DOCCS marks 25th anniversary of Shock Incarceration

DOCCS marks 25th anniversary of Shock Incarceration
(NYS DOCCS press release: Wednesday, September 12, 2012)

Successful boot camp-style program that incorporates intensive drug and alcohol treatment, education and counseling has saved New York State taxpayers approximately $1.340 billion as an alternative to traditional incarceration

ALBANY – The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision today recognized the 25th anniversary of its Shock Incarceration Program, which was launched in 1987 at the Monterey Shock Incarceration Facility in Schuyler County.

Shock is a six-month program that is similar in nature to a military boot camp regimen, but it incorporates intensive substance abuse treatment and academic education within a therapeutic community setting. Since its inception at Monterey (Schuyler County), the program was expanded to the Summit (closed in 2011), Moriah (Essex County), and Lakeview Shock (Chautauqua County) Incarceration facilities, culminating in 1995 with the opening of Willard Drug Treatment Campus (Seneca County), a program for parole violators similar to the regimen of a shock incarceration facility.

All Shock participants are engaged in comprehensive life skills programs that include academic education, group counseling, intensive alcohol and substance abuse treatment, physical training, drill instruction and work crews. Shock provides 675 hours of substance abuse treatment and education in each six-month session. Shock inmates pass the GED at a rate of 80%.

In an Executive Chamber Proclamation highlighting the program’s anniversary, Governor Cuomo stated, “The Shock Incarceration Program is a groundbreaking program that has contributed significantly to the state’s lower incarceration levels, improved public safety within our communities and reduced costs to our state.”

Between 1987 and July of 2012, 79,114 Shock eligible inmates were screened for program participation, including 6,694 females. Ultimately, 61,687 inmates were transferred into Shock with 45,135 graduating (including 3,251 females), saving New York State taxpayers an estimated $1.340 billion.

DOCCS Commissioner Brian Fischer, today participating in a ceremony commemorating the program’s anniversary, stated, “The Shock Incarceration Program owes its success to the best trained and most dedicated staff the Department has, and to the creativity and support of individuals who brought it into existence twenty-five years ago and those who have since maintained its standards and practices. In recognizing the history and value of the Shock Incarceration Program, we need to understand that we are recognizing our staff, the people who have dedicated their lives to helping others develop into better members of society.”

In terms of its impact on recidivism, 26% of Shock graduates who were released from Shock facilities in 2007 or 2008 returned to prison within three years compared to 42% for all DOCCS releases to parole supervision in 2007. Of the Shock graduates who were released from Shock facilities in 2007, 2008, 2009 or 2010 7% returned to prison within one year compared to 20% for all releases in the same time period.

As of today, there are 1,100 inmates participating in the Shock program: 589 men and 119 women at Lakeview, 205 men at Monterey and 187 men at Moriah.

Since 2000, the Parole Board has approved 97% of the successful Shock graduates. Shock graduates serving determinate sentences are conditionally released once they complete the Shock program. Upon graduating all offenders are supervised by parole officers assigned by the Department’s Community Supervision division.

The New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) is responsible for the care, custody and treatment of individuals sentenced to state prison and for working with them to ensure their successful re-entry into the community. The Department operates 60 correctional facilities (including the Willard Drug Treatment Campus and the Edgecombe Residential Drug Treatment facility) and oversees 38 community supervision (parole) field offices across the state. DOCCS currently provides care, custody and supervision of approximately 94,000 individuals: 56,000 in custody in correctional and drug treatment facilities and 38,000 under post-release community supervision.

Women on probation or parole more likely to experience mental illness

A new report shows that women aged 18 to 49 on probation or parole are nearly twice as likely to experience mental illness as other women. The study conducted by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) showed that almost half of women in this age range who had been on probation (49.4 percent) and more than half on parole (54.2 percent) in the past year had experienced some form of mental illness - compared to 27.5 percent of women who had not been on probation or parole.

"This report highlights the very real need for providing better behavioral healthcare for women emerging from the criminal justice system," said SAMHSA Administrator Pamela S. Hyde. "Providing these services not only meets a vital public health need, but is a very sound investment since it can prevent many at-risk women from returning to the criminal justice system. Since women play a vital role in families, schools, business, and government, the recovery of women to productive lives can have an enormous positive impact on America’s communities."

... Research indicates that women in the criminal justice system with untreated mental health problems have greater difficulty reintegrating into their families and communities and are more likely to re-offend than those without mental health problems.

