Kaylee Beeman Research Question: How can integrating rehabilitation and restorative justice practices reduce recidivism and increase the well being of women within the U.S. criminal justice system? Advisor: Sara Price
Abstract: Recidivism is an ongoing issue that continues to rise in America. The current criminal justice system is lacking in preparing individuals in incarceration for life after prison. Although many prisoners are affected, the sole focus of this paper is turned towards the affects the system has on women within the system. Effective rehabilitation needs to be reintroduced into these facilities and mandated for each individual in order for them to get the help they need and to allow them to gain valuable skills to become more productive members of society. Restorative justice is an important approach in question because it offers individuals a chance to repair the damages brought forth to themselves and others by their wrongdoings. It is important to question the current system and to inform others of potential options that could not only help reduce recidivism rates in America but improve women's lives who are in the system as well.
12th Grade Humanities Animas High School 04/06/20
Part 1: Introduction
“All humans have the capacity for change.” - The Dalai Lama Every human is capable of change but they have to be given the tools to do so. With roughly two million individuals incarcerated and high rates of recidivism within the United States it is apparent that the United States Criminal Justice System is flawed and Americans need to question what alternative methods there are to integrate into the system (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). Many of the inmates released from incarceration have statistically been reincarcerated within three years after release, two thirds of these inmates to be exact (Langan and Levin, 2002). Research shows that restorative justice has high success rates, but can not stand on its own as a government crime regulator because it tends to only work best with low risk offenders and drug offenders. Rehabilitation is also an important approach in question and although many prisons offer rehabilitative strategies, their strategies tend to either be lacking in some ways or aren’t being implemented at all. If they are being implemented, most of them are not mandated. Individuals in this field need to question our current criminal justice system and look for viable options that could not only reform our prison systems, but benefit women's lives who are in the system. After all, how can these women be expected to change when they are not given the correct tools to do so from a flawed system in need of improvement? By integrating restorative justice practices and rehabilitation approaches into women’s lives within the U.S. Criminal Justice System will reduce recidivism rates and increase the societal contributions from inmates post incarceration. Part 2: Historical Context and Background Knowledge Contrary to popular belief, the American Criminal Justice System has not always been framed in the “war on crime” outlook that is currently in place and has been in place for many years. Rehabilitation was utilized in some of the very first prisons built in the U.S.. Rehabilitation, according to the Oxford Dictionary, “is the action of restoring someone to health or normal life through training and therapy after imprisonment, addiction, or illness.” There are many different approaches to rehabilitation. A popular belief in the late 1800s was that people who committed crimes needed to be rehabilitated because there was something wrong with them. Religion was very active in prisons but it was mainly Quaker beliefs that were infiltrated in prisons, and solitary confinement was used often. This system obviously ended up failing, but was only one of many reasons “correctional” facilities came about.
In the early 1800’s, women in coed prisons often faced abuse and neglect. Women were oftentimes placed under solitary confinement and suffered many cases of sexual and physical abuse. In one prison specifically, the Auburn State Prison, the women were housed in an attic space, not closely monitored and their meals were typically given to them by male guards. A lot of times women were forced to perform unconcesentual acts, such as vaginal or oral sex, in order to recieve food. Due to the lack of protection, many women ended up pregnant because of this. One woman in particular by the name of Rachel Welch was raped by a male guard and later became pregnant. Once knowledge of this surfaced, the guard who impregnated her beat her to death. This tragedy and several other occurrences involving violence inflicted upon female inmates both by male guards and fellow inmates, brought forth significant change and separate facilities made to house women were created (Jones, 1993). The Mount Pleasant Prison Annex for women was built in 1839 and was considered the first facility for female inmates in the United States (Moore et al., 2014). Although facilities such as this were a step closer to safety, these women continued to face abuse from the men that administered the facility and the male guards that were working there.
