Criminal Justice policy Exam 2 study guide Faith based programming Empirical evidence re FBP There is little empirical research on FBP Individuals who were more involved with church activities regularly attend church are less likely to be involved in delinquent and criminal behavior FBP may reduce substance use and recidivism among participants Evaluation of specific programs find that they can work but only when the program focuses on high risk offenders dresses the criminogenic needs of the program participants and provides a continuum of care from the institution into the community Who championed FBP o Championed under president George W Bush What types of offenders do FBP work for o High risk offenders Public support for FBP o Widespread public support 67 of Americans in support for allowing churches to apply for government funding to provide social services o However 61 of people oppose allowing groups that encourage religious conversion to apply for government funding to provide social services o Support is derived from the belief that faith based programs may be more likely to have certain organizational or programmatic characteristics that enable them to better serve all clients regardless of religious background Florida department for corrections FBP o Florida provides ad faith and character based residential program FCB at 16 institutions 14 male 2 female with 6500 total beds o Designed to reduce recidivism and disciplinary infractions in correctional institutions by offering faith and character based programming in a positive environment to inmates committed to inner transformation o They take classes in the following domains Living with purpose life mapping attitude component Living in the community community functioning component Living with family marital family component Responsible living healthy choices component Living with accountability mentoring component Life after prison Re entry component Living in faith faith formation Justification for the use of FBP o If based on volunteer efforts FBP free up scarce correctional system resources and thus can be justified even if no direct effect on recidivism or other post release outcomes are identified o Also may improve in prison behavior and also counteract the tendency of prisons to dehumanize inmates and help prisoners prevent a further decline in their humanity Developments in FBP historical context o Religious institutions and independent faith based groups have been providing services and support to communities throughout Americans history beginning with the country s earliest charities and its its first prisons o The federal bureau of prisons FBOP started a FBP in 2002 To be eligible inmates must be released in the US have ESL obligations have completed or be completing GED obligation be meeting financial responsibilities and be within 24 60 months of release o In 2003 only 8 correctional systems reported operating separate faith based residential units As of 2005 this increased to 21 correctional systems reported either having at least one faith based residential unit or plans in place for such units Private prisons Shift from public to private prisons o The first private prison facility was opened in 1984 when the US INS now known as ICE contracted with the CCS corrections corporation of America o Private prisons functioned as a response to calls to reduce government involvement more generally o Many states and the federal government shifted to private prisons to manage the increasing costs of housing inmates o The private sectors share of inmates grew from 6 5 in 2000 to in 2013 o Almost half of the growth in private prisons has been from contracts let by the Federal Bureau of Prisons o Rationale for the use of private prisons o Private prisons can provide the same care and control of inmates and achieve the same or better outcomes as government run facilities for less expense Types of privatization o Government contracting individual prison services Ex food medical care staff training o Employment of prison inmates o Construction and financing of prisons o Government contracting with a private corporation to complete private management of a facility Who privatizes state federal local o Privatization has been more successful at the federal level as of 2008 16 5 percent of federal inmates were housed in private prison more than double the 6 8 percent of state prisoners in such facilities Concerns when evaluating the quality of services o The security of the institution o Rehabilitation efforts o Quality of life Hidden costs o The incentive to cut costs and maximize profits may pose a threat to the safety of prisoners prison staff and the public at large if o Private prisons may find ways to extend the amount of time convicts will remain in prison o The desire to profit may distort the function of private prisons towards incapacitation and away from the provision of rehabilitative services that would help prisoners rejoin society productively o Illegitimate delegation of authority to allow companies to take control of an integral part of the justice system Research results o Quality of services State prisons provided better care Private prisons were generally in better physical condition and less crowded Private prisons did worse than federal and state prisons in providing treatment education and work assignments o Outcomes vs public prisons Private prisons release inmates more likely to recidivate Only 5 studies have been done o Cost efficiency evaluations Costs vs public prisons Cost efficiency evaluations Typically Flawed and Failed to account for hidden costs No evidence that private prisons save money According to a report by the Arizona dept of corrections the costs pf private prisons are the same as or greater then the costs of public facilities o Historical development of private prisons in the US see above Reentry programs Reentry needs of female inmates most women releases are drug offenders and are less likely to reoffend o the larger idea that male and female inmates have differential needs and enter prisons with different backgrounds and histories e g women are more likely to have been victims of violence and abuse they are more likely to have run away from home they are more likely to have been victims of sexual abuse etc These different backgrounds histories translate into different reentry needs such as programming specialized abuse programming family counseling and services to reunite women