2 Chapter 7 – Innovative Programs in Corrections in the United States and Louisiana

 

Chapter Overview

This chapter examines the historical evolution of correctional practices in the United States and Louisiana exploring the diverse range of innovative correctional programs designed to reduce recidivism and improve offender reintegration at both the national and state levels. It examines the effectiveness of these initiatives, the challenges they face, and their broader implications for the future of corrections in the United States and Louisiana. By introducing new ideas emphasizing best practices and emerging trends based on evidence-based research to reform offenders, U.S. correctional system can better serve individuals and communities in promoting public safety, reinforcing the role of rehabilitation in criminal justice reform.

7.1: Introduction

However, a shift towards evidence-based rehabilitation strategies is reshaping contemporary correctional practices. In response to the failures of mass incarceration and its collateral consequences, there has been policy shift towards evidence-based rehabilitation strategies to reduce crime and promote public safety. As a result, correctional institutions are redirecting attention to the implementation of innovative programs with emphasis on education, vocational training, and treatment of offenders, including the adoption of restorative justice practices. These initiatives aim to equip offenders under correctional supervision with the tools necessary for successful reintegration into society to reduce recidivism.

Louisiana with one of the highest incarceration rates in the United States presents a unique case study for correctional reform. While historically punitive in its correctional policies, Louisiana, in recent decades, has aligned with national trends in adopting progressive reforms aimed at reducing prison overcrowding and improving rehabilitation outcomes for offenders under correctional supervision. This ranges from reentry programs offering job training to education as well as mental health diversion programs and substance abuse treatment. Louisiana’s approach reflects a growing recognition that offender punishment is not enough and that efforts must be made to engage in the rehabilitation of individuals who have committed crime to turn them into productive members of society.

7.2: Evolution of Correctional Practices in the United States.

Colonial Era

The United States correctional system has considerably evolved over time, with significant transformations since the colonial era. Its function has expanded beyond a custodial role to include a greater focus on rehabilitation. During the colonial era, correctional practices were largely based on punitive measures, characterized by corporal punishment and public shaming. The 19th century saw the emergence of the penitentiary system, which introduced incarceration of offenders (Rothman, 1971). The Pennsylvania and Auburn systems, for example, revolved around solitary confinement and labor (Clear, Reisig & Cole, 2018).

Progressive Era

The late 19th and early 20th centuries ushered in the Progressive Era and marked a pivotal shift toward offender rehabilitation. It was during this period, that parole, probation, and juvenile justice reforms were introduced in the United States to address the individual needs of offenders (Simon, 1993). The medical model of corrections gained traction in the mid-20th century. During this period, criminal behavior began to be perceived as a treatable condition, like many other medical conditions. The upsurge in crime rates in the 1970s however led to a change in policy direction as the rehabilitative philosophy became less popular, signaling the adoption of “tough-on-crime” policies, resulting in mass incarceration (Alexander, 2012).

Rehabilitation Model Era

By the late 20th and early 21st centuries, the fascination with the tough on crime approach had diminished. Having seen the failures of mass incarceration, policymakers became cynical about its effectiveness as a crime reduction policy. Suddenly, there was renewed emphasis on the rehabilitation model and the introduction of alternative sentencing to reduce prison overcrowding. This period coincided with the emphasis on evidence-based research in criminal justice. Evidence-based practices, such as reentry initiatives, educational programs, and cognitive-behavioral therapy gained popularity as a more effective means to reduce recidivism (Travis & Western, 2014).

In recent years, new criminal justice initiatives aimed at offender rehabilitation have emerged such as the Second Chance Act directed at reducing recidivism by providing funding for reentry services such as job training, mental health services, and housing support for individuals released from prison. (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022). There is also the First Step Act of 2018 which aims to reduce recidivism rates by expanding inmates’ access to rehabilitation programs and services (Schwellenbach, 2020). The act encourages incarcerated individuals to earn time credit for early release by participating in educational and vocational programs.

In recent decades, the emergence of Restorative Justice Programs has also redefined the relationship between offenders, victims, and communities. Restorative justice is an approach to justice that focuses on repairing the harm caused by crimes by providing a basis for the reconciliation of victims, offenders and the community. Some studies have shown that restorative justice has the potential to reduce the incidence of crime, especially for certain types of low-level crimes, because it focuses on mediation, victim-offender dialogue, and community involvement to encourage offender accountability and healing for all concerned parties (Zehr, 2002).

Historical Context of Innovative Program Development in Louisiana Corrections

The historical evolution of Louisiana corrections has been significantly shaped by historical, political, and social factors. Its early history, like many other Southern states, was rooted in punitive measures, focusing on offender punishment rather than rehabilitation (Alexander, 2012). By the mid-20th century, however, national prison reform movements across the country influenced Louisiana’s correctional system, encouraging efforts to integrate rehabilitation programs into incarceration practices.

The “get tough on crime” era which began in the late 1970s and gained strength in the 1980s led to mass incarceration, which disproportionately affected minority communities in Louisiana and elsewhere, slowing down interest in offender rehabilitation (Clear & Frost, 2014). Despite these discriminatory policies, some correctional facilities, such as the Louisiana State Penitentiary (better known as Angola), introduced vocational and educational programs directed at reducing recidivism. Faith-based initiatives and partnerships with non-profit organizations were also introduced, providing inmates with important skills to aid their reintegration into society (Mauer, 2006).

The 21st Century national shift toward evidence-based rehabilitation strategies has also impacted correctional practices in Louisiana. The state initiated several reforms including the Louisiana Prisoner Reentry Initiative (LA-PRI) emphasizing job training, substance abuse treatment, and cognitive-behavioral therapy (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2018). In addition, legislations, such as the 2017 Justice Reinvestment Package, were adopted to reduce prison populations while expanding inmate access to rehabilitation services (Austin et al., 2018). However, rehabilitative reforms in Louisiana corrections continue to be hampered by funding limitations and systemic resistance to reform.