The complete report may be viewed here.

Women on probation or parole more likely to experience mental illness (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration News Release, 26 March 2012)

Assisted Living — Behind Bars

Old behind bars: the aging prison population in the United States.

"Prison is tough for everyone, but it is especially hard for older prisoners who need wheelchairs, walkers, portable oxygen and hearing aids; who cannot get dressed, go to the bathroom or bathe without help; who are incontinent, confused or suffering from chronic diseases.

Prison medical costs — borne entirely by the state — are up to nine times higher for older prisoners than for younger ones.

So what can be done? Prison officials, parole boards and governors should make an effort to increase the number of older and ill inmates posing no meaningful security risk who are released from prison and placed under community supervision.

... Those who violate the rights of others must be held accountable. Prison sentences are tailored to give offenders their just deserts at the time of sentencing.

But age and illness (not to mention evidence of rehabilitation) can change the calculus.

If elderly prisoners can be safely released from prison to finish the rest of their lives under parole supervision — at much lower cost to taxpayers — it is hard to see what society gains from keeping them behind bars."

For complete article and further information, see:
Assisted Living — Behind Bars, by Jamie Fellner (Human Rights Watch, 26 March 2012)
Old Behind Bars: The Aging Prison Population in the United States (Human Rights Watch Report, 28 January 2012)
US: Number of Aging Prisoners Soaring, Corrections Officials Ill-Prepared to Run Geriatric Facilities (Human Rights Watch, 27 January 2012)

Recent Study Produces Local-Level Recidivism Statistics for Parolees in New York City

In 2009, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 1.4 million adults had spent at least some time on parole supervision nationally and of those exiting supervision during that same year, 34% were re-incarcerated and 11% had another unsuccessful outcome, including revocation without incarceration or absconding (Glaze and Bonzcar, 2010). There is not much information, however, on parolees in local jurisdictions that are often home to a large number of formerly incarcerated persons. For example, New York City accounts for the majority of parolees supervised in New York State (56%). An understanding of the outcomes of New York City parolees can help community corrections officials focus their efforts on a local level to improve outcomes for individuals and the overall system...

...Almost one-fourth (23%) were returned to prison on a technical violation which occurs when parolees violate the conditions of their supervised release (can include an arrest for a new crime or conviction for a misdemeanor offense). Only 6% of parolees were returned to prison as a result of a new felony conviction. The rate of return to prison for New York City (29%) is lower than the national average of 34% reported in the Bureau of Justice Statistics 2009 Report.

A promising result of this study was that the revocation rates have declined over time since the early 2000s (from 32% of individuals released in 2002 to 26% of individuals released in 2006). Possible explanations for this finding as well as additional results are discussed further in the report.

For complete article, see:
Recent Study Produces Local-Level Recidivism Statistics for Parolees in New York City, by Bryn Herrschaft, Senior Research Associate, Center for Court Innovation, January 30 2012

For full report:
Recidivism Among Parolees in New York City, 2001-2008, by Bryn A. Herrschaft with Zachary Hamilton, Center for Court Innovation, November 2011

State Loosens Leash on Parolees, So Fewer Are Rejailed

In New York State, every parolee is released from prison with an agreement to follow thirteen rules, including reporting any contact with the police. Breaking a rule can be grounds for re-imprisonment.

Now New York has revamped its policy, having concluded that it does not always make sense to jail parole violators for minor infractions of the rules.

Following the lead of other states and an in-house sentencing commission, New York has adopted guidelines that classify parolees as low or high risk using risk factors including attitudes toward criminality, mental health, access to stable housing and criminal history. Their supervision is tailored accordingly, in the hope of reducing recidivism rates.

The new guidelines took effect on January 1 2012.

Full story:
State Loosens Leash on Parolees, So Fewer Are Rejailed, by Joseph Walker (New York Times City Room, January 6, 2012)

Recent Study Confirms that Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Works to Reduce Recidivism

Recent Study Confirms that Cognitive Behavioral Intervention Works to Reduce Recidivism by Lama Hassoun, Researcher at the Harlem Community Justice Center, December 12 2011

Over the last 10 years, many research studies have looked at how effective Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy (CBT) programs are and their impact on those who participate.

In 2007, a comprehensive research study attempted to provide a fuller picture of the effectiveness of CBT programs with offenders and the difference between the different kinds of brand name CBT programs.

The study confirmed the findings of previous studies, showing that offenders who received CBT were 1.53 times less likely to recidivate when compared to offenders who did not receive CBT. Statistically, this is considered to be a significant difference.

