This Report highlights statistic after statistic demonstrating that the level of services and treatment that people who are incarcerated need to make their re-entry successful far exceeds the capacity of existing programs. Similarly, the scope of resources available to community corrections officers generally does not come close to meeting the level of supervision and support that high-risk individuals released from prison and jail need. Given this reality, state and local government officials, in addition to advocates, need to ensure that funds invested in existing services and supervision are directed only to those efforts that have an evidence base or appear particularly promising. ^[1]  

The definition of an evidence-based program differs depending on the field. For example, Dr. Robert Drake, a national leader in the movement towards evidence-based practices, defines evidence-based programs in the mental health field as standardized treatments and services which are subjected to controlled research and involve both objective outcome measures and more than one research group. ^[2]   The National Institute of Corrections, on the other hand, defines evidence-based programs as interventions that reduce offender risk and subsequent recidivism and, therefore, make a positive long-term contribution to public safety. ^[3]   Regardless of the field in which they are applied, evidence-based programs are built on rigorous demonstration of program effectiveness. ^[4]   While evidence-based programs are supported by certain values and assumptions, they are not themselves values; rather, programs built on an evidence base are specific interventions and treatment models that have been shown to improve outcomes for both the client and the system. ^[5]  

Funding programs and policies that have some evidence base entails identifying which programs and policies have an evidence base and comparing them with the programs that exist in the jurisdiction. At the same time, policymakers and advocates must disseminate information about programs, policies, and practices that have an evidence base in order to close the gap between knowledge and practice. Policymakers and advocates should also promote research in the government, academic, and private sectors to encourage and identify innovative and effective approaches; design appropriate evaluation methods; and increase the base of evidence from which jurisdictions may draw. ^[6]   Particular attention should be paid to those programs which do not have the resources to perfrom extensive self-assessments.

Of course, there are multiple obstacles to any effort to overhaul existing programs and policies so that they are consistent with what the research says is most effective. The patterns of staff and existing program configurations, state funding, grant programs and federal reimbursement can be major impediments to such modification. Furthermore, evidence-based programs cannot succeed if local implementation does not maintain complete fidelity to the original model. ^[7]  

In addition to ensuring that resources are used for treatment interventions (such as Assertive Community Treatment), support techniques (such as supportive housing), and instruments (such as certain risk assessments) that have an evidence base, policymakers and advocates should concentrate their re-entry-related investments on people who are approaching their release date and people who have been recently released.

Some corrections administrators have focused a particular program on prisoners whose release is imminent and thus are especially in need of skills to connect them to appropriate supportive services.

Example: Turning Point, ASAP Treatment Services Inc. (OR)

Turning Point--a substance abuse treatment program located in the Columbia Correctional Institution in Portland, Oregon--requires participants to be within 7 to 15 months of release. This therapeutic community is a 24-hour living environment that emphasizes alcohol and drug education and treatment, improving family-related difficulties, independent living skills training, linkage to aftercare services, and modifying criminal thinking and living. Clustering people who are near release enables ASAP Treatment providers to focus service provision on skills and resources needed for successful transition.

Example: INTUIT, Virginia Department of Corrections and Virginia Commonwealth University

INTUIT offers 13-week career and life planning courses for 20 to 25 students who are no more than a year from anticipated release or transfer to a community-based facility, such as a halfway house. The program encourages participants to focus on the skills behind career planning and development, rather than just finding a job. To prepare participants for the job search process they will soon be conducting, community volunteers teach participants to conduct assessments of themselves, their life situations, and their environment; to obtain accurate and current career information; to communicate interests, skills, experiences, and values to employers; and to interact with successful role models, potential employers and community service providers. For individuals who will have no postrelease supervision, corrections-based transition programming may be especially important.

Concentrating postrelease programming on the period immediately following release is equally important. Research suggests that the level of supervision and support that a person needs in the first month, when his or her risk of re-offending and level of service need is highest, is significantly more than he or she will need three years after his or her release from prison. In a 15-state study, over two-thirds of prisoners were rearrested within three years of their release. ^[8]   The first six months accounted for 44 percent of all recidivism during the three-year period, with 30 percent of all releasees re-arrested in those first months. ^[9]  

The first months out of prison are also a high-risk, high-need period for housing and other services. ^[10]   A qualitative study by the Vera Institute of Justice found that parolees who entered homeless shelters in New York City after leaving state prisons were seven times more likely to abscond during the first month after release than those who had some form of housing. ^[11]   (See Policy Statement 26, Community Supervision, for more on how community corrections resources can be best concentrated on the months following release.)

Example: Center for Employment Opportunities, Rikers Island (NY)

The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) works with individuals released from New York's Rikers Island jail, which has a high transient population, offering immediate work and immediate pay for releasees. The program meets individuals at the moment of their release, even ferrying newly released individuals from Rikers Island directly to work sites scattered across the city. Participants are put to work immediately on day-labor work crews, which are run by city and state agencies and involve a variety of assignments including providing custodial services to government buildings, maintaining nature trails, painting classrooms, and cleaning up roadways.

Funding the most effective programs and ensuring that resources are allocated where they matter the most is a critical step towards ensuring that funding is used efficiently and makes the greatest impact.