7.3: National Rehabilitation and Reentry Programs Initiatives

With the increasing focus on offender rehabilitation nationwide, a wide variety of education, vocational training, and life skills programs for offenders have become popular in recent years as evidence-based research demonstrated their significant impact in reducing recidivism and improving post-release outcomes. They include programs initiated by federal, state and nonprofit organizations, focusing on equipping incarcerated individuals with the skills needed for successful reintegration into society.

Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative

One of the most significant federal initiatives is the Second Chance Pell Experimental Sites Initiative. Launched by the U.S. Department of Education in 2015, it was aimed at reinstating Pell Grant eligibility for prison inmates, to allow them to pursue postsecondary education while incarcerated (U.S. Department of Education, 2022). Research indicates offenders who took part in higher education programs are 48% less likely to reoffend compared to those who did not (Davis et al, 2013). The Pell Grant expansion became permanent in 2023 to increase incarcerated individuals’ access to higher education in correctional settings.

Rehabilitation Through Education and Training (RESET) Act

Another impactful initiative is the Rehabilitation Through Education and Training (RESET) Act, which was introduced to support vocational and technical education programs in prisons. This program focuses on workforce development. It provides funding for career and technical education (CTE) programs for high-demand skills such as construction, welding, information technology, and automotive repair to increase job opportunities upon release (Congressional Research Service, 2023).

Nonprofit and Private Sector Partnerships

Nonprofit organizations also play a vital role in offender rehabilitation by providing educational and vocational training to incarcerated individuals. The Vera Institute of Justice, for example, has been at the forefront of collaborating with correctional facilities to expand college-in-prison programs. By partnering with higher education institutions, The Vera Institute of Justice focuses on improving incarcerated individuals’ access to academic programs (Vera Institute of Justice, 2021).

Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP)

In the same vein, the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP) is a nonprofit program that offers business and entrepreneurial training to incarcerated individuals. The initiative includes coursework in business fundamentals, leadership development, and financial literacy aimed at equipping participants with the tools to start businesses or secure employment upon release (PEP, 2022). Studies have shown that PEP graduates have significantly lower recidivism rates compared to the general prison population.

Google’s Grow with Google

Furthermore, Google’s Grow with Google is another major reentry initiative that provides digital skills training to offenders through partnerships with correctional facilities. The program concentrates on teaching foundational digital literacy, resume building, and remote work capabilities, to assist incarcerated individuals’ transition into technology-based job opportunities (Grow with Google, 2023).

Current Innovative Reentry Programs Across States

Aging Without Bars

Aging Without Bars is a six-week person-centered training program in Virginia that helps inmates age 50 and older prepare to transition into the community. It addresses inmates’ lack of awareness of available resources by providing education and connecting them to case management services prior to their release, when possible. The program is implemented through a collaboration of Area Agencies on Aging (AAA) and jail intake staff, as well as community partners. The AAA became engaged in this area after the 2008-2012 Virginia 4-Year Plan for Aging Services ranked the older prisoner population among the top areas of concern.

Measuring impact is a priority of this program. There is a pre-test and a post-test follow-up with each participant to assess what they have learned and to help address their needs moving forward. Evaluation of the program indicates that improvements occurred across each of the performance measures: housing and economic stability, mental and physical health, and social support. Inmates reported that the program was life-changing for them, adding that they feel less invisible because of their participation.

Washington D.C Court Supervision and Offender Release Program

Washington, DC Office on Aging, the DC Court Supervision and Offender Release Program and the Washington DC Office on Aging (the AAA) partnered to address older inmate reentry needs related to employment and housing. The program began several years ago as an ad hoc effort in response to tremendous demand to assist older offenders with reentry. The DC Office on Aging conducted comprehensive pre-screening of the mental and physical health status of the participants to develop customized plans and partnered to provide job skills training and coaching. The program has now transitioned from the DC Office on Aging to the DC Office of Employment Services, so it can be integrated with other training and skills development programs such as the Senior Community Service Employment Program, the workforce program within the Older Americans Act.

Because of the program, approximately 80 percent of participants were employed within a six-month period of reentry. Word-of- mouth has continued to increase enrollment. Families reach out proactively to the program to help pave the way when their loved one is released from prison, providing evidence that the community sees the value of this program. The program aims to overcome challenges such as improving participants’ job skills, ensuring participants have photo identification, addressing needs of individuals who did not enter the country legally, and addressing mental health and substance abuse issues.

Virginia Department of Corrections

The Virginia Department of Corrections and the Virginia Department for Aging and Rehabilitative Services have embarked on a project to offer Chronic Disease Self-Management Education (CDSME) workshops for the aging prisoner population and other offenders living with chronic health conditions. Between 1990 and 2013, the prison population in Virginia over the age of 50 increased from 822 individuals to 6,709 individuals. The state found that inmates were becoming older, sicker and staying longer behind bars. The program, now known as “Live Well Virginia!” was first introduced to the prison population at Bland Correction Center by District Three Senior Services AAA with the goal of helping Virginia offenders pursue a healthier lifestyle while incarcerated by teaching participants chronic disease self-management strategies and information on weight management, healthy eating, physical activity, rational decision making and relaxation. The program found that a secondary benefit of the program is the interaction and mutual support that the workshop fosters between prisoners. Building upon the success of CDSME at this site, Senior Connections (the AAA in Richmond, VA) also began offering CDSME at a prison in its service area.

Since the workshops began, 37 workshops have been held in five correctional centers from southwest to north central Virginia. Approximately 479 offenders have attended these sessions, with 368 inmates completing the workshops (a 77 percent retention rate). The Virginia Department of Corrections Director Harold Clark has stated, “This program helps offenders with chronic conditions take charge of their own well-being, contributing to better health outcomes while they’re incarcerated and successful reentry into their communities when they’re released.” A participant in the program stated, “The lessons you all have taught me will last a lifetime.” Based on the program’s early success, the effort was expanded to other prisons through partnership with additional AAAs.

Louisiana’s Reentry Programs: Current and Ongoing Initiatives

In Louisiana, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C) has been at the vanguard of implementing a variety of reentry programs directed at providing education, vocational training, and life skills to offenders returning to society. One of the most successful of the programs is the Louisiana Prisoner Reentry Initiative (LA-PRI). This is a statewide effort designed to improve reentry outcomes for returning offenders through collaboration with local law enforcement agencies, community organizations, and workforce development programs. LA-PRI concentrate on pre-release planning, risk assessments, and individualized reentry case management to offer support for individuals leaving prison, including providing them with employment and housing assistance (Louisiana DPS&C, 2023).

The DPS&C has also initiated a Reentry Court Program, which in conjunction with the Louisiana Supreme Court and district courts seeks to provide structured reentry services for high-risk offenders. The program offers job training, mentoring, and substance abuse treatment to reduce reoffending (Louisiana Supreme Court, 2022).

In addition, the DPS&C’s Corrections Workforce Development Program offers vocational training in high-demand fields such as welding, construction, and automotive repair. This initiative is in partnership with technical colleges and private employers, and it is aimed at providing certifications to increase the employability of incarcerated individuals upon release (Louisiana DPS&C, 2023).

Despite these initiatives, challenges however persist. Limited funding and housing instability have hampered the success of these programs highlighting the need for continued investment in reentry programming, including intensifying public-private partnerships. There is also a need to expand educational opportunities and skill training for Louisiana offender population to reduce recidivism and promote offender reintegration.

Three Elements to Successful Reentry Programs for Inmates

Start Early

Until recently, the focus of organizations and government agencies has been predominantly on release programs, while ignoring the significance of pre-release programs. The Federal Bureau of Prisons philosophy states, “release preparation begins the first day of incarceration, and focus on release preparation intensifies at least 18 months prior to release.”

Successful reentry programs for inmates rely on more than just helping ex-offenders find jobs; it also requires helping offenders change their attitudes and beliefs about crime, addressing mental health issues, offering educational opportunities and job training, providing mentoring, and connecting them with community resources. Consideration should be given to providing most, if not all, of these things before a person’s release date.

Clients, not Criminals

There is no one-size fits all approach in offender rehabilitation. The Council for State Governments Justice Center suggests that employment programs need to move beyond traditional services. Instead, they recommend addressing individuals’ underlying attitudes about crime and work, making them more likely to succeed at getting and keeping jobs and less likely to reoffend. Not all offenders share the same levels of risk and learning how to accurately assess these attributes and deliver customized help is an important element to truly helping people get out of the criminal justice system.

Evaluate Frameworks

According to the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation, an organization that works to help improve the lives of low- income people, “There is a growing consensus that reentry strategies should build on a framework known as Risk-Needs- Responsivity (RNR).” The framework helps organizations assess individuals’ risk levels for recidivism and provide appropriate levels of response.

Models like Hawaii’s Operation “HOPE” aim to change how we look at probation and post-incarceration monitoring. Since more than half of recidivism is a result of technical violations of parole, this is an important part of the reentry process to examine. By trying new methods, tracking efforts and outcomes, the desire is to move towards a system of reentry programs for inmates that serve their function while minimizing negative side effects.

Barriers to Rehabilitation Success for Female Prisoners

Incarcerated women often have significantly different needs compared to incarcerated men. For one, women are the prime caretaker for children. When they are incarcerated, a major concern is who cares for the children left behind. This may mean the children must be cared for by the father or extended family members, but this is not always possible, and the children may end up in foster care. To compound the problem, there are fewer female prisons, so they may be farther away from their children making visits difficult if not impossible. This can have significant impact on the growth and development of the children and women. It can also make reunification difficult.

Another issue for female prisoners is they may be pregnant or have other significant medical issues during incarceration. What happens to the child upon delivery is a significant concern for incarcerated females. They may be unsure of long-term care for the newborn or how to cope with separation immediately after birth. This can contribute to significant psychological issues for the female prisoner and could affect behavior and treatment.

More and more institutions are recognizing these concerns for female prisoners and are initiating unique programs to address these issues. For example, the State of California has developed the Community Prisoner Mother Program (CPMP), a community substance abuse treatment program where non-serious, nonviolent female offenders may serve a sentence up to six years. The CPMP has been in existence since 1985 and is mandated by Penal Code (PC) Section 3410. Women are placed in the program from any of the female institutions. Pursuant to PC 3410, program eligibility requires that the female offender have up to two children less than six years of age, have no active felony holds, nor any prior escapes. The female offender must sign a voluntary placement agreement to enter the program, followed by three years of parole. The CPMP facilities are not the property of CDCR, and a private contractor provides program services at the Pomona facility. The treatment program addresses substance issues, emotional functioning, self-esteem, parenting skills, and employment skills.

The primary focus of the CPMP is to reunite mothers with their child(ren) and re-integrate them back into society as productive citizens by:

• providing a safe, stable, wholesome and stimulating environment
• establishing stability in the parent-child relationship and providing the opportunity for in-mate mothers to bond with their children and strengthen the family unit.

