Prevention Works

The Prison Entreneurship Program

PEP Program Prevents Recidivism

A great number of inmates in U.S. prisons possess entrepreneurial skills that they learned on the streets. These inmates, who are former drug dealers, hustlers, and gang leaders, understand the business process. The nonprofit Prison Entrepreneurship Program is dedicated to channeling these ex-offenders’ skills into executive positions in legitimate businesses.

PEP keeps our communities safer by keeping these ex-offenders from returning to lives of crime. The program helps these people become legitimate business people, so that their former illegal business is no longer their only path to success. The organization is effective because it connects ex-offenders with business talent by providing mentoring and MBA-level business courses and by fostering entrepreneurial enthusiasm.

It is fortunate that these former criminals can be part of the Prison Entrepreneurship Program. Without the skills to get new jobs or start their own businesses, they might not be able to earn a salary, since ex-offenders rarely find employment after they get out of prison. This is because of the reluctance of employers to hire ex-offenders. The problems that many released offenders face in finding employment and obtaining money may lead them back to a life of crime. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at least 650,000 offenders will be released from prison in the coming year, and two-thirds of those people will be rearrested for repeated criminal activity within the next three years. These statistics contrast with the experience of PEP graduates. Of all PEP graduates, only 5 percent have recidivated.

The program upholds the concept of moral decision-making and the importance of spiritual discipline. PEP connects the ex-offenders enrolled in its program with others who have taken a similar path, providing them with a brotherhood that shares a common past and a common goal.

And yet, should people who were criminal entrepreneurs be rewarded for the skills they picked up in their illegal activities? Is it safe to trust these people and put them back in business? Can we be sure that they will not secretly use their legitimate businesses as a cover for more illegal dealings?

How Many Bars Do You Get Behind Bars?

A prisoner, already incarcerated for a drug conviction, was found guilty of using a contraband cell phone from jail to order the murder of a witness in another upcoming trial. The victim, 38 year old Carl Lackl Jr., was gunned down in a drive-by shooting outside his home in Baltimore, a week before he was to testify in that trial. This crime is the most heinous outcome of a growing and startling problem—cell phones and their availability to prisoners behind bars.

Recent simultaneous prisoner disturbances across the country were coordinated through illegal cell phone calls by an incarcerated gang leader in an attempt to establish dominance for his gang. Other crimes, including threats and murder, have been traced back to prisoners ordering “hits” from prison by use of cell phone to intimidate witnesses or settle gangland scores. It would seem a simple solution to jam such signals within the prison walls and nip that kind of communication in the bud. But it is not that easy. The Federal Communications Commission’s regulations prohibit just that. Since 1934, when cell phones were a fantasy of science fiction, it has been illegal to interfere with signals regulated by the FCC. Two bills currently in Congress are intended to address this problem. The Safe Prisons Communications Act of 2009 (House bill H.R.560 and Senate bill S.251) propose to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to allow the jamming of cell phone signals within prison walls. Proponents say this would eliminate the illegal conversations that allow drug lords and gang leaders to continue their criminal enterprises while locked up.

CTIA – The Wireless Association (The International Association for the Wireless Communications Industry) sees that proposition differently asserting that (1) such jamming would needlessly inconvenience nearby consumer and public safety wireless users, and (2) it is against the law. CTIA’s questions are: How are prisoners getting access to contraband cell phones? A recent intercepted shipment to a corrections institution from a food services delivery truck that contained 26 cell phones and chargers and other contraband shows us one method.

Another technology, called Intelligent Network Access Controller or INAC, may come to the rescue. This technology enables allowable wireless communications in a prison (or other locale) to an approved subset of users— say, users a warden would approve. While everyday cell phone use is a marvel of today’s technology, their current use by prisoners to access their outside networks and continue to work their nefarious deeds while locked up is unacceptable. We’d like to “hear you now.” Post a comment below and tell us your thoughts.

