8.9: Pennsylvania Specific Programs

Last updated
Save as PDF

Page ID: 81870

$ \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } $ $ \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} $$\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $\newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$ $ \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}$ $ \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}$ $ \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}$ $ \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}$ $ \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}$ $ \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}$ $ \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}$$\newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}$

Community Corrections

Community corrections are half-way houses established in urban settings throughout the state. As of FY 2008 there are 14 DOCS run facilities and 38 contracted facilities operating to provide reintegration of over 3,400 inmates into society (Community Corrections Center, 2008). An inmate assigned to a community corrections facility receives continued treatment for addictions and counseling in areas of family and employment. The inmate is gradually reduced from custodial control to personal responsibility. The role of the Community Corrections Programs in the DOCS is to provide a viable alternative to incarceration, while the inmate reacclimatized to social conditions outside prison walls.

State Intermediate Punishment Program

State Intermediate Punishment Program (SIP) was enacted in FY 2004 and became effective in May 2005 in response to concerns of criminal offending while under the influence of drugs and alcohol (SIP Performance Report, 2011). SIP was designed as an alternative to determinate sentencing while enhancing public safety through a period of incarceration. The SIP Performance Report (2011) reported that as of September, 2010 there were 933 graduates from the program. Results of the SIP Program indicate that six-month and one-year re-incarceration rates are lower than non-SIP participant inmates. The cost of incarceration is approximately $34,190.00 annually and this is realized as a savings when in the SIP Program, thus the 933 graduates of the program saved the State of Pennsylvania $31.5 million (SIP Performance Report, 2011).

SIP participants must apply and be accepted into a four phase program consisting of 24 months. Phase-one is a Court Determined Eligibility by statute and sentencing guidelines of which the offender is convicted of an alcohol or drug induced offense that does not include use of a deadly weapon, child molestation, incest or child exploitation, and does not have a history of violence. The offender is sentenced to 30 months per statute. Phase-two is DOC assessment at which time the offender is evaluated for treatment needs and determination of amenability to treatment. Doc provides a recommendation to the court and the district attorney and if all three components agree the offender is accepted into SIP in Phase-three. Phase-four consists of reintegration into the community for the remainder of the 24 month sentence (SIP Performance Report, 2011).

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive

Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive (RRRI) was established by Act 81 of 2008 providing that eligible non-violent offenders are incentivized by successfully completing program requirement in exchange for a reduced sentence. The criteria for eligibility is similar to that of the SIP Program and has a goal of creating an atmosphere of good behavior while incarcerated and to remain crime free upon release. These offenders are those that provide no reasonable indication that they pose a threat to public safety (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Report, 2011). The re-arrest rate of RRRI graduates is similar to those that did not enter the program; however the longitudinal data is in embryonic stages at this time for any statistical significance. What is significant is the approximate $11.5 million saved through freeing bed space by approximately 127,000 less days spent in prison (Recidivism Risk Reduction Incentive Report, 2011).

Recidivism

A comparison of recidivism for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for years 1999 and 2004 are as follows: 1999 14% were re-incarcerated for new crimes compared to 16%; 23% for technical violations compared to 24%; and in 1999 63% never returned compared to 60% in 2004. This means that Pennsylvania suffered a 37% recidivism rate in 1999 compared to a 40% recidivism rate in 2004. From 2000 through 2010, the number of parole violator admissions increased by 29.3%, from 4,348 in 2000 to 5,621 in 2010 (Pew Center-Revolving Door). This is in part and parcels the reasoning of the above reported programs to decrease re-incarceration and decrease the prison population of non-violent offenders reducing the overall cost of the DOCS.

Data Collection

The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections web page may be found at www.cor.state.pa.us which provided the primary source of data in this review. The web page also provides an array of information depicting DOC policies, inmate information, institution information, executions (3 executions since 1995-present-see Appendices-D) and warrants for execution, statistical data, Mission Statement, and programs and initiatives. In review of the DOCS policies, many contain references to the American Correctional Association (ACA) and if not directly stated, have embedded in those policies portions of the ACA’s Code of Ethics. The Pennsylvania Department of Corrections is an ACA Accredited system. Personnel interviews of PA DOCS key staff personnel were another source of data for this review. Copious notes were taken by the researcher and transcribed into final form provided in this report. This researcher has no personal allegiance to PA DOCS or personal bias against PA DOCS and therefore the information provided herein is as reported. The PA DOCS data and literature research are the basis of this review.

The DOCS programs initiated within the previous ten years also signals the system is a risk taker, unafraid to tackle new ideas in providing service to community and to inmate. The newer innovative programs discussed are aimed at the less violent and shorter sentence inmates (Appendices C-Maximum Sentences) which mainly provide for reduction of cost at his juncture, without longitudinal studies but there remains a void for reducing longer sentence terms, which may just be the need to protect society from the offender.

Discussion and Limitations

The PA DOCS as illustrated through their web page provides several innovative approaches to reducing costs and bed space within the system. It discusses alternatives to incarceration which have had to have the input of DOCS staff and political will on the part the legislature. Social learning should not be interpreted literally as to how criminal behavior is obtained but rather as a medium for acquisition, maintenance, and modification of behavior; more so social learning theory develops the relationship between motivation and control of criminal behavior (Cullen & Agnew, 2006). Therefore the undoing of the already learned process requires longitudinal examination. Researchers will review, study and analyze theories and questions in “macro” and “micro” clusters. The macro approach recommended for future study is one that is broader across societies or major factions in comparison to the micro approach which is a smaller grouping. Akers (1998) argues that, “the dependent variable in macro-level theories is based ultimately on the same behavior that is the dependent variable in micro-level theories” (p. 330).

The data provided by the DOC shows a relationship of therapy and programs instrumental to the prevention of further criminal behavior by inmates. As there is not one single causation of criminal behavior, neither is the unraveling of previous criminal conduct of inmates and current indicators with any certainty as to which program will be useful to further prevent criminal conduct by the offender; therefore the data provided indicates usefulness, but longitudinal review is required.