7.4: Mental Health and Substance Abuse Treatment Program

Mental health and addiction treatment for incarcerated individuals are two major challenges facing the U.S. correctional system in corrections across the United States. A significant proportion of correctional inmates suffer from substance use disorders and mental illnesses (Bronson & Berzofsky, 2017). Mental health treatment programs in correctional settings however vary from one facility to another. Some facilities offer comprehensive psychiatric care, including therapy and medication-assisted treatment (MAT), while others provide minimal intervention (Cloud et al., 2021). While specialized mental health units exist in some prisons, their capacity remains limited. The absence of standardized care, however, tends to result in untreated or poorly managed mental illnesses, worsening behavioral issues and increasing the risk of reoffending. The placement of many inmates with serious mental illnesses in solitary confinement is another challenge that worsens their conditions (Haney, 2018).

Though many facilities now implement evidence-based approaches such as MAT, counseling, and peer support programs (Marlowe, 2020). Accessibility nevertheless remains a problem. Some facilities offer comprehensive treatment options while others provide only detoxification services without long-term support (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2021). Even in the community, many formerly incarcerated individuals are unable to access continued care, leading to relapses and re-incarceration. Significant gaps remain in mental health and addiction treatment in U.S. correctional settings that needs to be addressed through increased funding and expansion of access to evidence-based treatment to support long-term recovery and improve reentry outcomes.

Specialized Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders Treatment Programs in Louisiana

Louisiana has introduced a variety of specialized programs, such as therapeutic communities and drug courts, to address substance abuse and its associated challenges among the offender population. These initiatives focus on providing effective alternatives to traditional incarceration, focusing on rehabilitation and reducing recidivism among individuals with substance use disorders.

Therapeutic Communities

The Cenikor Foundation operates therapeutic communities across Louisiana. These are structured, residential treatment programs designed to encourage behavioral change and personal accountability by offering long-term residential treatment that emphasizes an integrated approach to recovery. Participants must take part in various therapeutic activities, which include counseling, educational sessions, and skill-building workshops, all within a supportive community setting. This model promotes personal growth and accountability by equipping individuals with the required tools for successful reintegration into society.

Drug Courts

The state also has drug courts which function as alternative diversion programs rather than incarceration for individuals with substance use disorders. The courts incorporate judicial supervision with intensive drug treatment services, frequent drug testing, and community support to promote recovery. Participants attend regular court hearings, engage in substance abuse counseling, and comply with strict supervision procedures.

Since it was first introduced in Florida in 1989, drug courts have become an integral part of providing rehabilitative services for individuals who commit minor drug offenses. Studies indicate that drug courts are effective in reducing recidivism and promoting recovery among participants than traditional punitive measures. Drug courts address the underlying causes of drug addiction through structured recovery programs to foster healing and reduce recidivism compared to traditional punitive measures.

Louisiana’s drug courts offer an effective alternative to incarceration for individuals involved in the criminal justice system suffering from addiction and substance use disorders. These courts provide structured programs that include treatment and rehabilitation services, aiming to reduce recidivism and support recovery as well as and facilitating their successful reintegration into society.

7.5: Restorative Justice Programs

National restorative justice initiatives focus on victim-offender mediation and community involvement. Since the 1970s when it was first proposed, restorative justice has increasingly gained prominence across the United States as an alternative approach to traditional punitive justice. Some of its most notable practices include victim-offender mediation and community involvement programs, aimed at fostering healing, accountability, and reintegration. Restorative justice is attracting widespread attention, signaling an increasing shift from punishment to rehabilitation and its emphasis on reconciliation, dialogue, reparations, and mutual understanding between victims, offenders, and the broader community.

Victim-Offender Mediation Program

The cornerstone of restorative justice is victim-offender mediation which allows victims to meet offenders in an organized setting under the supervision of trained mediators. A major strength of victim-offender mediation is that it can provide victims with a sense of closure and empowerment while enabling offenders to take responsibility for their actions (Umbreit et al., 2015). Programs such as the Victim-Offender Reconciliation Program (VORP) and the Restorative Justice Conferencing Model have also demonstrated some success in reducing recidivism and increasing victim satisfaction (Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Community Engagement Program

Community involvement plays a vital role in restorative justice because it facilitates a supportive environment for offender reintegration and encourages participation of local stakeholders in conflict resolution and rehabilitation efforts. Community engagement programs such as the Vermont Reparative Probation Program and Community Justice Conferencing in Pennsylvania demonstrate how restorative justice practices can facilitate offender accountability and reparation (Zehr, 2012).

Restorative justice practices have shown some promise. However, challenges remain, due to resistance from traditional legal systems, limited funding, and inconsistent implementation. Nevertheless, restorative justice programs continue to gain traction and expand nationwide, demonstrating the importance of victim-offender mediation and community participation in encouraging an inclusive, just and rehabilitative legal framework to reduce recidivism and foster offender reintegration into society.

Restorative Justice Programs in Louisiana

Louisiana has been making efforts to integrate restorative justice practices into its criminal justice system by collaborating with local organizations. Community Restorative Justice Center (CRA), a community-based organization has been at the forefront of entrenching restorative justice initiatives in the state. Established in 2008, CRA initially introduced restorative justice practices in New Orleans’ charter schools, recording a significant reduction in both suspension rates and incidence of violence by 40% to 50%.

Since then, CRA has extended restorative justice beyond school settings. Working in partnership with prosecutors’ offices, CRA helps communities heal and build relationships between victims and offenders. CRA in conjunction with the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office aims to integrate restorative approaches into juvenile diversion cases. CRA’s involvement is crucial because studies have indicated that restorative practices are more likely to be effective when it is promoted by community-based organizations rather than exclusively managed by criminal justice agencies.