The researchers also looked at the differences between the different “brand” name CBT programs. They found NO difference between them and concluded that the general CBT approach is responsible for the overall positive effect on recidivism. They found that including distinct anger control problems and interpersonal problem solving components really enhanced the effects of CBT.

High quality implementation of CBT was found to have a strong impact on the chance of recidivism of the offenders. High quality implementation was defined as low rates of people dropping out of the CBT program, close monitoring of quality and fidelity of the treatment implementation, and adequate CBT training for the providers.

It is also VERY encouraging that the effects of CBT were greater for offenders with higher risk of recidivism than those with lower risk, which contradicts any assumptions that high risk offenders might be less willing to undergo treatment.

Interestingly, offenders treated in prison showed recidivism decreases comparable to those offenders treated in the community (probation, parole, or transitional aftercare). Researchers also found that CBT was as effective for juveniles as it was for adults.

All in all, this study is very promising for providers in their attempts to assist offenders in reintegrating in their communities. CBT has been proven to be effective, time and time again.

When life is too long: Debate over older prisoners

Extract from article:

Yohannes Johnson is serving 75 years to life in a remote upstate New York prison, behind 30-foot concrete walls and locked steel doors, 300 miles and 30 years and 10 months from home in New York City.

He measures time in long, slow, personal change. And he maintains hope he will, someday, walk outside the Clinton Correction Facility.

"One thing I don't do is subject myself to the thought I'll never leave prison," said Johnson, now 55, slender and soft-spoken, his hair flecked with gray. He's a convicted robber and killer and president of the prison's Lifer's and Long-Termer's Organization, part of a growing club of inmates locked up for life nationwide. "I can't afford to do that. I do that, I lose hope. I lose hope then I don't care about anything. I don't care about anything then I become a detriment to myself and those around me."

Now, even corrections officials are considering different options for older inmates while some research suggests keeping them locked up until they die might be an expensive and unnecessary price for the public to pay.

Nationally, nearly 10 percent of more than 2.3 million inmates were serving life sentences in 2008, including 41,095 people doing life without parole, up 22 percent in five years, according to The Sentencing Project, which advocates alternatives to prison. The increase resulted from lawmakers "dramatically" expanding the types and repeat offenses that carry potential life terms, research analyst Ashley Nellis said.

"The theme is we're protecting society, then the question is: From what?" said Soffiyah Elijah, executive director of the Correctional Association of New York, a watchdog group. She said with the cost of keeping a state inmate $55,000 a year — a cost that grows as they age and their medical needs increase — a financial analysis shows that parole and probation are far cheaper punishments that can also satisfy the public need for retribution.

Meanwhile, data show new crimes by convicted felons steadily declining from their teens through their dotage.

"Most criminal behavior is tied with impulse control. The section of the brain that controls impulse control is the last section of the brain that becomes fully developed," Elijah said. There's a large drop-off in criminal behavior and recidivism after 40 or 45, she said, a point seldom made in public discussion "because it's not convenient. It doesn't dovetail with the kind of tough-on-crime mentality that results in votes."...

For complete article, see:

When life is too long: Debate over older prisoners, by Michael Virtanen (Associated Press, October 22 2011)

Building Bridges - September 2011 edition

The September edition of Building Bridges has been issued by the Prison Action Network.

Articles in this edition include:

1. Attica: NYC's Attica Is Us event focused on the messages we can take from the 1971 Rebellion; Buffalo engaged in educating the public about the impact of incarceration on individuals and the community, and Mika'il DeVeaux used his memory of the day to write a piece reminding us of the continued politicizing of incarceration, and calls on us to fight back.

2. The Women in Prison Project looks forward to a "day when survivors who act to protect themselves and their children from an abuser’s violence are given support and protection instead of harsh punishment and incarceration—to a day when survivor-defendants are treated with the fairness and dignity they deserve."

3. Columbia Law School Professor Philip Genty analyzes the potential impact of the policy shift contained in the Governor's revision of Exec Law § 259-i and concludes that "this addition of an explicit requirement that the Parole Board adopt and be guided by procedures that require it to evaluate "rehabilitation" and "the likelihood of success…upon release" signals a critical reform and modernization of parole practices."

4. Job Announcement from FACES NY, Inc. Job Title: Re-Entry Case Manager; Hours: 35 hrs/weekly; Salary Range: $30,000 - $35,000/yr Qualifications: BA degree in Social Work or a related human services field and/or 5 years minimum experience.

