Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Fighting America’s Highest Incarceration Rates with Offender Programming: Process Evaluation Implications from the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Reentry Court

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reentry programs, when adequately funded and delivered with fidelity, can render recidivism reduction and other positive outcomes such as abstinence and employment stability. This paper reports process evaluation findings for the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Reentry Court program, a joint SAMHSA/BJA-sponsored multiphase programming intervention for high-risk/high-need offenders featuring job readiness training in the Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola and transition services during reentry, including program engagement, job placement, and treatment services continuation in the community under strict judicial supervision. Research procedures entailed 1) observation of court appearances, treatment team meetings, educational activities, and counseling sessions, 2) review of all program participant case files enabling progress tracking, and 3) in-depth and focus group interviews with program stakeholders both at Angola and post-release in community settings. Findings relate the evidence based nature and quality of services delivery to date, as well as fidelity demonstrated across major programmatic domains. Program improvement opportunities, outcome evaluation implications, and performance measures signaling early success center discussion around vanguard elements of the court and evaluation design, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Louisiana currently has authorized the following nine (9) judicial districts to operate a Reentry Court under RS 13:5401: Orleans Criminal District Court, the 19th Judicial District Court (JDC; East Baton Rouge), the 22nd JDC (St. Tammany & Washington Parishes), the 11th JDC (Sabine Parish), the 15th JDC (Lafayette Parish), the 26th JDC (Bossier Parish), the 1st JDC (Caddo Parish), the 24th JDC (Jefferson Parish), and the 25th JDC (Plaquemines Parish).

  2. Typically, prospective participants are disqualified from traditional adult drug court eligibility due to their extensive criminal histories and would be punished under Louisiana’s multiple offender bill, but those eligible per state statute specified participation criteria (no sex history, current offense cannot involve either violence or a death, and a district attorney must agree to withhold filing a multiple offender bill at the time of sentencing).

  3. Vocational training has been offered inside Angola for over 20 areas. Vocation and trade options include: automotive technology, carpentry, collision repair, concrete finishing, culinary arts, electrical, eyewear technician, fiber optics, green technology, HVAC, heavy equipment operation, horticulture and pest management, masonry, metal fabrication, painting and sheetrock, Johnson Controls, plumbing, power generators, small engine repair, telecommunication, and welding. Other vocational ‘tracks’ are being vetted at this time. Further, participants are encouraged and often choose to seek professional certification that have become necessary in the trades they take on (ASE, EETC, EGSA, NATE, I-CAR, C-TECH, NCCER, and EPA/ESCO are some examples of available options.

References

  • Ayoub, L.H. & Pooler, T. (2015). Coming home to Harlem: A randomized control trial of the Harlem parole reentry court. Center for Court Innovation. Accessed September 23, 2016. http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Harlem%20Final%20Report%20-%20June.pdf

  • Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Binswanger, I. A., Nowels, C., Corsi, K. F., Glanz, J., Long, J., Booth, R. E., & Steiner, J. F. (2012). Return to drug use and overdose after release from prison: A qualitative study of risk and protective factors. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 7(1), 1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blakely, C. H., Mayer, J. P., Gottschalk, R. G., Schmitt, N., Davidson, W. S., Roitman, D. B., & Emshoff, J. G. (1987). The fidelity-adaptation debate: Implications for the implementation of public sector social programs. American Journal of Community Psychology, 15(3), 253–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burke, B. L., Arkowitz, H., & Menchola, M. (2003). The efficacy of motivational interviewing: A meta-analysis of controlled clinical trials. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71(5), 843.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S. D., & Apel, R. (2012). A signaling perspective on employment-based reentry programming. Criminology & Public Policy, 11(1), 21–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clear, T., Clear, T. R., & Frost, N. A. (2015). The punishment imperative: The rise and failure of mass incarceration in America. NYU Press.