CRA has also collaborated with the Jefferson Parish District Attorney’s Juvenile Diversion office to incorporate restorative justice practices into the Jefferson Parish School System. The primary aim is to decrease school suspensions, expulsions, and arrests, fostering a more supportive school environment for at risk youth.

The effectiveness of restorative justice initiatives in Louisiana is evident in the substantial reductions in disciplinary actions and violent incidents within schools as a means of curbing school-to prison pipeline. The increased use of restorative justice across the country and its focus on rehabilitation over punishment portend greater partnerships between community-based organizations and criminal justice agencies in resolving crimes and improving offender outcomes in Louisiana and beyond.

Benefits of Restorative Justice in Correctional Settings

One of the major benefits of restorative justice is that it encourages offender accountability, by involving offenders in the restorative process. It requires offenders to acknowledge the harm they have caused and take active steps to make amends, offering offenders the opportunity to develop empathy and a stronger commitment to rehabilitation (Zehr, 2002). This process can lead to meaningful rehabilitation and lower recidivism rates. Some studies suggest that restorative justice programs can reduce recidivism more effectively than traditional corrections (Latimer, Dowden, & Muise, 2005). Furthermore, restorative justice supports victim healing by giving them a voice in the justice process and provides emotional closure for crime victims, allowing them to express their grievances and participate in the justice process, thereby reducing feelings of powerlessness and fostering community reconciliation (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001; Braithwaite, 2002).

Another benefit of restorative justice is cost-effectiveness. Traditional punitive approach relying on incarceration is expensive, leading to high rates of recidivism and long-term societal costs. Restorative justice programs, such as victim-offender mediation, on the other hand are generally less expensive and can drastically reduce the financial burden on correctional systems (Sherman & Strang, 2007).

Limitations of Restorative Justice

Despite its advantages, restorative justice has obvious limitations. One criticism is its applicability in cases involving serious crimes. It has been argued that restorative justice may be ineffective in addressing violent crimes because it can be manipulated by offenders to avoid severe punishments commensurate to their crimes (Daly, 2016). In addition, participation by offenders and victims in restorative justice is voluntary, thereby hampering its effectiveness if either an offender or a victim refuses to take part.

Also, some offenders may show no remorse or empathy for the victims of their crimes (Marshall, 1999). Critics have also highlighted its potential for power imbalances, especially in cases of systemic discrimination or domestic violence where victims may feel they are being coerced against their wish into forgiving offenders (Stubbs, 2007).

7.6: Technological Innovations in Corrections

Electronic Monitoring

The use of technology has had a tremendous impact on correctional administration, improving rehabilitation, healthcare and security. Electronic monitoring is one of the most widely used technological advancements in correctional supervision, involving the use of ankle bracelets with GPS tracking to supervise offenders on parole, probation or house arrest. The goal is to reduce recidivism by providing real-time data on offender movements while reducing prison overcrowding (Bales et al., 2010).

Virtual Learning Platforms

Virtual learning platforms provide incarcerated individuals with access to education and skill development programs. Virtual learning platforms allow correctional administrators to address the shortage of instructors, enabling offenders to enroll in self-paced courses for education and skill acquisition. These digital learning platforms help inmates to earn certifications and degrees thereby broadening their chances of successful reintegration into society (Duwe & Clark, 2014)..

Telehealth Service

In the area of healthcare, telehealth service is a technological innovation that grants inmates access to medical and mental health experts remotely and reduces wait times. It also provides a buffer against shortage of healthcare professionals in prisons and ensures that incarcerated individuals receive timely care (Maruschak et al., 2021). In addition, telepsychiatry provides mental health services to inmates through virtual counseling sessions by therapists to address critical mental health issues such as substance use disorders and depression.

Despite its advantages, the use of technology in corrections there are ethical concerns regarding privacy and surveillance of inmates. The need to protect the rights of offenders require that the collection and storage of electronic monitoring data, including health information must be safeguarded and balanced with security needs (Pattavina, 2013).

Use of Technological Innovations in Louisiana Correctional System

In Louisiana, the Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPS&C) has been actively integrating technological innovations to enhance inmate rehabilitation in accordance with national trends. One significant program is the introduction of tablet-based educational programs in collaboration with educational institutions such as Ashland University and Wiley College. This initiative enables inmates to enroll in associate degree courses to grant access to higher education within correctional settings. The initiative was introduced in 2016 and has been expanded to over several locations within the state, underlining the state’s determination to leverage the use of technology for inmate education.

The DPS&C has also been working on introducing artificial intelligence (AI) to enhance its operations in such areas as inmate classification and facility management systems. There are also efforts to implement telecommunication services to ease connections between inmates and their families to foster inmate rehabilitation and improve inmate outcomes (Louisiana Illuminator, 2024).

The introduction of Amazon WorkSpaces facilitates the creation of onsite labs for inmates who want to pursue college credits or degrees, receive vocational training, and explore career opportunities after their release. These rehabilitative programs are aimed at providing inmates with quality education and skills that can help them get employment post-release.

7.7: National Trends in Community Corrections

Community-based corrections, including probation and parole, are crucial sectors of correctional administration that have significantly evolved in recent years to enhance offender rehabilitation, reduce recidivism, and alleviate prison overcrowding. One major innovation is the introduction of risk and needs assessment tools to tailor supervision towards the specific needs of each offender. These assessment tools help to determine the appropriate level of supervision based on the criminogenic needs of each offender and likelihood of reoffending (Latessa & Lowenkamp, 2019). This approach enhances efficient resource allocation, while redirecting supervision time to offenders who need it more and less for low-risk individuals.