In the late 1800’s, two Quaker women by the names Sarah J. Smith and Rhoda Coffin, created a new prison system that sought to rehabilitate what they viewed as the “fallen” and “unclean” women of America. Together they created 3 separate facilities, the most important of these being the Indiana Women’s Prison because it was the first stand alone women's prison in the United States. These two women were seen as faith driven heros and they saw it as their duty to “occupy the position assigned to them by God '' by reintegrating these women back into society. Prisons for women were created and designed to rehabilitate and support women who were seen as “flawed” and “unclean” to a path of redemption through strong religious aspects. By 1878, the Board of Managers reported an 82 percent success rate of these “fallen” women being integrated into society again (these being measured by Smith’s visits and correspondence) and their idea of rehabilitating women in the system was quite a success. This was up until 1881 in which case the Indiana Women’s Prison was put under a thorough investigation based on allegations of physical abuse of inmates by Superintendent Smith and her staff. The investigation found these allegations to be very true, to say the least. The rehabilitative approaches used in many of the first prisons were very flawed and were doomed from the beginning. Many of the strategies implemented stemmed from liberal religious backgrounds that focused on cleansing these “unclean” women. Many of these women faced high levels of corporate punishment, mostly at the hands of men, as well as neglect and abuse (Jones, 1993). These women were never given the proper tools to become successful and productive members of society post release. Eventually many prisons ended up adapting to more rehabilitative approaches, mostly utilizing religion and factory work, up until around the 1970s after the war on drugs was declared by President Nixon. Although the rehabilitative strategies being implemented slowly grew from the traditional Quaker beliefs, they were still very flawed and many issues involving abuse towards female inmates continued. Yet these prisons were doing more to help change individuals in prison rather than attempting to change the mindsets of American’s outside of prison. But after the war on drugs began and the harsh outlook on substance abuse grew, mandatory sentences were set in place with the intention of reducing crime inflicting fear upon society in hopes of deterring individuals from drugs. Unfortunately this did not deter people from drugs or crime but the numbers just continued to grow and have been ever since.
Today’s women are most often incarcerated for what are considered nonviolent offenses and/or drug offenses in a penal criminal justice system. According to the U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigations, “In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.” Men commit nearly twice as many violent offences than women (Bloom et al., 2000). Placing low-risk offenders in programs that are intended to reduce recidivism and benefit inmates by using intensive intervention methods, “tends to disrupt their pro-social networks; in other words, the very attributes that make them low-risk become interrupted, such as school, employment, family, and so forth” (Latessa, Lowenkamp, 2006). If research shows that these rehabilitative programs are not benefiting low-risk offenders, which are utilized by many facilities especially ones that only house women, then it appears that their resources are being wasted. Thus introducing the question of whether or not sentencing people right away for low-risk crimes and drug related crimes is the best option for the U.S. Criminal Justice System should arise and when restorative justice practices should be evaluated and implemented.
Restorative Justice is an effort to transform the way people think of punishment for wrongful acts through various approaches that focus on four things: restoration, reconciliation, repairing and reintegration. The practice was derived from the intent to heal the wrongdoer, the community, and individuals affected through meaningful human interaction, acknowledgement and accountability for wrongful acts to help actively restore what may be broken and bring justice. This is a practice that has been utilized in very early forms of government such as Greek, Arab, and Roman legal culture. Research reveals that restorative justice reduces imprisonment and recidivism rates, which in turn is more cost efficient than many of the alternative (or current) practices (Menkel-Meadow, 2007). The term recidivism refers to when crimes are committed resulting in rearrest, reconviction or return to prison during a three-year period post-release. Through evaluating restorative justice approaches and rehabilitative strategies, the criminal justice system could more cost-effectively and correctly utilize these practices and the benefits would be more apparent.
Part 3: Research
Recidivism in the United States High and low rates of recidivism are a key component in measuring the effectiveness of prisons and the programs they utilize. Currently our country has the highest rate of recidivism which is measured by three characteristics: release from incarceration, an action of failure following the release (such as a subsequent arrest, conviction, or return to imprisonment), and an observation or follow-up within ten years after release (Alper, et. al., 2018). There are many reasons for America’s high rates of recidivism amongst inmates post release from incarceration. These can vary from lack of education to sociocultural differences to racism. But it is important to recognize this ever growing problem and why it matters, not only to incarcerated individuals but to society as a whole. When inmates aren’t given the tools to improve as humans or to successfully reenter society, it is expected that two thirds of the population released would be reconvicted; meaning those individuals never learned from their mistakes and gained nothing from prison except a criminal record.
