Washington’s work re- tors collected information about program lease program, conducted under a National implementation and recidivism at 6 and 12 However, with heightened supervi- Institute of Justice (NIJ) grant between 1991 sion under strict conditions, many months following the inmates’ assignment and 1994. In sponsoring the studies, NIJ to the study. work releasees incurred infractions hoped that results might add to the growing (most for rule violations and drug body of research on intermediate sanctions Overall, the studies found that the program possession), and a quarter returned to prison. Thus, when one consid- and provide guidance to other States that achieved its most important goal: preparing ers the reincarceration time spent were looking for effective and less costly inmates for final release and facilitating 3 by work release “failures,” the corrections programs. their adjustment to the community. The time under correctional supervision program did not cost the State more than it was as long or longer for work Study 1 analyzed a cohort of all males re- would have if the releasees had remained release participants as for nonpar- leased (n=2,452) from Washington prisons in prison. The public safety risks were ticipants. And there were no differ- in 1990. Data pertaining to their criminal nearly nonexistent because almost no work ences in corrections costs between and social background and their participa- releasee committed new crimes, and when work releasees and inmates com- tion and performance in work release were they committed rule violations they were pleting their full terms in prison. analyzed to describe how work release was quickly returned to prison. implemented in Washington and how well Other findings indicated: inmates performed in the program. Esti- While in the program these inmates main- • Middle-aged offenders and of- mated costs of work release versus prison tained employment, paid room and board, fenders convicted of property were based on analysis not only of the cost reconnected with their communities, and crimes were most likely to partici- of the program but on costs incurred if the most remained drug free. Less than 5 per- pate in work release. Hispanic of- work release participant was returned to cent committed new crimes while on work fenders were less likely to go to prison for violation of program rules or for release, and 99 percent of those crimes work release than white or black committing a crime. were less serious property offenses, such as offenders.

• Fifty-six percent of the 965 work releasees in the cohort studied were termed “successful”; they in- Reasons for the Decline of Work Release curred no program infractions or arrests. Another 13.5 percent were ne reason work release programming Moreover, a few highly publicized and sen- “moderately successful”; their in- O has declined pertains to funding. Many work sational failures convinced the public that fractions were not serious enough release programs begun in the 1970s were early-release programs, such as work release to return them to prison. Almost paid for by the Federal Government using or furlough, threatened public safety. The 30 percent were “unsuccessful”; funds from the Law Enforcement Assistance most extreme example was Willie Horton, they returned to prison. Administration. When Federal funding the Massachusetts inmate who absconded • Older offenders were more suc- ceased, many programs were discontinued. and committed serious and violent crimes cessful than younger ones, and And as the rehabilitation ideal—of which while on furlough. (Horton was actually on whites were more successful than work release was very much a part—started work furlough, not work release, but the either Hispanics or blacks. Success to fade, the public embraced two terms are often used interchangeably.) was also associated with having no as the only sure way to forestall crime. Pro- The case became an issue in the 1988 presi- prior criminal record. grams that focused on rehabilitation, job dential campaign, and the negative publicity training, and transitional services seemed helped further erode community support for Target audience: State and local hopelessly out of touch with the public. work release programs. officials and legislators, judges, and researchers and practitioners in community corrections.

2 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f forgery and petty theft. Moreover, of- with contractors to provide food and In the 1991–1993 biennium, approxi- fenders who participated in work release shelter in a halfway house arrangement, mately $115 million of the $312-million were somewhat less likely to be rear- and supervise the correctional officers DOC budget was allocated to community rested, but the results were not statisti- who are assigned to work release corrections. About 38 percent (or $43 cally significant. One could reasonably facilities. million) of the community corrections conclude from these results that work re- budget was for work release.4 These lease in Washington is a program “that The actual operation of the work release funds pay primarily for DOC staff to ad- works.” facilities is done on a contractual basis, minister the statewide program and with contracts renegotiated every 2 monitor participants at the work release years. DOC contracts with providers for How Washington’s work centers. the buildings, plus the day-to-day activi- release program operates ties, including staff, meals, shelter, in- Admission criteria and process. Washington’s work release program, mate sign-in and sign-out procedures, Washington’s work release program is created by legislative action in 1967, urinalysis, and job checks. Contracts are governed by the stipulations set forth gave the State permission to allow in- negotiated on a per bed, per day basis, in the Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of mates to serve sentences in the commu- regardless of whether the bed is actually 1981, which significantly altered the nity for the purpose of work training and occupied. In 1992, at the time of the State’s criminal sentencing practices experience. In 1970 the first commu- study, the average work release contract as well as the guidelines for work nity-based program was established in costs were between $32 and $35 per release. The SRA stipulates that an Seattle under a contract agreement with day, per bed. inmate may not enter work release Pioneer Cooperative, a private, nonprofit sooner than 6 months prior to dis- corporation (now Pioneer Human Ser- DOC contracts with 15 residential work charge. The exact time depends on the vices—see “A Partnership With Private release facilities, which house more than length of the offender’s original sen- Industry”). 350 offenders (mostly adult males) on tence. Inmates generally apply for any single day throughout the State. The work release within 12 to 17 months Staffing and costs. The work release facilities can handle a range of approxi- prior to their release date. The appli- program is the responsibility of the Divi- mately 15 to more than 100 residents, cation is screened by the correctional sion of Community Corrections within but most accommodate between 20 and counselor, the unit supervisor, and the State Department of Corrections 40 inmates. Small numbers of beds are finally by the current DOC facility (DOC). Division staff establish guide- available to female offenders and men- superintendent.5 lines governing the selection of offend- tally ill or developmentally disabled ers for placement in work release, work offenders. Inmates can apply for work release only if: • They have a minimum security status. A Partnership With Private Industry • They have less than 2 years to serve on their minimum term, including W ashington’s work release program the years PHS has grown to a full-service anticipated good time credits. has benefited enormously from a par- organization, providing job training at a ticularly close working partnership with manufacturing facility it runs, prerelease • They have not been convicted of private industry, particularly Pioneer Hu- and postrelease employment in a food rape in the first degree or, if so, are man Services (PHS). PHS has been con- service business it founded, housing for beyond the first 3 years of confine- tracting with DOC to operate work offenders with special needs, and elec- ment. release facilities since its inception nearly tronic monitoring of State and Federal of- 30 years ago. It now operates 4 such fenders. PHS is highly regarded nationally • They have not been convicted of facilities, housing about 1,200 work and in the State and was recognized by murder in the first degree or, if so, releasees annually (or about one-third of former President Bush in 1992 as one of have the written approval of the all Washington’s work releasees). Over the Nation’s “Points of Light.” Secretary of Corrections.

