Avoidance of Recidivism Following Conviction - Research Proposal Example

Research Proposal Name Institution Professor Course Date Research Proposal on Avoidance of Recidivism Aim of the Research This research aims to conduct an evaluation on the impacts of various programs used in prisons in the reduction of recidivism in the released inmates and compare the outcomes in the inmates who participate in the programs and those who don’t. Problem Statement The research aims to identify various programs that are used in prisons and their impact in reducing recidivism in the society. The research will also compare those inmates who have attended various programs and those who have not and analyze the probability of recidivism in both cases. Research Question What are some of the programs that can be used to reduce recidivism following conviction and what impact do they have on inmates? Hypothesis The inmates who go through various educational and vocational programs are less likely to recidivate than the inmates who do not go through such programs. Literature Review Prisons have been used widely in the last two decades as a measure of controlling crime. It is believed that long prison sentences act as deterrent to future recidivism and this has made the campaign for minimal sentencing to gain momentum. Prisons suppress criminal behavior of the convicts. Given the unfriendly state of prison life and the negative social stigma that is associated with prisons, then convicts should be deterred from repeating similar offenses that land them in prisons again. Some researchers propose that imprisonment is inhumane and psychologically destructive to those convicted. This is likely to make the prisoners recidivate after their release. Other researchers suggest that prisons have minimum impact on the offenders concerning the changing of their behaviours (Crutchfield, Bridges & Oitchford, 2007 pp. 175). Offenders get into prisons with much antisocial behaviour that is not likely to be changed during the period of incarceration. This perspective suggests that convicts with lower risk offences are likely to be affected adversely by long incarceration periods. The reason for this is that the environment in prisons accords them a chance to interact with hard core convicts who might have committed serious offences. Other studies in the late 1990’s involving 320,000 offenders showed 325 correlations between recidivism and the length of time spent in prisons by the convicts (Crutchfield, Bridges & Oitchford, 2007 pp. 179).The results from the study indicated that prisons should not be used with the expectation of eliminating criminal behavior. To determine the individuals who are adversely affected by prisons, the prison officials should carry out comprehensive assessments of offenders’ attitudes and behaviours while in prison. There has been a need to introduce measures in order to reduce recidivism among the people who come out of prisons. There are some countries such as US that have introduced mandatory prison sentences as a measure to control recidivism. This policy is aimed to let the offenders know that they will be punished severely after they commit any offence. Punishment is generally defined as the suppression of bad behaviour in convicts by use of response-dependent events. According to Bonta the convicts who receive more severe sanctions are more likely to reduce their criminal activities in future (Bonta & Gendreau, 2005 pp. 231). Incarceration affects the convicts both directly and indirectly either through the loss of income or stigmatization. With the consequences of imprisonment, offenders are likely to avoid engaging in criminal activities that may lead to imprisonment. Surveys indicate that most offenders consider prison to be the most severe form of punishment and once they go through it the fear is eliminated after knowing that no more harsher form of punishment can be applied. There are some studies that have termed prisons as “schools of crime” Scholars such as Andenaes argued that prisons were breeding grounds for crime (Andenaes, 2004 pp. 56). An example was given of an inmate who has spent long time in prison having the tendencies of committing crime being more strengthened and hence having more chance to recidivate than an inmate who has spent less time in a prison. A study carried out by the Center for Impact Research found out that mandatory addiction treatment, education programs, and employment services are effective in preventing ex-convicts from engaging in criminal activities that might lead them to getting back to prisons (DeJong, 2007 pp. 124). Offering the three services to recently released inmates could be an effective measure in reducing recidivism. This was particularly identified in Chicago where programs such as New York’s Community and Law Enforcement Together were reported to have reduced recidivism by 18 per cent among the people who participated. Treatment for substance abuse and mental illness is another measure that can be used to remove the barriers that prevent ex-convicts from getting meaningful employment. Education plays a major role in providing the necessary skills to inmates so that they can get jobs that may lead to successful outcomes and hence keeping off from criminal activities. Through employment released inmates, are able to earn reasonable income and this also contributes in building their self confidence in the society. According to a recent study, prison education programs that are designed to reduce recidivism and assist inmates in preparing for life after prison, have recorded some level of success especially across US. The Second Chance Act which was signed into law in April 2008 enabled many states in America to expand their in-prison educational programs (Cayley, 2009 pp. 165). As a result many juvenile inmates in California have enrolled in courses offered in prisons and the numbers have been on the rise for the last three years. Arkansas’ prison system ahs so far recorded the highest number of inmate graduates. Inmates from Pennsylvania and Tennessee prisons were also reported to have earned college credits. The idea of preparing inmates for the life outside prison is a motivation and boosts their morale as they become more acceptable in the society. A study done by the Arkansas Department of Corrections reported that prison GED programs reduced the rate of recidivism in that state by more than eight per cent (Crutchfield, Bridges & Oitchford, 2007 pp. 170). Although there are many programs that are designed to change the offender behaviour, there is very little information on the effectiveness of such programs in reducing recidivism. The efficacy of such