The increase in use of graduated sanctions and incentives in probation and parole is also an innovative practice that implements prompt, proportionate responses, such as increased reporting requirements or electronic monitoring rather solely relying on incarceration for violations (Phelps, 2020). Positive reinforcement, such as reduced supervision for compliance, has also been shown to improve outcomes.

The use of technology-driven supervision such as electronic monitoring has also become increasingly popular as it allows for offender accountability while allowing individuals under community supervision to maintain employment and family ties (Bales et al., 2021). In addition, virtual check-ins and mobile applications have improved case management. Additionally, justice reform measures such as reducing probation terms and eliminating supervision fees, are reducing burdens placed on offenders and increasing successful reintegration (Petersilia, 2018).

Louisiana’s Unique Community Correctional Approach

In accordance with national trends, Louisiana in recent years has implemented several innovative community-based corrections programs targeted at reducing recidivism and facilitating the successful reintegration of individuals on probation, parole and other forms of community corrections. The Justice Reinvestment Initiative (JRI) introduced in 2017 is an innovative program focusing on resource reallocation from traditional incarceration to community-based programs. The state reinvests 30% of its criminal justice savings into grants for evidence-based community programs to reduce recidivism and decrease prison population. The initiative includes providing grants to support local organizations in providing job training, substance abuse treatment, and educational opportunities to address the underlying causes of criminal behavior.

Another noteworthy program is the expansion of Day Reporting Centers (DRCs) by the Division of Probation and Parole. The centers are located across Louisiana. Baton Rouge, New Orleans, Monroe, Lake Charles, Alexandria, Covington, Lafayette, and Shreveport offer structured, non-residential programs for individuals under community supervision. Participants receive life skills training, job readiness assistance, and access to various treatment services.

Role of Community Partnerships in Supporting These Initiatives

Community involvement is crucial in the rehabilitation, and reentry of incarcerated individuals into the community to reduce recidivism. For many years, local businesses and educational institutions have been offering skill-based training and employment opportunities, which are vital in reducing recidivism (Travis & Visher, 2021). In addition, community organizations play a key role in assisting many justice-involved individuals struggling with substance use disorder and mental health disorders (Petersilia, 2020).

Furthermore, faith-based and grassroots organizations have been at the forefront of providing housing assistance, mentorship and social support. to reduce the likelihood of reoffending (Clear, 2018). These organizations often fill the gap left by overstretched government services, fostering a sense of belonging and accountability.

Lastly, public-private partnerships facilitate funding for reentry programs as government agencies can secure grants and investments from private entities for job placement programs and social enterprises to reduce likelihood of re-offending (Seiter, 2019).

7.8: Juvenile Correctional Programs

Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Justice in the United States

Juvenile justice has always revolved around a rehabilitative approach. In recent years, however, juvenile justice reform in the United States has progressively encompassed innovative approaches such as trauma-informed care and diversion programs. Trauma-informed care takes into cognizance the impact of adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) on delinquent behavior and the need to integrate psychological services into juvenile correctional settings (Ford & Blaustein, 2013). The use of diversion programs, such as restorative justice initiatives and community-based interventions aimed at redirecting youth from incarceration to rehabilitative services has also increased substantially, reducing their exposure to the criminal justice system (Wilson et al., 2018).

Innovative Juvenile Justice Reform Efforts in Louisiana

Louisiana too has made efforts to reform its juvenile justice system by using alternative sentencing and educational programs. For instance, the state has introduced programs such as the Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative (JDAI), aimed at prioritizing community-based solutions rather than reliance on secure detention (Annie E. Casey Foundation, 2020).

Through the Office of Juvenile Justice (OJJ), Louisiana has increased access to educational and vocational training programs within juvenile facilities, promoting skill development and reducing recidivism risks (Stevens et al., 2021). These programs offer vocational training and multiple industry-recognized credentials in partnership with institutions like Bossier Parish Community College. The involvement of community organizations such as Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children (FFLIC) have also been crucial rehabilitation efforts to reduce youth incarceration.

Studies demonstrate successful outcomes of these programs, particularly trauma-informed care which improves behavioral regulation and mental health outcomes among justice-involved youth (Baglivio & Epps, 2016). Diversion programs have also had a positive impact in reducing recidivism, as more first-time offenders are being steered away from deeper system involvement (Petrosino, Turpin-Petrosino & Guckenburg, 2019)). Decline in juvenile incarceration rates has also been reported as education and community-based alternatives continue to show improved outcomes for at-risk youth.

7.9: Measuring the Impact of Innovative Programs

Program evaluation is critical in determining the effectiveness of correctional programs. This is to ensure that rehabilitation initiatives are producing desired outcomes and to confirm that resources are efficiently utilized. There are several ways of assessing program success but two major means of assessing program success are recidivism rates and cost savings.

Recidivism Rates

Recidivism rates assess the extent to which former offenders reoffend after sentence completion. This measurement examines the long-term impact of rehabilitation programs, probation, and parole initiatives on crime rates (Durose, Cooper & Snyder, 2014). Successful programs reduce criminal behavior and assist in offender reintegration into the community. For instance, research has shown that evidence-based practices, such as cognitive-behavioral therapy and vocational training tend to lower recidivism rates in comparison to punitive measures which have not been shown to be as effective (Latessa, Listwan & Koetzle, 2019).

Cost Savings

Programs demonstrating significant success such as employment outcomes, lower incarceration rates and decrease dependency on public assistance by ex-offenders can result in cost savings to taxpayers compared to their operational expenses (Drake, Aos & Miller, 2009). Diversion programs and community-based rehabilitation are evidently more cost-effective compared to large-scale offender incarceration, enabling saved funds to be directed to other important areas of society (Aos, Miller & Drake, 2006).