5. Legislative report dispels the rumor that the SAFE Parole Act has passed. A bill is not a law. The NYS Senate and Assembly both need to vote for it during a Legislative Session. The last Legislative Session ended in June 2011, and will not start again, barring an emergency, until January 2012. (See further details below.)

6. The NYS Parole Reform Campaign invites family members and friends and advocates of people who have appeared, or will appear before the NYS Parole Board, to tell their stories on video or audio recording, and hopefully by doing so open the eyes of those who know nothing of the injustices we experience. They also need data entry and legislative look-up volunteers to help their supporters get the information they need.

7. Parole News: July Statistics for A1VO Parole Releases.

Also from Building Bridges, an update on the status of the SAFE Parole Act:

"Rumors that the SAFE Parole Act has passed are unfounded. A bill is not a law (please refer to the August issue of Building Bridges for the process). The NYS Senate and Assembly both need to vote for it during a Legislative Session. The last Legislative Session ended in June 2011, and will not start again, barring an emergency, until January 2012.

S5374: The Senate will have to reintroduce the SAFE Parole Act in January when they go back into session. It will be given a new Senate number. At the end of last session it had four Senate sponsors: Senator Tom Duane and three co-sponsors: Senators Velmanette Montgomery, Bill Perkins, and Gustavo Rivera.

When Sen. Nozzolio chooses, the SAFE Parole Act will be introduced to the Crime Victims, Crime and Corrections Committee, which he chairs, for a vote. A majority of the members will have to vote for it in order for it to move out to the Senate floor for a vote. If a majority vote against it, it will be dead unless and until someone reintroduces it at the next Session (January 2013).

A7939: The Assembly retains bills for two sessions, so it will keep this number and its seven Assembly sponsors: Assembly Member Jeffrion Aubry, two co-sponsors: Assembly Members Andrew Hevesi and Eric A. Stevenson, and three Multi-sponsors: Assembly Members Herman D. Farrell, Jr., Richard N. Gottfried and John J. McEneny.

Assembly Member Jeffrion Aubry (who is also the head of the Assembly's Corrections Committee) probably will wait until he feels it has enough support to pass before he introduces it to the committee. Like the Senate, if the committee passes it, it goes to the Assembly floor for discussion and a vote.

Please encourage your State Senator and Assembly Member to vote for the SAFE Parole Act if there is to be any hope of this bill becoming law."

Changes to Parole Laws Signal Potentially Sweeping Policy Shift

The following extracts from this article by Philip M. Genty, referring to Governor Cuomo's revision, are taken from Building Bridges:

"...In his article [condensed here] Prof. Genty holds that the most significant reform in Gov. Cuomo’s revision was the removal of Section 1. In 1978, the Parole Board announced its guidelines for setting the minimum sentence, which Section 1 gave them authority over. The only two factors specified in these guidelines were the seriousness of the offense and the person's prior criminal history. The guidelines were presented as regulations, which set out a grid for calculating the minimum period of imprisonment, i.e., the period of time a person in prison would be required to serve before becoming eligible for parole release:

(3) To derive the guideline time range, the appropriate cell is located on the parole decision making grid where the offense severity and prior criminal history scores intersect. The offense severity score is located on the vertical axis, the prior criminal history score on the horizontal axis. The cell on the guideline grid where the two scores intersect indicates the suggested time to be served, based on these two major factors.

...No other release guidelines have ever been set forth by the board. In 1980, the Legislature removed the responsibility for setting minimum sentences from the Parole Board and transferred it to the courts. Senator Christopher Mega's memorandum in support of this change described the Parole Board's power to set sentences as "an irrational waste of taxpayer money as well as of criminal justice resources" and observed that "there is nothing on which the Board's decision can be based which was not before the court at the time sentence was imposed…; and most of these factors consist of matters the court is better able to ascertain and evaluate (e.g., seriousness of the offense, mitigating and aggravating factors, etc.). However, despite the Parole Board's loss of the responsibility for setting minimum sentences, Section 259-i(1) of the Executive Law—"Establishment of the Minimum Periods of Imprisonment"—stayed on the books, and the guidelines remained unchanged.