3 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Inmates who meet these initial screen- The CCOs work at the work release fa- in this cohort, background and crimi- ing criteria may be subsequently de- cilities a minimum of 8 hours a day. nal record information was obtained nied work release by DOC if (1) they Their primary role is to provide case from DOC’s computerized Offender- have exhibited assaultive behavior management services, which includes Based Tracking System (OBTS). OBTS while in prison, (2) the offender’s vic- providing informal advice and con- lists the inmate’s age, race, prior tim resides in the area, (3) the offender ducting intake interviews. For ex- criminal record, most serious convic- has made threats to the victim during ample, they review each client’s tion, sentence length imposed, and incarceration, or (4) the offender has progress as well as discuss personal date admitted and discharged from two or more prior work release failures problems, such as substance abuse. DOC. It also records transfers to jail, during the current commitment. CCOs can require offenders to partici- prerelease, and work release and work pate in special treatment or may ini- release application and performance Once DOC judges an offender eligible tiate procedures for sending them back information. To this information was for work release, the work release fa- to prison. Residents fill out “Offender added more detailed data from DOC cilities’ Community Screening Board, Schedule Plans” listing place of em- files on the exact reason for return consisting of work release staff and ployment, immediate supervisor, and (e.g., new crime, drug possession) for local citizens, must agree to accept rate of pay; CCOs check with employ- work releasees who had been returned the inmate for admission to their local ers to verify these facts. to custody. work release center. In most cases the Community Screening Board accepts Study 1: A statewide analysis Study 1 findings DOC’s recommendations. of work release The data reveal that almost half (48.8 Daily operations. After being ac- Study 1 was designed to answer the percent) of the inmates in the 1990 cepted for a particular residential fa- following research questions: release cohort applied for work release cility, inmates receive a set of during their prison term, and 39.4 standard rules. These rules specify • What are the characteristics of pris- percent were placed in work release that they are to abide by their work oners placed on work release? How facilities at some point during their plan, remain in the work release facil- have these characteristics differed sentence. ity at all times except those approved from those of the general prison popu- for work and other appointments, re- lation? An average of 7.1 months elapsed be- main alcohol and drug free, be em- tween the time an inmate was admitted • How many offenders placed on work ployed or have resources in order to to prison and when he applied for work release have successfully completed meet financial needs, report all earn- release. Once the application was sub- their programs? Why have some not ings to DOC community corrections of- mitted, it took just over 3 weeks before succeeded? ficers (CCOs), and obey all Federal, a decision was made to accept or re- State, and local laws. • What characteristics distinguish ject him for the program. After an ad- those who have been successful from ditional 56 days, the inmate actually Offenders must obtain gainful employ- those who have been unsuccessful on entered a work release facility; this ment or training and must pay about $10 work release? time was used to prepare the inmate a day for room and board. Participants • What are the costs associated with a for work release and to locate a suit- are ultimately responsible for finding able and available residential place- prison term that includes a work re- work in the community, although CCOs ment. These inmates served an and staff provide referrals. Residents lease sentence compared to those of a prison sentence without work release? average sentence of 15 months. With also pay support to their families and an average application process of 10 court-ordered restitution. The average The data for study 1 were supplied by months, the inmates spent approxi- length of stay in the work release facility DOC research staff. They identified all mately 5 months in work release. is about 4 months but varies according male inmates released from prison (to Participant characteristics. to the length of the original court- the streets) during calendar year One would expect work release participants imposed sentence. 1990.6 For each of the 2,452 offenders to differ from the general prison popula-

4 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f tion since the law and DOC policies in- mates had other program options for release to begin with, and that about dicate that only certain offenses and of- decreasing their prison length of stay two-thirds succeeded, it is clear that al- fenders (generally the less serious) are (such as a “work ethic” camp for non- most one out of four inmates in Wash- eligible. After meeting these legal stan- violent offenders). ington made a successful transition to dards, inmates are free to decide if they the community through work release. want to apply for work release. Incen- Although Hispanics were dispropor- tives to participate include the opportu- tionately underrepresented in the work An additional 131 inmates (or 13.5 nity to live in the community, be closer release cohort, this did not appear to percent of participants) were moder- to family and friends, and obtain some result from their having fewer of the ately successful, and 290 inmates (or practical work experience. But some characteristics that would have made 30 percent of participants) were inmates do not plan to be released to a them eligible. In fact, Hispanics were judged unsuccessful in work release location where a work facility exists, and overrepresented as drug offenders— and were returned to prison to com- some inmates judge the requirements which indicates their representation plete their terms. and closer supervision of work release among work releasees should have been much higher than observed. DOC The most frequent reasons for return to too bothersome. They choose instead to prison from work release were failure serve out their full terms in prison. staff suggested one reason for fewer- than-expected Hispanics is that some to abide by curfews or absconding Several background characteristics may have had Immigration and Natu- from the program, drug possession, distinguished inmates who did not ralization Service detainers, making and other program rule infractions (see choose work release from those who them ineligible for work release. exhibit 1). New crimes or law viola- did: tions accounted for a very small per- Who was successful? Each inmate centage (3.6 percent) of those • Younger and older inmates were less was classified according to perfor- returned. In fact, in the entire cohort likely than middle-aged inmates mance: of 965 work releasees studied, records to go to work release. indicate that no offender committed a • Successful inmates were those who violent felony while in the program: • Hispanics were less likely to go to completed work release without any the few crimes committed were thefts work release than either whites or type of rule infraction or new crimes and forgeries. These findings suggest blacks. having been noted in their official cor- that Washington’s work release pro- rections record and who returned di- • Inmates with no prior criminal gram poses very little risk to the sur- rectly into the community from the rounding community. record were less likely to go to work work release facility. release. Predicting success. Variables indi- • Moderately successful inmates were cating race, education level, occupa- • Inmates convicted of property of- those who had committed an infraction tion before imprisonment, marital fenses (burglary, theft, and forgery) but one not judged serious enough to status, employment status at arrest, were the most likely to go to work remove them permanently from work previous work stability, conviction of- release. release. fense type, prior criminal record, sub- At least one of these differences may • Unsuccessful inmates committed stance abuse dependency, and length reflect the screening procedures for some type of infraction, either a rule of current sentence were each cross- work releases. For example, policies violation or new criminal conduct, and tabulated with the three success-level deny work release to offenders con- were returned to prison to serve out variables, revealing that: victed of certain violent offenses— the remainder of their term. hence their lower representation in the • Older offenders were more success- Of the 965 work releasees in the cohort, work release sample. There could be ful at work release than younger 544 (or 56 percent of participants) were another explanation for the finding offenders. judged successful in work release. If that inmates with no prior criminal • Whites were more successful than one considers that nearly 40 percent of records were less likely to participate Hispanics and blacks. More than 40 the original cohort were placed on work in work release. These lower risk in- percent of Hispanic and black work