The Ultimate Price—and Responsibility

The National Crime Prevention Council mourns the loss of four police officers in the shooting tragedy that unfolded recently in Oakland, CA.  Sergeants Mark Dunakin, Erv Romans, Daniel Sakai, and Officer John Hege were lost in the line of duty defending the safety of the people of Oakland, the safety that all of us, in communities across the country, depend on and, all too often, take for granted.  The loss of these officers was the most in one day since the September 11th attacks.

What caused this tragedy? Were there warning signs or other indicators that could have alerted us to the extreme danger the shooter represented?  Were there systems and practices in place that would have tipped us off to the possibility of a tragedy occurring?  The gunman, recently released from prison for violating a previous parole, was monitored by a parole officer whose caseload was 70 parolees, well above the American Parole and Probation Association’s recommended ratio of 50 cases per parole offer. Seven thousand parolees return to Alameda County, in which Oakland is situated, each year, all needing services, counseling, a job, and hope.

In the United States, more than 5.1 million adult men and women are supervised in the community, either on probation or parole. Every year more than 700,000 previously incarcerated persons return to their communities. The situation is exacerbated by the often unproductive time spent by inmates when they are behind bars, the drain on communities while its inhabitants are incarcerated, and the inability of communities and systems to re-integrate ex-offenders upon their eventual return.

"California's parole population is now so large and its parole agents are so overburdened that parolees who represent a serious public safety threat are not watched closely," a National Institute of Justice-funded report released last year, and quoted in the Oakland Tribune, states. "And those who wish to go straight cannot get the help they need."

Some people knew that the gunman had recently obtained a gun (in violation of his parole), but did nothing with that information. Crime prevention is not the responsibility of law enforcement, or corrections, or the National Crime Prevention Council alone. It takes a community working together to keep itself safe.

This time of mourning must also be a time of learning.

Reentry: Finally, a Crack at a Job

Recidivism and reentry are giant problems. Just ask any mayor or police chief—or any ex-offender or his family. Recidivism causes cities to become more unmanageable as crime spreads and the costs of criminal deterrence and prevention rise. Citizens become frightened and some are scarred by robbery and other forms of assault. The ex-offenders themselves—if they don't recidivate—face a life of dependency on their families and public assistance, itself a huge municipal expense, since most can't get jobs because of their criminal records. Or they end up on the streets, adding to the population of the homeless.

But now there is a glimmer of hope. Some enlightened city governments are giving ex-offenders a second chance. Rather than dismissing their job applications out of hand, they are doing everything from not asking about criminal histories to checking for it only after extending "provisional" offers of employment, according to an article by the Associated Press.

These programs have been adopted in various forms in such major cities as Baltimore, MD; Boston, MA; Oakland, CA; Minneapolis, MN; and San Francisco; CA. Los Angeles is considering doing so, as is Norwich, CT. City fathers in New Haven, CT, recently proposed an ordinance to adopt such a measure.

Chicago still asks a question about criminal history, but balances the crime with its severity, time served, and evidence of rehabilitation when considering the application. The change is an important one in Chicago, where more than 20,000 ex-offenders arrive each year.

In Boston, "ex-offender status" is a protected status under civil rights law. The city does backdrop checks only for sensitive jobs, such as working in schools. Moreover, Boston requires all contractors that do business with the city to follow its policy.

Recidivism will never be erased entirely, and rehabilitation will not work with every ex-offender. But good job training in prisons, followed by solid reentry programs in the community, then just a crack at a job—at any level—might be a good first step at solving the destructive—and very expensive—recidivism problem.

A Recidivism Reduction Gift List

With the arrival of the holiday gift-giving season, the experts have some brightly wrapped recommendations about the new three “R's” — Reentry and Recidivism Reduction.