programs is mostly based on how they are applied other than the effectiveness of the specific programs. Preliminary studies performed in the past reported that inmates who participated in transition programs had increased chances of succeeding after their release from prison and therefore reducing the rates of recidivism (Harland, 2007 pp.150). In a certain research that was conducted in California, the recidivism rate for some 1,800 inmates who earned a vocational certificate was 25 percent compared to 35 per cent of those inmates who did not go through the program (Bukstel & Kilmann, 2002 pp.84). The reduction in the rate of recidivism amounted to around 170 convicts not returning to prison. The cost of their re-incarceration for a period of one year would amount to savings of more than $3.5 million. Success of those inmates who acquired vocational certificates was enhanced when offenders acquired work experience. In the same study, there was also a reduction in the recidivism rate in the inmates who participated in Substance Abuse Programs compared to those inmates who did not complete their programs. More than two thirds of the inmates who completed their Substance Abuse Programs were successful after their release from prison. The study continued to elaborate that the inmates who had history of criminal behaviour that is related to substance abuse and enroll for the substance abuse programs are 13.5 per cent less likely to recidivate than their counterparts who did not go through a substance abuse program. Inmates who completed a substance abuse program and also participated in a work release program for a minimum of two months were 6.0 percent less likely to recidivate than those who completed a substance abuse program and had no work experience. Inmates, who enrolled for academic programs (GED), were 8.8 percent less likely to recidivate than the ones who did not participate in such programs (Feldman, Caplinger & Wodarski, 2004 pp.146). More than seventy per cent of inmates who undertook GED were successful after their release from prison. The inmates who received QED and had work experience were also less likely to recidivate than the inmates who received QED but lacked work experience. Scope of the Study This research will be conducted in the States of California and Arkansas. The research will involve a team of six people; two to be in-charge of California, the other two will take care of data collection in Arkansas while the remaining two people will be responsible for compiling the data collected from the two regions. The gender representation in the research will be three women and three men and this will be crucial in gathering data from both women and men populations. Time Schedule The research is expected to take four weeks starting from 15th April 2011, to 15th May 2011. This time is expected to be properly utilized so as to ensure that all the elements of the research are catered for within this period. Methods of Data Collection Questionnaires will be distributed to California and Arkansas States and shall largely target prison facilities. Four prison facilities shall be distributed with ten questionnaires each where half of the questionnaires will be filled by prison officials while the rest will be filled by inmates. The respondents shall be given two weeks to fill the questionnaires after which they shall be collected. The data analysis shall be done by use of graphs and charts where interpretation shall also be done appropriately. Sampling Method The sampling method to be used in this research will be random sampling and will target forty respondents in California and Arkansas States. Limitations The time allocated for this ethnographic study may not be adequate considering that there are similar studies that were done in more than six months. The team involved in this research will be required to visit various prisons in California and Arkansas and interview inmates and prison officials about the various programs that are offered in the prisons with an aim of reducing recidivism among the released inmates. The fact that the members of the research team will be outsiders, the information released to them by the prison officials might be limited depending on their work ethics. To ensure that the prison official don’t filter their information so much, the questionnaires will be structured to have both multiple-choice questions as well as open ended questions. The results of this study shall be based on the responses that will be received from the field interviews. It therefore implies that no additional information will be included as none of the team members is experienced in prison operations. The researchers shall have little control on the conduct of the prison officials and the inmates in filling the questionnaires. Due to this, some of the questionnaires might not be returned or might not be filled in time. This in a way is likely to affect the research sample and will have implication on the total figures of the data. Some of the respondents might not be very honest while responding to the research questions. This might be due to the uncertainty of why the research is being conducted and whether it stands to benefit them. The inaccurate data night affect the final outcome of the research depending on the general honesty of the respondents. References Andenaes, J. 2004. Does punishment deter crime? Criminal Law Quarterly, 11, 76-93. Andrews, D., & Bonta, J. 2006. The psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Press. Bonta, J., & Gendreau, P. 2005. Reexamining the cruel and unusual punishment of prison life. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 347-366. Bukstel, H., & Kilmann, R. 2002. Psychological effects of imprisonment on confined individuals. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 469-493. Cayley, D. 2009. Effects of prison: The crisis in crime and punishment and the search for alternatives. Toronto, ON.: House of Anansi Press Limited. Crutchfield, D., Bridges, S., & Oitchford, R. 2007. Analytical and aggregation biases in analyses of imprisonment: Recording discrepancies in studies of racial disparity. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 166-182. DeJong, C. 2007. Survival analysis and specific deterrence: Integrating theoretical and empirical models of recidivism. Criminology, 35, 561-575. Feldman, A., Caplinger, E., & Wodarski, S. 2004. The St. Louis conundrum: The effective treatment of anti-social youth. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Harland, F. 2007. Choosing correctional options that work: Defining the demand and evaluating the supply . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Read More