National and Louisiana-Specific Case Studies Demonstrating Program Success.

Both nationally and in Louisiana, several innovative correctional programs have recorded varied measures of success in reducing recidivism and furthering offender reintegration into society. But challenges persist in improving program outcomes. Two notable programs in this respect are the Bard Prison Initiative (BPI) on a national level and Louisiana’s Angola Prison Reentry Program.

Bard Prison Initiative (BPI)

BPI, one of the best-known prison education initiatives in the United States provides incarcerated individuals with college education which has proven to significantly reduce recidivism rates among its alumni. RAND Corporation conducted a study which showed that inmates who took part in educational programs were 43% less likely to return to prison compared to those who did not (Davis et al., 2013). The BPI initiative has been adopted in many states, and it demonstrates the importance of higher education within correctional settings in fostering successful reentry into society.

Angola Prison Reentry Program

Louisiana’s Angola Prison Reentry Program has made similar impact in reducing recidivism. The program focuses on vocational training, substance abuse counseling, and life skills development for inmates. Studies demonstrate that incarcerated individuals who completed the program had lower recidivism within three years of release (Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, 2021).

The two programs illustrate the significance of educational and rehabilitative efforts in post-incarceration outcomes. These success stories highlight the importance of expanding such initiatives across correctional facilities to reduce recidivism and promote reintegration into society.

Recommendations for Improving Program Evaluation and Accountability

Effective program evaluation and accountability are vital in measuring the effectiveness and integrity of correctional administration. Putting in standardized performance metrics is critical in providing clear yardsticks for evaluation of correctional programs and staff effectiveness (Clear & Frost, 2014). This system of measurement should be based on evidence-based practices and periodically reviewed to reflect best practices.

Secondly, establishing independent oversight bodies to audit correctional institutions can help in reducing internal biases and encourage transparency in reporting misconduct or inefficiencies (Pew Charitable Trusts, 2018). Additionally, implementing data-driven decision-making, using statistical analysis and research findings can promote accountability by guiding policy decisions (Latessa & Lovins, 2019).

Furthermore, improving staff training on maintaining ethical standards and accountability with emphasis on issues such as fair treatment, de-escalation techniques, and proper reporting procedures can reduce misconduct and enhance institutional integrity (Barker, 2020). Lastly, the introduction of feedback mechanisms, such as anonymous reporting and stakeholder surveys, allows for staff input for continuous improvement in correctional administration (National Institute of Justice, 2021).

7.10: Challenges and Future Directions

The evolution of correctional practices in the United States has been marked by a continuous struggle between punitive and rehabilitative ideals. The importance of rehabilitation in the criminal justice system in reducing recidivism and improving offenders’ outcomes is gradually being recognized across the country. Some of the innovative rehabilitation programs that have been introduced for incarcerated individuals and offenders under community supervision have recorded measured success in the bid to achieve balance between retribution and rehabilitation in U.S. corrections.

Despite the many success stories of these efforts, challenges persist. Inadequate funding remains a major problem. Many prisons don’t have necessary resources, including qualified instructors and internet access to implement comprehensive educational programs. In addition, there is a disparity in access to opportunities, with some state prisons unable to tap into available opportunities because of inadequate funding and policy differences (Prison Policy Initiative, 2021).

To overcome these challenges, there is a need to increase resource allocation, and encourage public-private partnerships. Furthermore, there is a need to remove systemic barriers to ensure that all inmates have unhindered access to treatment programs, quality education and job training. These initiatives have the potential to drastically reduce recidivism, slash incarceration costs, and improve long-term reintegration outcomes for incarcerated individuals. As evidence-based research continues to inform policymaking, the future of corrections will likely focus on what works based on policy outcomes.

Conclusion

The origin and evolution of correctional administration in the United States and Louisiana demonstrates a significant shift from punitive policies to evidence-based rehabilitation practices. The era of mass incarceration has visibly showed the ineffectiveness of punitive policies in reducing recidivism, resulting in the introduction of several innovative correctional programs focused on education, vocational training, and mental health treatment as critical components of reform to promote public safety.

Despite its historically high incarceration rates, Louisiana has begun to implement progressive policies prioritizing offender rehabilitation and reintegration, signifying a broader national shift in correctional philosophy.

These initiatives have shown promise, but challenges such as funding shortage, political resistance, and systemic barriers to reintegration persist. By implementing best practices anchored on empirical research, correctional administration can be better positioned to enhance offender rehabilitation and promote public safety. This way, the justice systems does not rely solely on punishment but also to restore and reintegrate justice-involved individuals into society as productive members.

 

References

Alexander, M. (2012). The New Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. The New Press.

Annie E. Casey Foundation. (2020). Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative: A successful reform effort.

Aos, S., Miller, M., & Drake, E. (2006). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Washington State Institute for Public Policy.

Austin, J., Eisen, L.-B., Cullen, J., Frank, J., & Chettiar, I. (2018). How Louisiana slashed its prison population and what comes next. Brennan Center for Justice.

Baglivio, M. T., & Epps, N. (2016). The influence of adverse childhood experiences on juvenile offending trajectories. Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 57-67.

Bales, W. D., Mann, K. C., Blomberg, T. G., Gaes, G. G., Barrick, K., Dhungana, K., & McManus, B. (2010). A quantitative and qualitative assessment of electronic monitoring. National Institute of Justice.

Bales, W. D., Scaggs, S., Clark, C., Ensley, D., & Coltharp, P. (2021). Electronic monitoring in community corrections: Assessing its effectiveness and impact on recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 38(5), 789-810.

Barker, V. (2020). Penal power and prison ethics. Oxford University Press.

Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice & responsive regulation. Oxford University Press.