...The 2011 amendments require the board to adopt procedures that incorporate a growing body of social science research about assessing post-release needs and recidivism risks. These procedures will be designed to measure rehabilitation and facilitate better informed parole release decisions. The amended Section 259-c states that the Parole Board shall:

establish written procedures for its use in making parole decisions as required by law. Such written procedures shall incorporate risk and needs principles to measure the rehabilitation of persons appearing before the board, the likelihood of success of such persons upon release, and assist members of the state board of parole in determining which inmates may be released to parole supervision.

...This addition of an explicit requirement that the Parole Board adopt and be guided by procedures that require it to evaluate "rehabilitation" and "the likelihood of success…upon release" signals a critical reform and modernization of parole practices. Such procedures, when promulgated, will rationalize parole decision-making by placing the focus primarily on who the person appearing before the Parole Board is today and on whether that person can succeed in the community after release, rather than—as under the previous "guidelines"—on who the person was many years earlier when she or he committed the crime. This is a shift in policy of potentially sweeping significance."

The Prison Action Network make the following comments about Professor Genty's article:

"We are encouraged by Columbia Law School professor Phillip Genty’s optimistic view of the Governor’s changes to the parole laws, and we certainly hope Parole Commissioners are reading it and being influenced to see it as he does. Through Genty's eyes, the Governor’s changes accomplish much of what the SAFE Parole Act would. However we do not share Prof. Genty’s faith in the Risk and Needs Assessment that is used. Its questions measure the strengths and deficits of the person being interviewed. While this is useful in developing a Transitional Accountability Plan for use during incarceration and after release to parole supervision, how it will influence release decisions remains to be seen."

For full text of the article, see:

Changes to Parole Laws Signal Potentially Sweeping Policy Shift, by Philip M. Genty. (New York Law Journal, September 1 2011)

SAFE Parole Act backed by Correctional Association of NY

J. Soffiyah Elijah took office as the executive director of the Correctional Association of New York (CA) on March 14 — and while she acknowledges that she is still settling into that role, she has declared herself to be an ardent advocate of the ongoing parole reform movement. The CA is one of only two private organizations in the country (and the only one in New York) with legislative authority to inspect and report on conditions in state prisons.

Elijah has expressed strong support for the SAFE Parole Act — which was introduced in mid-May by State Senator Tom Duane and State Assemblyman Jeffrion Aubry. The bill, which is at this point still within committees in both houses and has yet to be voted on, would amend the statute of New York State law governing procedures taken by the state’s Parole Board during prisoners’ applications to be released on parole. Among other things, the bill would make it necessary for all parole hearings to be done face-to-face (they are often done by videoconference), and would force the Parole Board to judge an applicant’s request to be released based on their behavior, education and rehabilitation while in prison — and not on the nature of their crimes.

“I think that a lack of information, especially in terms of how parole should work, is what divides people and makes some of them unreceptive to reform,” said Elijah in a June 24 phone interview. “The fact is that when you deny parole based on the nature of the original offense, you basically condemn people to die in prison — and that’s not what sentencing is for.” ...

... A particular area Elijah highlighted when expressing the need for parole reform was that of the aging prison population. She added that, under her direction, she would like to see the CA work with the Prison Action Network (the advocacy group that worked with Senator Duane to create the SAFE Parole Act) to build a campaign around that issue. She called it an “early, embryonic” idea, but hopes to eventually build support for another in-depth look at the parole guidelines as they specifically affect older prisoners.

“Recidivism drops drastically after the age of 40 or 45, and people need to be informed of the lack of value in the continued incarceration of the older prison population. There’s just no public safety concern — it drops to less than five percent. And if we look at those facts, why are we spending up to $124,000 a year to keep an older prisoner with medical needs incarcerated?” ...

For full text of article, see:

SAFE Parole Act backed by Correctional Association of NY, by Sam Spokony (Chelsea Now, July 13 2011)

State of Recidivism: the Revolving Door of America's Prisons

More than four in ten offenders nationwide return to state prison within three years of their release despite a massive increase in state spending on prisons, according to a Pew report.

States today spend more than $50 billion a year on corrections, yet recidivism rates remain stubbornly high. As the slumping economy forces states to do more with less, policy makers are looking for a better public safety return on their corrections dollars.

While overall figures are discouraging, the report highlights the strategies that three states— Michigan, Missouri and Oregon— have employed to reduce returns to prison.

The PEW Center on the States, April 13 2011

Low recidivism rates for paroled violent felons

New York parole officials report that none of the 456 violent felons paroled in the last four years was sent back to prison for committing a new crime.

Paroled felons' return rate low. Michael Hill, Associated Press, March 24 2008.