Rehabilitation Analysis and Overview Many of the rehabilitative strategies used in earlier prison systems in the United States were ineffective, but the U.S.now has a better idea of what rehabilitation should look like and yet the importance it holds in our criminal justice system is still lacking. The job of the U.S. Criminal Justice System as stated by the United States Department of Justice is: “To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.” Unfortunately it does not state anything about restoring community or rehabilitating inmates, meaning there is no obligation to do so. Why is this? If many prisons already include some rehabilitative aspects, mostly educational programs, why wouldn’t there be a written initiative that is set in stone to mandate rehabilitation in prisons? Furthermore, why wouldn’t this written initiative be enforced by the United States Criminal Justice System?
Although rehabilitation can come from a variety of strategies, research shows that these programs generally only have success at reducing recidivism if they utilizes three key principles. The first principle these programs should obtain is an “evidence based” program. This utilizes strategies and approaches used in other prisons that have displayed the ability to reduce recidivism and actually operate in the same manner as these other programs. The second principle that should be incorporated for success is “evaluated cost-effectiveness” which ensures that each program is being evaluated on a logistical financial level. Lastly, the programs shouldn’t be directed towards nonviolent offenders but rather towards inmates of higher risk or higher need. These three principles have shown their effectiveness in several prisons and is what a lot of research points to (Peterson, Lee, 2017). These three strategies can be implemented in a variety of different programs to ensure success.
The most common forms of prison rehabilitation programs include educational and vocational classes, psychological analysis and counselling, community restoration and treatment, as well as drug and substance abuse counseling and support. Some of these rehabilitative approaches can also be considered restorative justice approaches. Unfortunately, many facilities that have these programs either, the program is lacking or is not being implemented at all and many of the options available for the inmates are just that, optional. Though it is clear, each individual needs to be rehabilitated and taught these valuable skills. If we as a country want to decrease crime and recidivism rates it is important to mandate such programs in prisons that can do so.
One form of rehabilitation is community restoration. According to the Centre for Justice and Reconciliation, “Programming focuses on reducing attitudinal risk factors that contribute to offending behavior through development of character, relational skills, family and life skills, and faith. While Communities of Restoration are "faith-based" (Christian ecumenical), they are open to persons of any or no faith.” Community restoration has proven success in reducing recidivism rates in several studies done globally. The Centre for Justice and Reconciliation mentions the success in Humaita Prison, just outside Sao Paulo, Brazil. The prison compared the re-arrest rates of Humaita prisoners over three years with the rearrest rates from a traditional prison system. The study found that only 5% of the prisoners released from Hamaita prison a year were rearrested, which was half the rate of the other prison. This is just one example of success with this model of deterrence that implements all three of the principles listed above in its own way. By decreasing the rearrest rates, this strategy is ensuring less money is being spent on individual inmates, increasing cost-effectiveness. The strategy focuses on character development and community restoration which works on bettering both high-risk and low-risk prisoners and has been proven to work, as evidence suggests.
Psychological analysis and counselling are very detrimental forms of rehabilitation for incarcerated individuals, especially for women. Although typical counseling isn’t therapeutic for everyone, these two types of rehabilitation can take shape in many different forms such as, nature therapy, trauma therapy, group therapy and more. It is especially important for female inmates because, “Healthy, growth-fostering relationships create increased zest and vitality, empowerment, self-knowledge, self worth and a desire for more connection” which are all key aspects of women's lives (Covington, Surrey, 1997). There have been several forms of therapy that have been cost-efficient, evidence proven for success, and have helped higher risk and higher needs inmates. One example that has been used in many prisons in the U.S. is agricultural work for inmates. This not only gives inmates a job that can teach them things but it can also bring them purpose and fulfillment. A great example of the benefits of programs like this can come from the “Insight Garden Program” at Solano and San Quentin State Prisons in California. The program was started in 2003 in hopes of providing things like job skills training for inmates. This garden is cost effective because it provides food for the kitchen and has helped the progression of change in both low and high risk offenders. As explained by Khativ and Krasny: IGP offers weekly classes that teach about the “inner” and “outer” gardener. The “inner” gardener lessons deal with transformation and change, Landscaping in Lockup 21 meditation, emotional processes, work, and eco-therapy. The “outer” gardener lessons deal with human and ecological systems and organic vegetable and flower gardening. The inner and outer gardener lessons thus teach a participant how to garden as well as how to use gardening as a mental health therapy. IGP also teaches team building, participatory decision-making, and inmates help to create curriculum that will teach other life skills. This is one of the many examples of the effects agricultural work and other rehabilitative approaches can help transform and teach individuals all while following the three principles that are the key to a successful rehabilitative program.
Community restoration and counselling are two rehabilitative strategies that have been examined in following all three principles. Although a proper education is crucial for incarcerated individuals, most educational programs within prisons fall short because they don’t follow the principles needed for successful integration. Lacking a proper education or a degree and having a record can be detrimental towards one's future when reentering society. Luckily a majority of prisons offer education programs. but they are not mandatory for inmates to participate in, just like any other rehabilitative programs available to inmates. Despite the fact that inmates are given the opportunity in prison to help better their education, there is a flaw in how the government is funding these optional programs. . More money is currently being set aside to fund optional educational programs in prison than mandatory public school programs. Bender describes the disparity between governmental spending for schools compared to prisons and jails: [...] from 1979 to 2013—state and local spending on prisons and jails increased at three times the rate of funding for pre-K-12 public education over the same years. To put that into perspective, the state of Maryland currently spends around $12,000 per pre-K-12 public school student per year compared with around $37,000 per incarcerated person per year. Why are we as a country spending more money on education for inmates instead of investing in kids' futures and putting taxpayers' money towards higher funding for public education? As crucial as these programs are in jails and prisons to successfully rehabilitate inmates, the current amount of funding seems to contradict the focus of making these programs cost-effective, especially when they are not mandatory programs, and seem to be taking away funding to educate the adolescents who are the future of America.
It is apparent that rehabilitation is necessary to include within prisons to help individuals but it is also important for tax paying citizens in terms of cost benefits and to ensure safety upon our country. As the Legislative Analyst’s Office puts it: If rehabilitation programs are successful at reducing recidivism, they not only can reduce crime but also can result in both direct and indirect fiscal benefits to the state. Direct fiscal benefits include reduced incarceration costs—as offenders will not return to prison—as well as reduced crime victim assistance costs. Indirect benefits could include reduced costs for public assistance, as some offenders may receive job training that leads to employment, thereby reducing the level of public assistance needed. If rehabilitation programs are operated effectively, these benefits can exceed the costs of providing the programs and result in net fiscal benefits to the state (Peterson, et. al., 2017). These programs can lead to a multitude of positive outcomes for inmates and society as a whole, which greatly emphasizes the need for them in prisons.
Addiction Treatment in Prison Drug offenses are treated very differently in the U.S. criminal justice system compared to other offenses due to the societal norms and stigmas around addiction and the laws and policies pertaining to drugs making it difficult to place drug offenses in the category of nonviolent offenses or violent offenses. Drug offenses include possession, sale, and manufacturing of illegal substances as well as crimes committed while on drugs such as DUIs and DWIs. According to a nationwide survey done by the U.S. Department of Justice, “Virtually every survey respondent reported that there is too little funding for treatment services, that there are not enough drug treatment facilities or appropriate placements for drug dependent clients, and there is a lack of qualified personnel to staff treatment programs (Zawistowski, 1991, p.9).” These people are not receiving the help that they need and in turn end up either dying, almost dying and/or looking for drugs within the prison. In order to develop programs for individuals that are effective it is a necessity to reconstruct the views and approaches dealing with addiction both inside and outside of prison. In many prisons they don’t include programs to help women with addiction problems. Only 3% of California prisoners have addiction treatment available to them (Bloom, et. al., 1994). This is just a small example of the lack of support and treatment for addicts within the prison system.
The increasing drug issue in America needs to be reevaluated and so does the American outlook on addiction. Addiction typically stems from many factors, such as, sociocultural aspects, genetics, and more. It is an ever growing problem that our country continues to face but does not approach in the right way. For example, in 1991 80% of the amphetamines, 60% of the psychoactive drugs and 71% of the antidepressants given to women that year were prescribed by medical physicians (Galbraith, 1991). Although these statistics have obviously changed over time, it is a problem that only seems to increase as time passes. Even though many individuals face genetic predispositions to addiction, it is important to realize how strong of an affect the sociocultural aspects can have on these individuals and that our country isn’t taking appropriate measures to help with the issue of addiction both inside and outside of prison.