5 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f releasees were returned to prison com- for example, work release costs about rule violations are punished with in- pared with 25 percent of white $34 a day, and prison costs $54 a day carceration, initial cost savings are re- offenders. (operational costs only).9 In addition, duced or eliminated as a result of the inmates who work can be required to additional dollars required to incarcer- • Offenders with no prior criminal help pay for their room and board, ate program failures. In effect, close record were more successful than support their families, and pay taxes. surveillance may end up generating those with a prior record. Almost two- many program failures who are eventu- thirds of inmates with no prior record Unfortunately, the cost savings accrued ally returned to prison. In that case, were successful compared with fewer through work release and other com- the State incurs the cost of their work than half the offenders with a prior munity-based programs have not been release program in addition to even- conviction. as substantial as proponents had hoped. tual reuse of a . The com- • Offenders convicted of person For example, Minnesota recently imple- munity-based sanction may actually crimes (e.g., robbery and assault) were mented an Intensive Supervision Pro- end up costing more than a single term more successful than offenders con- gram designed to release prisoners early of incarceration uninterrupted by work victed of property or drug crimes.7 from prison on the condition that they release. Previous work release evalua- participate in an enhanced community tions have not provided a complete ac- Comparing work release costs supervision program. Fewer offenders with prison costs. A recent survey of counting of total costs, which at a than expected actually participated in minimum must include the cost of re- prison administrators reported that, early release, reducing the potential for while they recognized the rehabilita- housing unsuccessful work release of- large cost savings. Similar results have fenders in jail or prison. tive potential of work release, they been seen in New Jersey, Florida, Ari- were most interested in using work re- zona, Texas, and Oregon.10 For each of the 2,452 inmates in the lease to reduce prison crowding and work release cohort, files on their move- 8 associated costs. Community-based It is therefore clear that community- ments since coming to prison were avail- facilities are much less expensive to based sanctions are not necessarily able. The data made it possible to record operate than prisons, and so allowing less expensive than prison. It all de- how much time each inmate spent in inmates to serve the last several pends on how offenders behave in the work release and nonwork release insti- months of their prison sentence in the program and how program administra- tutions as well as in local jails. community can reduce corrections tors choose to punish infractions (par- costs. According to national estimates, ticularly drug use). If infractions and DOC then provided statewide esti- mates of the daily cost of different Exhibit 1: Most Serious Infraction for “Unsuccessful” Work Release sanctions; by combining this informa- Participants tion, researchers were able to calculate Reason for Return Percent of 290 Offenders the average cost of a prison sentence Law Violation 3.6 that included work release and one Forgery 0.7 that did not (see exhibit 2). Theft 1.4 When all incarceration time served is Other, unspecified 1.5 taken into account, inmates who par- Medical Condition 3.6 ticipated in work release served, on Drug Possession 34.9 average, about 4 months less time in a Program Rule Violation 57.8 prison or prerelease facility than in- mates who did not participate. How- Alcohol possession 12.2 ever, for every 3 days in work release, Escape/curfew 20.1 offenders spend about 1 day back in Fighting 3.2 an institution—either prison or a Failure to work 4.3 prerelease center. Failure to report income 2.5 Miscellaneous 15.5 Exhibit 2 suggests that inmates who par- ticipated in work release cost the State

6 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f about $4,000 less than inmates who did ences result from participating in work Offenders who were deemed eligible not. However, the cost comparison does release rather than from preexisting for work release by DOC were ran- not account for crime and background background differences. domly assigned to either the experi- differences between work releasees and mental group (who progressed toward nonwork releasees, which have already The experiment was conducted in Se- work release using normal procedures) been shown to be considerable. It is attle, which is Washington’s largest city or the control group (who were re- known that nonwork releasees were, on and home to more than 50 percent of moved from the work release eligibility average, convicted of more serious the work release offenders. The study list and remained in prison to com- crimes. As such, one would expect that had the full cooperation of the Wash- plete their full prison terms). they would serve longer prison terms ington DOC, the DOC Community Cor- and cost the State more as a result. To rections Division, and the various To avoid seriously disrupting the flow make credible cost comparisons among managers of the six individual work re- of inmates into Seattle work release fa- sanctions, one must compare offenders lease facilities serving males in Seattle. cilities, investigators assigned 1 out of who are similar in background charac- every 10 eligible inmates to the control Identifying the sample. The study group and 1 to the experimental group. teristics and conviction crimes. Study 2 required a fairly large sample size in was designed to do exactly that. The remaining 8 eligible offenders did order to detect the relatively small out- not participate in the study but instead come differences that were expected maintained their status on the waiting Study 2: The impact of work between experimental and control of- list and were handled according to release on recidivism and on fenders. Based on prior evaluations, it normal DOC operating procedures. corrections costs was estimated that the work release ef- Based on analysis of available DOC fects (e.g., recidivism reduction) would This evaluation of the effects of work data, these procedures were estimated not be large, with perhaps 10- to 20-per- release was designed as an experiment to yield approximately 200 study of- cent differences between experimental in which eligible offenders were to be fenders a year. and controls. Procedures were devised randomly assigned to participate or not to participate in work release. In a ran- that would yield expected sample sizes However, the flow of offenders enter- of several hundred offenders during the domized experiment, one has more ing the DOC pool of work release “eli- time frame of the study. confidence that any observed differ- gibles” was too slow to permit reaching an adequate sample size during the study’s assignment period. A year after Exhibit 2: Costs of Prison Sentence That Includes Work Release vs. Prison Without Work Release the random assignment procedures were put in place, only 125 offenders Program Type Prison Without Prison With had been assigned to the study. It is Work Release Work Release unclear why the inmate flow did not Daily Average Average meet expectations, but DOC officials Cost Number of Cost Number of Cost Days Days suggest it resulted from fewer applica- Before Work Release tions to the program (not from rejecting Prison $68.60 440 $30,185 240 $16,464 more applicants). Prerelease $50.36 11 $ 554 48 $ 2,417 Jail $51.00 1 $ 51 0 0 To increase the study’s sample size, After Work Release researchers supplemented the random- Prison $68.60 — — 25 $ 1,715 ized assignment with offenders who Prerelease $50.36 — — 11 $ 554 during the study period had been part Work release $48.07 — — 104 $ 4,999 of the 8 out of every 10 offenders who Jail $51.00 — — 5 $ 255 Total Costs $30,790 $26,404 were not included in the initial ran- domized assignment procedures. Note: Prison, prerelease, and work release costs are averages of 1991–1992 and 1992– Forty-eight offenders were randomly 1993 costs. For jail costs, $51/day is the figure that would be charged to an outside con- tractor for a jail bed in King County, Washington (the largest county). Work release costs selected from this initial pool of work reflect “recovery” costs of inmates’ room and board payments. release eligibles and placed in the ex-

7 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f perimental study group. In addition, expected since about one-third of ten they were tested for drugs, and the DOC identified 45 additional control Washington’s DOC population comes kinds of rehabilitation programs they offenders who for reasons unrelated to from the Seattle area. As shown in ex- participated in. eligibility criteria had not actually par- hibit 3, the study work release offend- ticipated in work release prior to their ers averaged about 30 years of age. As expected, most of the program’s fo- release from prison, primarily because About half of the offenders in the cus was on obtaining a job. In fact, if they had “maxed out” on their sen- sample were white, and 43 percent offenders did not have a job within the tences before all the administrative were black. More than half of the first few weeks, they might be returned procedures had been completed or sample were convicted of drug of- to the institution. Generally, offenders work release beds had become avail- fenses, and 84 percent were classified had one or two jobs during their 3- to able. These offenders were used to as dependent on alcohol, with almost 4-month work release stay. Many more supplement the control group. Thus, three-quarters dependent on cocaine. interviews were attempted with employ- the final sample totaled 218 offenders, About two-thirds of the offenders in ers than were actually completed. The of whom 125 had been randomly as- the sample had never worked or had analysis of offenders’ first jobs showed signed to the study and an additional worked only occasionally (6.2 percent that most were either in the restaurant 93 had been chosen as a matched and almost 60 percent, respectively). or construction industries, with a me- comparison group.11 dian pay of $8 an hour. More than half One can see that the characteristics of of the offenders were still working at Data collection. For each of the 218 work release participants were not sig- their first jobs when they left work re- study participants, a number of data nificantly different from those of lease (discharged from DOC or placed collection forms were completed by nonwork release participants, except on postrelease supervision) or when the the researchers’ onsite staff. The back- in three instances: number of prior ar- review of their files was completed. ground review captured information rests, occupational history, and type of about the inmate’s demographics (e.g., current offense. This suggests that the Work releasees were tested for drugs age, race, education, marital status), randomization and matching strategy at the work release facility an average prior employment history, drug use in- used was successful in that it was de- of once a month. The tests revealed formation, current offense information, sired that the two groups be similar in very low percentages of drug use. Only and prior criminal history. background characteristics so that any 8 percent of work release participants observed differences in recidivism tested positive for drugs, usually for At 6 months and again at 12 months after could be attributed to participation in cocaine. On average, work releasees assignment, a series of other forms were work release.12 participated in outpatient drug and al- completed that recorded such informa- cohol counseling sessions (usually Al- tion as time spent in different institutions coholics Anonymous and Narcotics Work release program and work release centers, contacts made Anonymous meetings) about once ev- and services received, and the number of activities ery 2 months. In addition, they had days on postdischarge status. Finally, re- The investigators sought to learn what face-to-face meetings with their CCO cidivism information was obtained for actually transpired when offenders about once a week. each offender based on State-level crimi- were placed in work release. What nal history “rap sheets.” The date, nature kinds of jobs did they get, and what Recidivism outcomes during of arrest, disposition, and sentence were types of monitoring activities were im- 12-month followup recorded for each offense occurring posed? How well did inmates perform, during the 1-year followup period after and how long did they stay in the pro- It is generally believed that recidivism study assignment. gram? To answer those questions, the rates are the key factor in determining work release offenders were “followed” the effectiveness of work release. This study included a 1-year followup pe- Characteristics of the Seattle into their individual site placements, riod, which began at the point of ran- sample and information was coded about the kinds of jobs they obtained, how much dom assignment. Work releasees were The Seattle sample closely resembled money they earned, the number of not immediately placed in the commu- the statewide sample, which was to be times they were seen by CCOs, how of- nity following random assignment,

8 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

since several weeks often passed be- Exhibit 3: Characteristics of Control vs. Experimental Work Release Sample tween approval for the program and Control Experimental actual transfer to the work release fa- (N=106) (N=112) (Percent) (Percent) cility. Thus, the 12-month followup in- cluded an average of 2 months initial Average Age (years) 31.4 30.4 Race time in an institution, followed by an White 63.2 49.6 Black 30.2 43.2 average of 10 months in the community Hispanic 3.8 1.8 for work release study offenders. During Other 2.8 5.4 Educationa the followup period, control offenders High school 45.9 48.4 were “on the street” an average of just High school graduate 39.3 48.4 Posthigh school under 7 months after being released graduate 13.1 3.1 Occupationa from prison. Clerical/sales/teacher 4.6 4.7 Service 13.1 14.1 Skilled labor 26.2 25.0 Investigators obtained each offender’s Semiskilled 13.1 17.2 State rap sheet and recorded all arrests Unskilled 19.7 31.2 Marital Statusa (felony and misdemeanor), convictions, Single 62.3 67.2 and incarcerations occurring during the Married 18.0 6.2 Divorced/separated 16.4 23.4 followup period. Information on infrac- Employed at Time of Arresta Yes 34.4 25.0 tions during work release and prison was Work Stabilitya,b obtained from the DOC OBTS computer Never worked 16.4b 6.2 Occasionally 36.1 59.4 and work release folders. Events that About half the time 4.9 10.9 Worked most of the time 16.4 9.4 occurred while the offender was in Continuous employment 21.3 9.4 prison or on work release were separated Unknown 4.9 4.0 Most Serious Current Offenseb from events that occurred afterward (in- Homicide 2.9 3.6 Rape/sex 16.2 1.8 cluding postdischarge). Robbery 5.7 12.6 Assault 7.6 8.1 The results (see exhibit 4) show signifi- Burglary 24.8 15.3 Theft 11.4 8.1 cant differences. Infractions (mostly rule Drugs 31.4 50.4 Other 0.0 0.0 violations and drug possession and use) Average Sentence Length (months) (months) were recorded for 58 percent of work 25.5 18.0 Average Number of (number) (number) releasees but for only 4.7 percent of Prior arrestsb 7.2 4.5 Prior felony convictions 2.8 2.4 nonwork releasees. As a result, about a Prior miscellaneous quarter of all work releasees were re- convictions 2.9 2.1 Prior jail terms 2.3 2.1 turned to prison, compared to 1 percent Prior prison terms 0.9 0.5 Prior adult person criminal of nonwork releasees. However, when convictions 0.3 0.3 looking at infractions while offenders Prior adult drug convictions 0.5 0.5 were in an institution, one finds that Prior adult property convictions 1.7 1.4 nonwork releasees incurred significantly Prior adult other more infractions during their time in convictions 1.0 1.0 Dependency ona prison. When one adds together infrac- Alcohol 78.7 84.4 Marijuana 62.3 70.3 tions during work release and while in LSD 3.3 7.8 prison (in analyses not reported in ex- Amphetamines 1.6 1.6 Cocaine 59.0 73.4 hibit 4), work release offenders were Crack 29.5 28.1 Heroin 16.4 12.5 twice as likely to incur a violation when Participated in Drug Treatmenta compared to nonwork releasees (67.3 Yes 67.2 68.8 percent versus 33.6 percent). a Indicates data were available for randomly assigned subjects only. b Indicates controls and experimentals were significantly different at p<.05. Chi-square tests were used for categorical variables; t-tests were used for continuous variables. In terms of new crimes, although work releasees were less likely to be arrested

