Dakota Beacon

How to stop criminals from re-offending? Manhattan Institute's Howard Husock recently testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee as to the effectiveness of a recidivism reduction approach that engages the private sector and minimizes the role of government.

First a relevant fact or two.

700,000 prisoners are released each year and 44% are re-arrested within 12 months, 60% within 36 months.

“Rehabilitation” idealists ignore the utter lack of reliable evidence for successful criminal rehabilitation using touchy-feely, psychobabble-backed, government-sponsored methods. Findings generally trend like those of a study in which juvenile offenders who received “rehabilitation” relapsed at the same rate as those who didn’t. Arrests and criminal activities were not statistically different between the enhanced treatment groups and the control.^1,2

^{In his testimony, Husock stressed that when private industry was engaged in giving ex-cons decent jobs and a "second chance" at life, success rates in reducing recidivism rose significantly. In a program based in Newark, New Jersey,}

More than half of 1051 program participants seen to date have been placed in jobs with an hourly wage of more than $9 per hour—in construction, food service, sanitation, supermarkets. After one year, only 8 percent of all participants have been re-arrested.

In other words keeping busy at honest work hugely influences former criminals to go straight. Husock continued:

In all these programs, it’s worth noting, government funding has been matched by philanthropic dollars. In Newark, a $2 million Department of Labor grant was matched by an equal amount from local and regional donors—including the Manhattan Institute, which has supported three loaned executives to help administer the program. This sort of match, in our view, builds in accountability—and provides the equivalent of a market test.

The private sector manages the program. In the Newark program, "re-entry stat" meetings are regularly conducted, "just as in the corporate world," and results versus predictions are judged by private sector executives. Performance reviews keep people and programs on track. If a particular employer doesn't help the ex-cons go straight, then the employer doesn't get to participate. Result? 8% recidivism with the private sector engaged versus 44% when the government handles the "rehabilitation."

Husock summaries the winning formula: "work first, performance management and private matching funds."

Essentially, getting results involves taking government out of the equation as much as possible and holding people accountable (both the released prisoners and the employers). Not rocket science, just everyday reality.

^[1] Peter W. Greenwood and Susan Turner, “Evaluation of the Paint Creek Youth Center: A Residential Program for Serious Delinquents,” Criminology, #31, pp. 263-279, May 1993; cited in Morgan O. Reynolds, “Does Punishment Deter?,” National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Backgrounder, #148, Aug 17, 1998.

^[2] Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, Evaluating Intensive Supervision in Probation/Parole: Results of a Nationwide Experiment, National Institute of Justice, May 1993; cited in Morgan O. Reynolds, “Does Punishment Deter?,” National Center for Policy Analysis, Policy Backgrounder, #148, Aug 17, 1998.

Click HERE to receive all posts by email FREE

© 2010 Chuck Rogér