With such a large population of drug offenders in U.S. prisons with very specific cases and specific reasons for committing their crimes, shouldn’t there be an alternative to sentencing? It is important to note that some individuals have a higher susceptibility to participate in drug activity. Addiction is something many individuals in America struggle with for various reasons but lack the skills to deal with and grow from. Addiction to substances in America is very frowned upon in America and has been ever since the War on Drugs was declared by President Nixon in 1971. The shame and hatred for abusers and addicts has been an ongoing struggle for individuals. In terms of drug convictions and low level crimes it is necessary for alternative strategies like restorative justice to at least be considered.
Restorative Justice Analysis and Overview There are many benefits to incorporating restorative justice into the United States Criminal Justice System. One issue that could be widely affected by restorative justice is mass incarceration and overpopulation in United States prisons. The U.S. has the second highest incarceration rate in the world (Louis, 1995). This is a problem for everyone because it means the United States is currently pouring billions of taxpayers dollars into a failing system. By using restorative justice approaches when dealing with low level crimes and drug offenses, the U.S. can decrease the amount of people in prison and jail. It allows people who have made mistakes in their past to correct those wrongdoings and to get a chance to improve their lives. Everyone makes mistakes and restorative justice gives the individual an opportunity to take accountability for those mistakes and restore the injustice they inflicted.
Restorative justice can take shape in a variety of forms for a variety of crimes. In South Africa the concept is being applied in several community based programs including ones pertaining to domestic violence against women. Using victim-offender conferencing and focusing on understanding how everyone could better support one another as individuals. Most of the women that participated felt it gave them the opportunity to have their stories be told and their voices heard and that they felt they had more control over their situation. It also helped to provide lasting and meaningful change according to the study (Dissel, Ngubeni, 2003). Restorative justice methods like this are derived from practices used in places like New Zealand and Canada that have shown its effectiveness.
It is important for the U.S. to question embracing an ever growing system that has already proven itself to be worthy in several areas all over the world. Restorative justice is also becoming more popular in places like public schools in order to teach kids at a young age that one cannot just be excommunicated from society and exonerated from their problems to try and deter them from wrongdoings. They must acknowledge the harm they inflicted upon themselves and others through a variety of activities. It is important to have this included in American school systems but it is also important to continue on with this strategy in adulthood by implementing it into the United States Criminal Justice System.
Part 4: Discussion and Conclusions
It is clear that there needs to be a change within our criminal justice system and the best way to go about reforming prisons is to introduce restorative justice approaches within the system and reintegrate effective rehabilitative approaches in these facilities. From the overwhelming number of reoffenders to the various difficulties surrounding addiction it is clear that the system that is currently in place isn’t as effective as it has the potential to be. Research shows that these alternative approaches are beneficial for women's well beings as well the economy and safety of our country.
Further Implications In order to reduce recidivism in America and to increase productivity and societal-contribution from inmates when reentering society it is important to implement mandatory effective rehabilitative programs within prisons and introduce restorative justice approaches to our criminal justice system. These approaches need to be mandatory for all incarcerated individuals so they can receive the beneficial value each program can bring and to help them learn more from the mistakes they made. It is important for all individuals to be seen under a different light and treated more like humans and less like criminals both inside prison and after prison. Despite the fact that restorative justice is a more cost-effective alternative that benefits criminals' lives and reduces recidivism rates, the integration of restorative justice is not a replacement for the traditional criminal justice system, but rather a supplementary initiative to integrate into the system. As the Dahli Lama put it, “Punishment has an inevitable and important role to play in the regulation of human affairs, both as a deterrent and to give people a sense of security and confidence in the law.” It is important to reconsider the way crime is being handled and how prisons can better support individuals in making sure they contribute to society while having a successful reintegration with their families and communities. It is also important for a change in the way America views addiction and deals with drug convictions. Rehabilitation is something that needs to be stronger within the U.S. Criminal Justice System and needs to follow the three principles that were examined above in order to have a high success rate. The non-violent offenders aren’t benefiting from participating in the same programs as violent offenders therefore they need a different structure and to be dealt with differently.These strategies have shown that they can alter and benefit female inmate’s well beings tremendously even in the simplest ways. Having a strong counseling program invites women to open up about their feelings and help them grow as individuals. By integrating these approaches successfully, there will be a significant decrease in recidivism in the United States, which will help boost the economy and will benefit the incarcerated individual’s lives.
Work Cited “About DOJ.” The United States Department of Justice, 7 Nov. 2018, www.justice.gov/about.
Alper, Mariel, Matthew R. Durose and Joshua Markman, “2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A Nine Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014).” U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs: Bureau of Justice Statistics, May 2018.
Bloom, B., Chesney-Lind, M., and Owen, B. (1994) Women in California Prisons: Hidden Victims of the War on Drugs. San Francisco: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.
Bloom, B., & Chesney-Lind, M. (2000). Women in prison: Vengeful equity. In R. Muraskin (Ed.), It’s a crime: Women and justice (pp. 183–204). Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall.
“Communities of Restoration.” Restorative Justice, http://restorativejustice.org/we-do/communities-of-restoration/#sthash.QDBrI4WR.dpbs.
Covington, Stephanie S. “Women in Prison.” Women & Therapy, vol. 21, no. 1, Dec. 1998, pp. 141–155., doi:10.1300/j015v21n01_03.
Dissel, Amanda and Kindiza Ngubeni. “Giving Women their Voice: Domestic Violence and Restorative Justice in South Africa.” Centre for the Study of Violence and Reconciliation, July 2003.
Fowler, F. G., et al. “Rehabilitation”, American Oxford Dictionary. A & C. Boni, 1931.
Galbraith, S. (1991). Women and legal drugs. In P. Roth (Ed.), Alcohol and Drugs are Women’s Issues (pp. 150-154). New York: The Scarecrow Press, Inc.
Jenkins, Rachel. "Landscaping in Lockup: The Effects of Gardening Programs on Prison Inmates" (2016). Graduate Theses & Dissertations. Paper 6.
Jones, R. R. (1993). Coping with Separation: Adaptive Responses of Women Prisoners. Women & Criminal Justice, 5, 71–91.
Khatib, D., & Krasny, M. E. “Greening Programs to Facilitate Prisoner Reentry.” 1-19 , 2015 February 1.
Langan, Patrick A., and David J. Levin. “Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994.” Federal Sentencing Reporter, vol. 15, no. 1, 2002, pp. 58–65., doi:10.1525/fsr.2002.15.1.58.
Latessa, Edward and Christopher Lowenkamp, 2006, What Works in Reducing Recidivism?, 3 U. St.Thomas L.J. 521.
Louis Michael Seidman, Criminal Procedure as the Servant of Politics, 12 Const. Comm. 207, 207-08 (1995).
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. “Restorative Justice: What Is It and Does It Work?” Annual Review of Law and Social Science, vol. 3, no. 1, 2007, pp. 161–187., doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.110005.
"MLA Formatting and Style Guide." The Purdue OWL, Purdue U Writing Lab. Accessed 18 Jun. 2018.
Moore, Scraton, 2014, “Agency, Violence and Regulation in the Incarceration of Women.” The Incarceration of Women pp. 28–53., doi:10.1057/9781137317841_2.
Nellis, A. (2016). Still Life: America’s Increasing Use of Life and Long-Term Sentences. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project.
Nij. “Recidivism.” National Institute of Justice, nij.ojp.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism.
O’Malley, Sinead. “Book Review: Linda Moore and Phil Scraton The Incarceration of Women: Punishing Bodies, Breaking Spirits.” Critical Social Policy, vol. 36, no. 1, June 2016, pp. 160–162., doi:10.1177/0261018315616208d.
Peterson, Jonathan, Anita Lee and Mac Taylor. “Improving In-Prison Rehabilitation Programs”, Legislative Analyst’s Office, 6 December 2017, lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3720.
“PUBLICATIONS.” NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service, www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=203855.
“The NCES Fast Facts Tool Provides Quick Answers to Many Education Questions (National Center for Education Statistics).” National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Home Page, a Part of the U.S. Department of Education, nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66.
“Trends in U.S. Corrections.” The Sentencing Project, 22 June 2018, www.sentencingproject.org/publications/trends-in-u-s-corrections/.
“Violent Crime.” FBI, FBI, 25 July 2011, ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime.
Zawistowski, T. A. “Criminal addiction / illegal disease”, U.S. Department of Justice. www.justice.gov/ , March/April 1991.