9 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f during the followup period, the differ- arrested, compared to 22 percent of turned to prison during the 1-year ence was not statistically significant. As work releasees (experimentals). As a followup, compared to 5.7 percent for in study 1, a very small percentage of result, about 4 percent of both groups nonwork release participants. work releasees were arrested for new were returned to prison for a new crime crimes while on work release (less than during the year. The returns to prison were mostly for 3 percent). By the end of the 1-year short stays, however. By the end of the followup period, which included an Overall, if one combines all the re- 1-year followup period, 71.4 percent of average of about 3 months after dis- turns to prison (for either a rule infrac- control offenders and 52.7 percent of charge from DOC, 30 percent of tion or new crime), one finds that 29.5 experimental offenders had been dis- nonwork releasees (controls) had been percent of work releasees were re- charged. Nine percent of work release participants were institutionalized, contrasted with 2.9 percent of controls, Exhibit 4: Recidivism During 1-Year Followup for Study 2 Participants a marginally significant difference. Control Experimental These differences suggest that the (N=106) (N=112) length of time under correctional su- (Percent) (Percent) pervision may actually have been In-Prison Infractions longer for those participating in work Any infraction 29.8* 11.8 release. Assault/sex crime 5.8* 0.9 Weapon possession 1.0 0.0 Possession of drugs, Costs of work release alcohol 3.8 3.6 versus prison Rules 17.3* 5.4 Work Release Infractions Is work release less expensive than serv- Any infraction 4.7* 58.0 ing a complete term in prison? To answer Assault/sex crimes 0.0 0.0 Weapon possession 0.0 0.0 this question, one must determine the Possession of drugs, relevant period of time for which costs alcohol 1.0* 18.8 are to be estimated. Since about 26 per- Escape 0.0 8.9 cent of work releasees were returned to Rules 2.8* 42.3 prison as a result of a work release in- Sanctions for Infractions Jail pending a hearing 1.0 1.8 fraction, the costs of rehousing them in Returned to prison 1.0* 25.9 prison needed to be considered in the Arrests During Work Release overall cost calculation. Any arrest 0.0 2.7 Homicide/rape 0.0 0.0 If one considers only costs before the in- Assault 0.0 0.0 mates either leave prison or work release Robbery 0.0 0.9 Theft 0.0 0.9 for the first time, one ignores “reprocess- Drugs 0.0 0.9 ing” for offenders who are returned to Arrests After Release prison from work release facilities or the Any arrest 30.2 22.3 community. However, if one wants to in- Homicide/rape 0.0 0.0 Assault 8.5 2.7 clude costs following first release, one Robbery 0.9 1.8 must make some decision about how far Burglary 3.8 2.7 in the future to extend the window for Theft 3.8 7.1 analysis. Not all the study offenders Drugs 7.6 8.9 were discharged during the study time Sanctions for Arrests Any conviction 7.6 7.1 period; thus, one cannot estimate costs Any jail 0.0* 3.4 for the entire sentence served in the in- Any prison 4.7 3.6 stitution plus time in the community be- * Indicates control and experimental groups were significantly different at p<.05 using fore discharge for all offenders. The chi-square tests. analysis reflects the costs associated

10 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f with completed sentences for 70 per- the estimated cost would average tion during work release; any arrest cent of controls and 50 percent of $25,883 per inmate. This is in contrast during the 1-year followup; and any experimentals. to the estimated $25,494 it would have return to prison (as a result of infrac- cost per inmate, on average, to serve out tion or arrest) during the 1-year Washington corrections officials fur- his time in prison. followup. A number of background nished the daily cost of each of the cor- characteristics of offenders were con- rectional programs, making it possible to The two studies thus produced similar sidered, such as age, race, education, compute the total costs of supervising findings regarding the costs of work re- prior employment, drug involvement, each inmate during the initial sentence lease. Other findings related to success, and current offense. and the followup period. By averaging failure, and recidivism lead to several these cost estimates across inmates in conclusions. It was not possible to find characteristics the control and experimental groups, of offenders, or a profile of an offender, one can compare the costs of a prison Who is successful on who appeared to do better on work re- term that includes work release to one work release? lease than in prison. However, a few that does not. characteristics were related to success, Although work release might not reduce regardless of condition. For example, of- The analysis (see exhibit 5) shows basi- the overall recidivism rates of partici- fenders with a prior history of cocaine or cally no difference in costs between pants, there may be subgroups for whom crack dependence were more likely to work releasees and inmates completing the program could produce more suc- have committed an infraction than oth- their full terms in prison. If one consid- cessful outcomes. Similar to the analy- ers; those whose most serious current of- ers the costs associated with work re- sis in study 1, an attempt was made to fense was for a theft charge were more lease from the time an inmate was identify factors that were related to likely to be rearrested; and white offend- admitted to prison until his discharge, three recidivism outcomes: any infrac- ers were less likely than others to com- mit an infraction. Exhibit 5: Study 2 Work Release vs. Prison Costs, for Initial Sentence and 1 Year After Assignment to Study Summary and conclusions Daily Control Experimental Cost Washington’s work release program has been successful on several fronts: Average Average Number of Cost Number of Cost nearly a quarter of all prisoners re- Days Days leased in Washington under current Before First Release statutes made a successful transition to to Community the community through work release. Prison $68.60 290 $19,894 240 $16,464 Prerelease $50.36 95 $ 4,784 48 $ 2,417 While in the program, these inmates Work release $48.07 6 $ 288 88 $ 4,230 maintained employment, reconnected with their local communities, paid for After Release their room and board, and most re- (i.e., reprocessing cost) Prison $68.60 3 $ 206 29 $ 1,989 mained drug free. Given that in most Prerelease $50.36 2 $ 101 7 $ 353 States fewer than 5 percent of prison- Work release $48.07 1 $ 48 5 $ 240 ers even participate in work release, Community custody this is quite an accomplishment. inmate $ 2.03 55 $ 112 80 $ 162 Postrelease However, the work release program supervision $ 2.03 30 $ 61 14 $ 28 Discharge 0 108 0 80 0 did not reduce offender recidivism Totals 592 $25,494 592 $25,883 rates or corrections costs. Critics of community corrections often argue that Note: For controls, “after release” refers to the followup time after an offender first leaves his initial prison term and returns “to the street.” For experimentals, “after release” such programs should deliver all of the refers to the followup time after an offender first leaves his first placement in a work re- above services while showing a reduc- lease facility and returns either “to the street” or back to an institution. tion in recidivism and costs. Such ex-

11 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f pectations are unrealistic. Prison pro- Notes fenders released in 1990 were SRA of- grams should not assume the goals and fenders and 90 percent were male. 1. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correc- functions of other social institutions tional Populations in the United States, 7. The recidivism predictors are nearly such as schools and welfare agen- 1992, Washington D.C.: U.S. Depart- identical to those identified in a na- cies.13 ment of Justice, Bureau of Justice tional sample of released prisoners Realistic measures of corrections pro- Statistics, 1995, Table 5.12a. (Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley, Recidivism of Prisoners Released in grams’ effectiveness should account 2. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Census 1983, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart- for daily activities and the constraints of State and Federal Correctional ment of Justice, Bureau of Justice under which the programs operate. Facilities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Statistics, 1989). Realism, however, does not mean easy Department of Justice, Bureau of to achieve. Most participants in Justice Statistics, 1990:1. 8. Simon, Senator Paul, “Wardens Call Washington’s work release program for Smarter Sentencing, Alternatives to 3. The few previous studies of work re- had lengthy criminal histories, serious Incarceration, and Prevention Pro- lease had shown some positive re- substance abuse problems, and pos- grams,” U.S. Senate Press Release, sults—mostly on employment rather sessed limited education and job Washington D.C., December 21, 1994. skills. Yet, when supervised in this than recidivism. These studies relied work release program, they found jobs, primarily on quasi-experimental meth- 9. Maguire, Kathleen, and Ann L. ods that failed to control adequately paid rent, and refrained from crime. Pastore, eds., Sourcebook of Criminal for preexisting differences between Justice Statistics 1993, Washington, Although most corrections evaluations study groups. Thus, one could not de- D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, adopt recidivism as their primary out- termine whether outcome differences Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1994. come measure, few corrections officials were due to the effect of the interven- 10. Clear, Todd, and Anthony Braga, believe that what they do chiefly deter- tion (work release) or to characteristics “Community Corrections,” in Crime, mines recidivism rates. As John J. on which work release and comparison groups differed. eds. James Q. Wilson and Joan DiIulio, Jr., recently wrote: “Most jus- Petersilia, San Francisco, California: tice practitioners understand that they 4. The work release budget includes ICS Press, 1995. can rarely do for their clients what par- the institution’s phase referred to as ents, teachers, friends, neighbors, “prerelease,” in which inmates pre- 11. Comparison of random versus non- clergy...or economic opportunities may pare for their placement in the com- random cases on a number of back- have failed to do.”14 Adopting more real- munity work release facilities, as well ground characteristics, including age, istic outcome measures may make it as actual placement in the community race, current offense, length of prison more possible to bridge the wide gap work release site. term, multiple measures of prior crim- between public expectations for the inal record, and legal financial ob- justice system and what most practitio- 5. The offender can also change his ligations revealed no statistically sig- ners recognize as the system’s actual mind about participating in work re- nificant differences between the two lease during the application process. capability to control crime. By docu- groups on any measure except the Of those who were denied work release menting what corrections programs can number of prior arrests and the num- in 1989 by DOC, 30 percent were of- accomplish, we can move toward inte- ber of prior parole revocations. Of fenders being held on detainers, 17 grating programs like work release into these characteristics, nonrandom of- percent were offenders with disciplin- fenders had fewer prior arrests and a more balanced corrections strategy. ary problems, 9 percent had escape in- Such a strategy would successfully return fewer prior parole revocations than fractions, and 17 percent refused to randomly assigned offenders. low-risk inmates to the community, participate in work release. thereby making room to incarcerate the With any random-assignment protocol, truly violent offenders. 6. Only male inmates who were the possibility exists that the actual sentenced and released under the placement may be inconsistent with Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) of 1981 the designated assignment. In the cur- were included in the sample. DOC es- rent study, several factors affected ac- timates that about 80 percent of of- tual placement after assignment.

12 R e s e a r c h i n B r i e f

Although experimental offenders were offenders than their control group mance Measures for the Criminal Jus- to be placed in work release facilities counterparts. To the extent these char- tice System, Washington D.C.: soon after the assignment call was acteristics are related to recidivism, U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of made to the researchers, in some in- one would tend to find more positive Justice Statistics, 1993. stances offenders reached the end of outcomes for the work releasees. their terms before placement. The po- However, the study found that work 14. DiIulio, John J., Jr., “Rethinking tential for changing control offender releasees were actually more likely to the Criminal Justice System: Toward a assignments was more often related to commit infractions. To address the New Paradigm,” in Performance Mea- offender dissatisfaction with remaining concern of differences in background sures for the Criminal Justice System, in prison rather than with being placed characteristics on the “any arrest” out- Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of in work release. Although potential come, a multiple logistic regression Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, challenges to control assignments were analysis was conducted in which “any 1993:1–2. anticipated by RAND Corporation and arrest” was regressed on controls ver- DOC staff and measures were taken to sus experimentals, age, race, high Susan Turner, Ph.D., is a senior deal with them (i.e., reminding offend- school graduate, employed prior to researcher with the Criminal ers that work release is a privilege and prison, dependence on cocaine or Justice Program, RAND Corpora- not a right), a few control offenders crack, whether postrelease supervision tion, and Joan Petersilia, Ph.D., were placed in work release when it had been ordered, whether the inmate is professor of , So- appeared their needs outweighed the was referred to the study from a cial Ecology Department, Univer- study assignment. When one examines prerelease center or an institution, sity of California, Irvine. This the actual placements versus those as- current offense type, and number of project was conducted in collabo- signed for the entire study sample, 91 prior arrests. The results mirrored ration with the Washington percent of controls remained in prison; those in exhibit 4—work releasees Department of Corrections and 86 members of the control group were were less likely, although not signifi- Pioneer Human Services. The placed in work release. cantly so, to be arrested during the authors wish to thank the follow- followup period. In other words, when The study’s main analysis of outcomes ing individuals who assisted with background factors are controlled, the project: Chase Riveland, Sec- considers cases as assigned, not as ac- conclusions are not changed. tually placed (thus one sees infractions retary, Washington Department during work release for a smaller per- 13. Charles Logan, a corrections ex- of Corrections; Dave Savage, centage of control offenders). Although pert, has written on such matters for Director, Division of Community this procedure results in diluted esti- the Department of Justice and recom- Corrections; Peggy Smith, Ph.D., mates of treatment effects, it is the rec- mended that realistic goals for prison Planning and Research Manager; ommended strategy to ensure unbiased programs should be fairly narrow, and Gary Mulhair, President, estimates of program impact. See Gar- achievable, and measurable within the Pioneer Human Services. This ner, Joel H., and Christy A. Visher, policies and programs operated by the study was conducted under NIJ “Policy Experiments Come of Age,” corrections department. He says that award 90–DD–CX–0056. NIJ Reports, Washington D.C.: U.S. prison programs should be held ac- Department of Justice, National Insti- countable for keeping prisoners safe, Findings and conclusions of the research re- tute of Justice, September/October in line (not committing crimes), ported here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or poli- 1988. healthy, and busy, and they should try cies of the U.S. Department of Justice. to do all of this as efficiently as pos- 12. Of the 25 characteristics on which sible and without causing undue suf- experimental and control offenders The National Institute of Justice is a fering. If those outcome measures are component of the Office of Justice were compared (see exhibit 3), one adopted (they were recently endorsed Programs, which also includes the Bureau would expect at least one comparison by the General Accounting Office), of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice to be significant by chance. Nonethe- Washington’s work release program is Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and less, the three significant differences certainly successful. See Logan, Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. found indicated that work releasees Charles H., “Criminal Justice Perfor- might have been slightly less serious mance Measures for Prisons,” Perfor- NCJ 163706

13 The LatestR Criminale s e a r Justicec h i n B r i e f Videotape Series from NIJ: Research in Progress Learn about the latest developments in criminal justice research from prominent criminal justice experts.

Each 60-minute tape presents a well-known scholar discussing his or her current studies and how they relate to existing criminal justice research and includes the lecturer’s responses to audience questions. The tapes in the series now available in VHS format are:

NCJ 152235—Alfred Blumstein, Ph.D., Pro- University of Pennsylvania: Crime in a Birth Co- NCJ 156925—John Monahan, Ph.D., Profes- fessor, Carnegie Mellon University: Youth Vio- hort: A Replication in the People’s Republic of China. sor, University of Virginia: Mental Illness and lence, Guns, and Illicit Drug Markets. Violent Crime. NCJ 153730—Lawrence W. Sherman, Ph.D., NCJ 152236—Peter W. Greenwood, Ph.D., Professor, University of Maryland: Reducing NCJ 157643—Benjamin E. Saunders, Ph.D., Director, Criminal Justice Research Program, Gun Violence: Community Policing Against Gun and Dean G. Kilpatrick, Ph.D., Medical Uni- The RAND Corporation: Three Strikes, You’re Crime. versity of South Carolina: Prevalence and Conse- Out: Benefits and Costs of California’s New Manda- quences of Child Victimization: Preliminary Results tory-Sentencing Law. NCJ 153272—Cathy Spatz Widom, Ph.D., from the National Survey of Adolescents. Professor, State University of New York–Al- NCJ 152237—Christian Pfeiffer, Ph.D., Di- bany: The Cycle of Violence Revisited Six Years Later. NCJ 159739—Joel H. Garner, Ph.D., Re- rector, Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut search Director, Joint Centers for Justice Stud- Niedersachsen: Sentencing Policy and Crime Rates NCJ 153273—Wesley Skogan, Ph.D., Profes- ies: Use of Force By and Against the Police. in Reunified Germany. sor, Northwestern University: Community Po- licing in Chicago: Fact or Fiction? NCJ 159740—Kim English, Research Direc- NCJ 152238—Arthur L. Kellermann, M.D., tor, Colorado Division of Criminal Justice: M.P.H., Director, Center for Injury Control, NCJ 153850—Scott H. Decker, Ph.D., Pro- Managing Adult Sex Offenders in Community Set- and Associate Professor, Emory University: Un- fessor, University of Missouri–St. Louis, and tings: A Containment Approach. derstanding and Preventing Violence: A Public Health Susan Pennell, San Diego Association of Gov- Perspective. ernments: Monitoring the Illegal Firearms Market. NCJ 160765—Michael Tonry, Ph.D., Profes- sor, University of Minnesota: Ethnicity, Crime, NCJ 152692—James Inciardi, Ph.D., Direc- NCJ 154277—Terrie Moffitt, Ph.D., Profes- and Immigration. tor, Drug and Alcohol Center, University of sor, University of Wisconsin: Partner Violence Delaware: A Corrections-Based Continuum of Ef- Among Young Adults. NCJ 160766—David M. Kennedy, Ph.D., Pro- fective Drug Abuse Treatment. fessor, Harvard University: Juvenile Gun Violence NCJ 156923—Orlando Rodriguez, Ph.D., and Gun Markets in Boston. NCJ 153270—Adele Harrell, Ph.D., Director, Director, Hispanic Research Center, Fordham Program on Law and Behavior, The Urban In- University: The New Immigrant Hispanic Popula- NCJ 161259—Robert Crutchfield, Ph.D., Pro- stitute: Intervening with High-Risk Youth: Prelimi- tions: Implications for Crime and Delinquency in the fessor, University of Washington: Labor Markets, nary Findings from the Children-at-Risk Program. Next Decade. Employment, and Crime.

NCJ 153271—Marvin Wolfgang, Ph.D., Di- NCJ 156924—Robert Sampson, Ph.D., Pro- NCJ 161836—Geoff Alpert, Ph.D., Professor, rector, Legal Studies and Criminology, fessor, University of Chicago: Communities and University of Southern California: Police in Pur- Crime: A Study in Chicago. suit: Policy and Practice. ✂ To order any of these tapes, please complete and return this form with your payment to National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Box 6000, Rockville, MD 20849–6000. Call 800–851–3420, or e-mail [email protected] if you have any questions. Please send me the following tapes: Qty. Presenter Name and NCJ # Subtotal @ $19 @ $19 @ $19 @ $19 Name Total Address City State ZIP Daytime phone ( ) ___ Payment enclosed (U.S. dollars) ___ Deduct this item from my NCJRS Deposit Account, account no. Charge my: ___ MasterCard ___VISA Account No. Exp. Date ______Signature 14 Selected NIJR e s Publications e a r c h iAbout n B Issuesr i e f Relating to Alternative Sanctions and Corrections

Listed below are some recent National Provisions for Boot Camp Graduates, Moses, Marilyn C., Keeping Incarcer- Institute of Justice publications related Research in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157664. ated Mothers and Their Daughters To- to alternative sanctions and correc- gether: Girl Scouts Beyond Bars, Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C. tions. These publications are free, ex- Program Focus, 1995, NCJ 156217. cept as indicated, and can be obtained Castellano, Ph.D., with the assistance from the National Criminal Justice of Laura A. Gransky, “Boot Camp” Parent, Dale, Jim Byrne, Vered Reference Service: telephone 800– Drug Treatment and Aftercare Inter- Tsarfaty, Laura Valade, and Julie 851–3420, e-mail [email protected], ventions: An Evaluation Review, Esselman, Day Reporting Centers, or write NCJRS, Box 6000, Rockville, Research Report, 1995, NCJ 153918. Volume 1, Issues and Practices, 1995, NCJ 155060. MD 20849–6000. Cowles, Ernest L., Ph.D., Thomas C. These documents also can be viewed Castellano, Ph.D., and Laura A. Parent, Dale, Jim Byrne, Vered or downloaded through the NCJRS Gransky, M.S., “Boot Camp” Drug Tsarfaty, Laura Valade, and Julie Bulletin Board System or at the Justice Treatment and Aftercare Interventions: Esselman, Day Reporting Centers, Information Center World Wide Web An Evaluation Review, Research in Volume 2, Issues and Practices, site, http://www.ncjrs.org, in ASCII or Brief, 1995, NCJ 155062. 1995, NCJ 155505. graphic formats. Call NCJRS for Hammett, Theodore M., Ph.D., Rubin, Paula N., and Susan W. more information. Rebecca Widom, Joel Epstein, Esq., McCampbell, The Americans With Please note that when free publica- Michael Gross, Ph.D., Santiago Sifre, Disabilities Act and Criminal Justice: tions are out of stock, they are avail- and Tammy Enos, 1994 Update: HIV/ Mental Disabilities and Corrections, able as photocopies or through AIDS and STDs in Correctional Facili- Research in Action, 1995, NCJ interlibrary loan. ties, Issues and Practices, 1995, NCJ 155061. 156832. Sexton, George E., Work in American Boone, Harry N., Ph.D., and Betsy A. Inciardi, Dr. James A., A Corrections- Prisons: Joint Ventures With the Pri- Fulton, Implementing Performance- Based Continuum of Effective Drug vate Sector, NIJ Program Focus, 1996, Based Measures in Community Abuse Treatment, Research in Progress NCJ 156215. Corrections, Research in Brief, 1996, Preview, 1996, FS 000145. (See page NCJ 158836. 14 for videotape available about this Tunis, Sandra, Ph.D., James Austin, research.) Ph.D., Mark Morris, Ph.D., Patricia Bourque, Blair B., Roberta C. Cronin, Hardyman, Ph.D., and Melissa Daniel B. Felker, Frank R. Pearson, Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness of Bolyard, M.A., Evaluation of Drug Mei Han, and Sarah M. Hill, Boot Treatment for Drug Abusers Under Treatment in Local Corrections, Camps for Juvenile Offenders: An Criminal Justice Supervision, Research Research Report, 1996, NCJ 159313. Implementation Evaluation of Three Report, 1995, NCJ 157642. Demonstration Programs, Research Widom, Rebecca, and Theodore M. in Brief, 1996, NCJ 157317. MacKenzie, Doris L., and Eugene Hammett, HIV/AIDS and STDs in Hebert, eds., Correctional Boot Camps: Juvenile Facilities, Research in Brief, Bourque, Blair B., Mei Han, and Sarah A Tough Intermediate Sanction, 1996, NCJ 155509. M. Hill, An Inventory of Aftercare Pro- Research Report, 1996, NCJ 157639. visions for 52 Boot Camp Programs, Wilcock, Karen, Theodore M. Research Report, 1996, NCJ 157104. McDonald, Douglas C., Managing Hammett, and Dale G. Parent, Con- Prison Health Care and Costs, Issues trolling Tuberculosis in Community Bourque, Blair B., Mei Han, and Sarah and Practices, 1995, NCJ 152768. Corrections, Research in Action, 1995, M. Hill, A National Survey of Aftercare NCJ 153211.

15 Quick Access to NIJ Publication News

For news about NIJ’s most recent publications, including solicitations for grant applications, subscribe to JUSTINFO, the bimonthly newsletter sent to you via e-mail. Here’s how:

■ Send an e-mail to [email protected]

■ Leave the subject line blank

■ Type subscribe justinfo your name (e.g., subscribe justinfo Jane Doe) in the body of the message

Or check out the “What’s New” section at the Justice Information Center homepage: http://www.ncjrs.org

U.S. Department of Justice BULK RATE Office of Justice Programs POSTAGE & FEES PAID National Institute of Justice DOJ/NIJ Permit No. G–91

Washington, D.C. 20531 ______

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300