The Brookings Institute's Hamilton Project presented a national reentry proposal by Harvard scholar and reentry expert Bruce Western. Professor Western's proposal From Prison to Work: A Proposal for a National Prisoner Reentry Program is a 34-page article that he summarized into four main ideas:

1. More programs in prison before release (basic education, national standards for education of inmates and reentry/discharge planning, Pell Grant restoration, technical training, etc.)
2. A national transitional jobs program for those releasees who can't find work (a year of national service work where soft skills (such as work ethic and interpersonal workplace skills) and hard skills are learned and where mental health and substance abuse treatment plans are available and followed)
3. Parole and probation reform that leads to less stringent sanctions for failure
4. A reduction in collateral sanctions (restore Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) and food stamp eligibility, restore Pell Grants and eliminate federal housing bans on felons)

On the heels of Dr. Western's proposal, Amy Solomon provided her most recent publication for the Urban Institute entitled Putting Public Safety First. The article included 13 evidence-based recommendations for parole and probation agencies about how they can meet the dual challenges of strengthening reentry efforts for individuals and communities and ensuring public safety. The 13 recommendations include such basics as defining acceptable recidivism and urging the adoption of ambitious goals for reentry efforts and other innovations such as individualizing reentry plans; concentrating resources on moderate- to high-risk parolees on the front end of the continuum of reentry; involving community, partners, and “homecomers” in the reentry and supervision plan; and employing graduated sanctions and incentives, treatment, and less surveillance to improve behavior and performance.

And further down on the gift list is The National H.I.R.E. Network's National Blueprint for Reentry of suggested model policies to promote the successful reentry of individuals with criminal records through employment and education. It contains 17 recommendations for improving the opportunities and chances of individuals returning, notably justice reinvestment strategies, higher education funding, and related hiring and employment ideas.

I hope that these carefully crafted gifts will have lasting impact in the new year and beyond!

Prison Privatization

In an old Bob Newhart TV program, the producers of the local small town talk show within the show were trying to come up with a topic for the afternoon's episode. Over their coffee cups, they settled on, "Styrofoam: Modern Day Convenience or Satan’s Chalice?"

The two sides of the prison privatization issue remind me of that debate. Does it represent an abdication of government's duty, or a practical solution to a vexing problem?

The operation of prisons by private corporations on behalf of the federal government and local governments is a flashpoint of anger for some and a welcomed resource for others. Federal and local jurisdictions seek to maximize the investment of tax dollars in sensible solutions that reduce the burden on public coffers and provide public safety and needed programming and treatment for the growing population of U.S. inmates. More and more frequently they are turning to privatization. The public policy debate rages, but the data are in— private corrections corporations are winning more and more shares of corrections contracts and providing a return for investors in what is perceived as a one-way (up!) growth industry.

One such for-profit corporation reported a 15 percent rise in earnings in the second quarter of 2008. Its public communications documents all point to the benefits it provides— public safety, cost efficiency, economic and community development, and better inmate services. Those benefits, coupled with the fact that corrections costs take up more and more of states' annual budgets, leads some to say that privatization of prisons is welcomed relief in these turbulent economic times for government.

On the other hand, Grassroots Leadership is a nonprofit in the South that views prison privatization as an impediment to social justice. Its mission statement reads in part, "Grassroots Leadership's goal is to put an end to abuses of justice and the public trust by working to abolish for-profit private prisons."

Elsewhere on this website is a Research Brief that examines the recidivism rates of privatized prisons and publicly managed prisons. In a study of 22,000-plus released prisoners in Oklahoma, prisoners from the privatized prisons had a higher recidivism rate (33 percent) than prisoners from state-run or public prisons (30 percent).

This held true for male prisoners: there was a 35 percent recidivism rate for men released from private prisons and a 30 percent rate for men released from public prisons. For women, the results were reversed: 21 percent of women released from private prisons recidivated while only 27 percent of women from publicly managed prisons recidivated.

Look at the National Crime Prevention Council's Research Brief.

It’s too bad we can't resolve this problem in the 22 minutes allowed for a situation comedy like "Newhart" on TV. If you have a take on the issue, post a comment below and let us know.

Also:

Here's an interesting primer (from Cornell University in 2002) on the topic of prison privatization.

The Grassroots Leadership website has a resource page for those interested in the issue of prison privatization.

"You’ve Got Mail"

In today's world, technology evolves at breakneck speeds. Practically every business and institution is doing what they can to keep up with the Jones. It was only time before the nation's prison system jumped on the technological bandwagon. And now, according to an article published by USA Today, connecting prisoners with their families is easier than ever.

Email has made its way over the barbed wire and through the cement walls of more than 20 federal facilities. Thousands of inmates now have inboxes and are sending and receiving numerous emails a day compared with the previous occasional letter here and there. According to the article, "Scott Middlebrooks, the warden at Coleman Federal Prison northwest of Orlando, [says] his inmates sent more than 3,200 messages and received some 2,800 a day last month through the [email] system."

Unlike Microsoft Office or Google Mail, the email system that prisons use is as basic as they come. All messages are sent in plain text and no attachments are allowed. Inmates are denied Internet access and can only send email to an approved list of contacts. Messages are often screened for keywords as a security measure. And although Bruce Schneier of the security firm BT Counterpane acknowledges that some inmates may get away with sending coded messages through their email, he also says that the same could be true of phone calls.

While some critics believe that email is a privilege that shouldn't be afforded to inmates, others praise it for allowing more communication with prisoners and their families. They see it as a way for children to sustain a relationship with an imprisoned parent, or as a means for families to communicate urgent news (good or bad), with their loved one.

Those who have loved ones in prisons where email is not an option may not have to wait too long. According to USA Today, "By spring of 2011, all 114 U.S. prisons are expected to have email available for inmates."

Turning the Corner on Recidivism?

For most of the decade, the rote stats on recidivism have been, to wit: (1) 700,000 individuals will be released from prison each year, (2) within three years, 66 percent them will be rearrested, and (3) 50 percent of them will return to prison. But some recent publications may herald some good news.

A recidivism study out of the University of Nevada, Reno, suggests that Nevada is doing much better, coming in at tenth best in the nation with a recidivism rate of 29 percent. Arizona is best in the United States with a rate of only 24 percent. What contributes to these gains? District Attorney Arthur Mallory of Churchill County, NV, hypothesizes that "pleasant prisons" may be a factor in other states where recidivism rates are so high. I guess prisons in Nevada aren’t that "pleasant."

Other observers point to inroads and innovations in community corrections and probation supervision as the reason for downturns in recidivism. A recent Pew Center on the States Public Safety Policy Brief hails the gains in reducing recidivism and increasing public safety made by states and communities through the use of community corrections, alternative sanctions to prison, and innovative funding decisions. The informative eight-page report summarizes the progress that community corrections acts have made since the first one was enacted in 1973 in Minnesota. Community corrections acts (which are called a variety of names) formalize a relationship between the state and its jurisdictions to provide alternatives to prison sentences and the high costs of incarceration while maintaining public safety and serving offenders in their communities. In 2007, states paid $47 billion in prison costs and most future projections are for ever-increasing costs. Community corrections can be more effective in the rehabilitation of offenders and use state dollars more efficiently than expensive incarceration. Community corrections can include electronic monitoring, local counseling and treatment, and incentives in sentence, probation, and community service reductions, if probationers comply and perform well. Tougher sanctions are imposed when they don’t.

The usual leaders, Kansas and Arizona, are showing the way in innovative policies that redistribute dollars earmarked for prison costs to community-based agencies that provide quality community corrections support to clients. Agencies are no longer paid per client, but are remunerated based on the performance of the clients in maintaining the straight and narrow (level or reduced probation violations and crimes). These initiatives appear to demonstrate how states and counties can reduce public costs while providing for their citizens, reducing recidivism, and maintaining public safety.