  • Cook, P. J., Kang, S., Braga, A. A., Ludwig, J., & O’Brien, M. E. (2015). An experimental evaluation of a comprehensive employment-oriented prisoner re-entry program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 355–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Copes, H., & Miller, J. M. (Eds.) (2015). The Routledge handbook of qualitative criminology. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, J., & Sorensen, J. R. (2013). Disproportionate minority confinement of juveniles a National Examination of black–white disparity in placements, 1997-2006. Crime & Delinquency, 59(1), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010 (p. 28). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emshoff, J. G., Blakely, C., Gottschalk, R., Mayer, J., Davidson, W. S., & Erickson, S. (1987). Innovation in education and criminal justice: Measuring fidelity of implementation and program effectiveness. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analyis, 9(4), 300–311.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esbensen, F. A., Matsuda, K. N., Taylor, T. J., & Peterson, D. (2011). Multimethod strategy for assessing program fidelity: The national evaluation of the revised GREAT program. Evaluation Review, 35(1), 14–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galofaro, C. (2012). St. Tammany courts give parish nickname of 'St. Slammany.' The Times Picayune. March 25, 2012.

  • Ginsburg, J. I. D., Mann, R. E., Rotgers, F., & Weekes, J. R. (2002). Using motivational interviewing with criminal justice populations. In W. R. Miller & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (pp. 333–346). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grote, N. K., Swartz, H. A., & Zuckoff, A. (2008). Enhancing interpersonal psychotherapy for mothers and expectant mothers on low incomes: Adaptations and additions. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, 38(1), 23–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kennedy, K. (2012). Mental health court. Best Practices in Mental Health, 8(2), 38–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lau, A. S. (2006). Making the case for selective and directed cultural adaptations of evidence based treatments: Examples from parent training. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 13(4), 295–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter: The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mallik-Kane, K., & Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration (p. 82). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCracken, S. G., & Corrigan, P. W. (2008). Motivational interviewing for medication adherence in individuals with schizophrenia. In H. Arkowitz, H. A. Westra, W. R. Miller, & S. Rollnick (Eds.), Motivational interviewing in the treatment of psychological problems (pp. 277–303). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNiel, D. E., & Binder, R. L. (2007). Effectiveness of a mental health court in reducing criminal recidivism and violence. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(9), 1395–1403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M. (2014). Identifying collateral effects of offender reentry programming through evaluative fieldwork. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 41–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Khey, D. N. (2016). An implementation and process evaluation of the louisiana 22nd judicial district’s behavioral health court. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(1), 124–135.

  • Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015a). Validating program fidelity: Lessons from the Delaware County second chance initiatives. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 112–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015b). Rethinking program fidelity for criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 339–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., Koons-Witt, B. A., & Ventura, H. E. (2004). Barriers to evaluating the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. V., Tillyer, R., & Miller, J. M. (2012). Recognizing the need for prisoner input in correctional research observations from an In-prison driving while intoxicated reduction program evaluation. The Prison Journal, 92(2), 274–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olson, D., Lurigio, A., & Albertson, S. (2001). Implementing the key components of specialized drug treatment courts: Practice and policy considerations. Law & Policy, 23, 171–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osher, F. C. (2006). Integrating mental health and substance abuse services for justice-involved persons with co-occuring disorders. Baltimore, MD: National GAINS Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, F., & Lipton, D. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the effectiveness of corrections-based treatments for drug abuse. The Prison Journal, 79(4), 384–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry-reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • SAMHSA (2010). Illness management and recovery evidence-based practices (EBP) KIT.

  • Stafford, C. (2006). Finding work: How to approach the intersection of prisoner reentry, employment, and recidivism. Geology Journal on Poverty L. & Pol'y, 13, 261.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763–798.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2000). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute.

  • Travis, J. (2007). Reflections on the reentry movement. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2), 84–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2003). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. The Urban Institute.

  • Watson, A., Hanrahan, P., Luchins, D., & Lurigio, A. (2014). Mental health courts and the complex issue of mentally ill offenders. Psychiatric Services, 52, 477–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D. B. (2001). Robes and rehabilitation: How judges can help offenders' make good'.

  • Workgroup, L. S. E. (2011). Annual report. State of Louisiana: Office of Behavioral Health.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research reported in this article was supported by the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration and the United States Bureau of Justice Assistance, award # TI025430. Opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of these funding agencies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of North Florida, Jacksonville, FL, 32224, USA

    J. Mitchell Miller

  2. University of Louisiana – Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, 70504, USA

    David N. Khey

Authors
  1. J. Mitchell Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. David N. Khey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Mitchell Miller.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Miller, J.M., Khey, D.N. Fighting America’s Highest Incarceration Rates with Offender Programming: Process Evaluation Implications from the Louisiana 22nd Judicial District Reentry Court. Am J Crim Just 42, 574–588 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9372-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-016-9372-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation