As the United States continues to incarcerate more people than any other developed nation at near-prohibitively excessive costs, with mixed results at best, criminal justice reform advocates, policy makers and affected citizens continue to struggle to figure out what success actually looks like for state and federal governments, returning citizens, and the communities they return to.
According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, “at least 95% of all state prisoners will be released from prison at some point; nearly 80% will be released to parole supervision.” The success of these returning citizens is currently measured by rates of recidivism, which the Connecticut Criminal Justice Policy & Planning Division determined in 2008 after tracking a cohort of 16,286 formerly incarcerated persons that 54% of all those released returned to prison within a three-year period. The question of whether or not we are appropriately measuring success post-incarceration becomes glaringly clear.
What are the other 46% doing to avoid prison? Can this group truly be considered successful? Are current Judicial Branch and/or Department of Correction mandated stipulations effective tools in keeping this group out of prison; and if so, why haven’t they worked for the majority of returnees who eventually recidivate?
As a performance measure, recidivism alone appears to be moderately effective, showing a reduction of nearly half in the return to prison of the 2008 control group. But what is the data missing? Are there tactics, tools, and measures that successful returnees are employing that can be woven into Connecticut’s public policies to improve the lives and promote the reintegration and success of returning citizens and our communities?
This panel went beyond the data, highlighting instead the stories and anecdotes of the actual experience of formerly incarcerated persons and what they’ve done to remain successful. In addition, criminal justice experts discussed how they measure success and and how we can move forward as a state to create truly comprehensive reintegration strategies and measures that are based on more than just recidivism.