PEP for Prisoners

It is amazing what one charismatic person with a good idea and passion for that idea can do. Catherine Rohr is that person and the Prison Entrepreneurship Program (PEP) is that good idea. Rohr, a former Wall Street venture capitalist, was transformed after she accepted an invitation to visit a Texas prison and founded the PEP program to tap the entrepreneurial spirit and skills of inmates to begin the path to success and fulfillment. PEP is a rigorous voluntary business and life skills development curriculum focused on entrepreneurism as a way out and up for prisoners within one year of release. The program is application-based and only 20 percent of those who apply are admitted to the program. Out of those 20 percent, only 60 percent graduate from the program.

This is no time-filling program run by do-gooders with hearts of gold. This is a serious, intensive immersion into the world of business and legal success, supported by private dollars, prominent institutions of higher education, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, and a cadre of volunteer executive mentors that Donald Trump would envy. Rohr has established a no-nonsense organization that values quality and accountability equally with the worth and potential of every human. Most of the graduates of the program, upon release, start a business or get significant jobs that help them support themselves and their families. The kind of business success the program is having would be a story monumental enough, but wait! There’s more! PEP has transformed the graduates into contributing, contrite, and caring citizens ready to lead industry and communities. Sporting a recidivism rate in the single digits for its brief (four year) history, PEP has created a brotherhood among the graduates that is making communities safer and the individuals more productive.

The businesses the former inmates have founded range from leather goods production to hedge funds to record labels.

The program doesn’t stop on the prisoner’s release date. The reentry and reintegration is fostered by the program’s ongoing menu of services that includes a reentry care package, transitional housing, family services, recreation, mentoring, financing, and business development support. Read about PEP, its founder, and the planet’s largest FAQ at http://www.prisonentrepreneurship.org/ and see Catherine Rohr summarize the program in this brief You Tube video.

Caution: This program is currently operating only in Texas and there are no immediate plans for expansion outside that state. PEP is striving to increase the quality of its effort and results there for the 60,000 people released from Texas prisons each year.

States Getting Serious About Prisoner Reentry

"I think we should reserve the very expensive prison space for people who are violent - basically, for the people that we're afraid of rather than the people we're just mad at."

– Missouri Supreme Court Judge Michael A. Wolff

A few states are getting a grip on skyrocketing prison costs and the human cost incarceration imposes on individuals and communities by getting serious about prisoner reentry.The Bureau of Justice Statistics recently reported that prison and jail populations across the United States are continuing to increase. However, one state, Missouri, has shown declines in its prison population over the last three six-month reporting periods. This bucks the nationwide trend of overcrowded facilities and longer sentences. What's working in Missouri? A two pronged approach that includes adopting the recommendations of a Sentencing Advisory Committee and a proactive reentry preparation process by the Department of Corrections has reduced Missouri's overall prison population by 700 inmates in the last 18 recorded months. That may not seem like much, but as Judge Wolff said, "...that's half a prison. It's a lot of money."

Missouri communities are also preparing for the return of the previously incarcerated by building community awareness through training events, including reentry simulations for citizens.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics report stated that three other states showed declines in two of the three previous reporting periods and 17 states showed declines in one of the previous three reporting periods. Overall, the nation’s prison and jail population rose 2.1 percent last year. Almost 2.3 million people were in prisons and jails, 46,877 more than 2006.

California is spending billions to establish Community Reentry Facilities to ease the state’s prison overcrowding issue and to proactively address the challenge of prisoner reentry. In Kansas, prison population has also been reduced and Kansas’s efforts are lauded in this Detroit Free Press op-ed piece.  Kansas has used “Boundary Spanners.” These are individuals whose job is to break down the walls between agencies to save costs and push effectiveness and efficiencies. Positive political will and support from the Jeht Foundation, Microsoft, and other funders have supported the plethora of good ideas and practices the Kansas Reentry effort has produced. Among them: Day Reporting Centers rather than re-jailing, and housing specialists and business developers who work with the landlord and employer sides of the reentry equation. Read more in the Kansas Department of Corrections 2008 Annual Report.