Bronson, J., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Indicators of mental health problems reported by prisoners and jail inmates, 2011-12. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice in schools: A new approach to discipline. In M. Killias (Ed.), Crime and justice in a changing world (pp. 67-83). Sage.

Clear, T. R. (2018). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford University Press.

Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2014). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. NYU Press.

Clear, T. R., Reisig, M. D., & Cole, G. F. (2018). American corrections. Cengage Learning.

Cloud, D. H., Bassett, M. T., Graves, J., Fullilove, R. E., & Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. (2021). Addressing mass incarceration as a public health crisis: Lessons for the COVID-19 era. American Journal of Public Health, 111(S2), S137–S140.

Congressional Research Service. (2023). Rehabilitation through education and training (RESET) Act: Summary and implications. Washington, DC.

Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 9-29.

Davis, L. M., et al. (2013). How effective is correctional education, and where do we go from here? RAND Corporation.

Davis, L. M., Bozick, R., Steele, J. L., Saunders, J., & Miles, J. N. (2013). Evaluating the effectiveness of correctional education: A meta-analysis of programs that provide education to incarcerated adults. RAND Corporation.

Drake, E., Aos, S., & Miller, M. (2009). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce crime and criminal justice costs: Implications in Washington State. Victims & Offenders, 4(2), 170-196.

Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2014). The effects of prison-based educational programming on recidivism and employment. The Prison Journal, 94(4), 454-478.

Ford, J. D., & Blaustein, M. E. (2013). Systemic trauma-informed care in juvenile justice. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 2(2), 1-22.

Grow with Google. (2023). Digital skills training for incarcerated individuals. https://grow.google/

Haney, C. (2018). The psychological effects of solitary confinement: A systematic critique. Crime and Justice, 47(1), 365-416.

Latessa, E. J., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2019). What works in reducing recidivism? Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93-116.

Latessa, E. J., Listwan, S. J., & Koetzle, D. (2019). What works (and doesn’t) in reducing recidivism. Routledge.

Latessa, E. J., & Lovins, B. (2019). Corrections in the 21st century: A practical approach. McGraw-Hill.

Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.

Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections. (2021). Reentry initiatives and program success reports.

Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections. (2023). Reentry and workforce development programs. https://www.doc.louisiana.gov

Louisiana Illuminator. (2024). Prison telecom companies, reform advocates debate lower phone rates.

Louisiana Illuminator. (2024). Landry’s first budget: Proposal steers more money to crime-fighting. Retrieved from https://lailluminator.com/2024/02/12/landry-budget/

Louisiana Illuminator. (2024, April 6). Louisiana might tap into state savings to build more juvenile correctional facilities. Retrieved from https://lailluminator.com/2024/04/06/louisiana-might-tap-into-state-savings-to-build-more-juvenile-correctional-facilities/

Louisiana Supreme Court. (2022). Reentry court program: Addressing recidivism through structured reentry services. https://www.lasc.org

Marlowe, D. B. (2020). The impact of drug courts and other court-based interventions on public health. Health Affairs, 39(3), 487-492.

Marshall, T. (1999). Restorative justice: An overview. Home Office.

Maruschak, L. M., Berzofsky, M., & Unangst, J. (2021). Medical problems of state and federal prisoners and jail inmates, 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Mauer, M. (2006). Race to incarcerate. The New Press.

National Institute of Justice. (2021). Correctional reform and accountability measures. Retrieved from www.nij.gov

Pattavina, A. (2013). Information technology and the criminal justice system. SAGE Publications.

PEP (Prison Entrepreneurship Program). (2022). Transforming lives through entrepreneurship. https://www.pep.org

Petersilia, J. (2018). Community corrections: Probation, parole, and reentry. Oxford University Press.

Petersilia, J. (2020). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford University Press.

Petrosino, A., Turpin-Petrosino, C., & Guckenburg, S. (2019). Formal system processing of juveniles: Effects on delinquency. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 5(1), 1-88.

Pew Charitable Trusts. (2018). Louisiana’s criminal justice reforms: The first year in review.

Phelps, M. S. (2020). Mass probation and the transformation of punishment in America. Annual Review of Criminology, 3, 21-42.

Prison Policy Initiative. (2021). Education and training behind bars: The state of prison education in the U.S. https://www.prisonpolicy.org

Rothman, D. J. (1971). The discovery of the asylum: Social order and disorder in the new republic. Little, Brown.

Schwellenbach, N. (2020). The First Step Act: An early assessment of its impact and implementation. Project on Government Oversight (POGO). Retrieved from https://www.pogo.org

Seiter, R. P. (2019). Correctional Administration: Integrating Theory and Practice. Pearson.

Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.

Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890-1990. University of Chicago Press.

Stubbs, J. (2007). Beyond apology? Domestic violence and critical questions for restorative justice. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 7(2), 169-187.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). (2021). Medication-assisted treatment in the criminal justice system: Brief guide. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Travis, J., & Visher, C. A. (2021). Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. Cambridge University Press.

Travis, J., & Western, B. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press.

Travis, J., & Western, B. (2019). Reentry readiness and the role of community supervision. National Institute of Justice.

Umbreit, M. S., Coates, R. B., & Vos, B. (2015). Victim-offender mediation: A national perspective. Lexington Books.

U.S. Department of Education. (2022). Second Chance Pell: Expanding access to college in prison. https://www.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Second Chance Act. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov

Vera Institute of Justice. (2021). Expanding higher education in prison: Policy and practice considerations. https://www.vera.org

Wilson, H. A., Olaghere, A., & Kimbrell, C. S. (2018). Effectiveness of restorative justice principles in juvenile justice: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 43(4), 341-363.

Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.