Thinking About Corrections

Focusing on Racial Disparities

Eileen Conway — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:42:00 GMT

Human Rights Watch has posted a press release announcing two new racial disparity studies, one of their own, and one by the Sentencing Project. The release links to the HRW report, "Targeting Blacks: Drug Law Enforcement and Race in the United States," and also to the Sentencing Project's report, "Disparity by Geography."

What Contributes to Recidivism?

Eileen Conway — Thu, 01 May 2008 16:10:00 GMT

The Urban Institute has released a double whammy examining factors contributing to recidivism. Working in collaboration with the Massachusetts Department of Corrections, the Massachusetts Recidivism Study contains three interrelated study components addressed in two new reports. Massachusetts Recidivism Study: A Closer Look at Releases and Returns to Prison analyzes DOC administrative data and recidivism on a variety of statistical and demographic fronts. Its companion report, Reincarcerated: The Experiences of Men Returning to Massachusetts Prisons examines the results of parole office focus groups, as well as interviews of returning recidivists.

Supreme Court Rules on Lethal Injection Method

CC Pro — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:03:00 GMT

The most common method used in lethal injection executions in the United States has been upheld by the Supreme Court. A constitutional challenge was made regarding the State of Kentucky's use of the three drugs that sedate, paralyze and, finally, kill inmates. The argument against the three-drug protocol was that if the initial drug failed to sufficiently sedate the inmate, the administration of the other two drugs could result in excruciating pain which the inmate could not express due to paralysis.This method of execution is employed by approximately three dozen states. Executions have been on hold since September 2007 when the high court agreed to hear the Kentucky case.

Saving Money by Expanding Drug Treatment

Eileen Conway — Wed, 09 Apr 2008 15:51:00 GMT

As states look to balance burgeoning costs with public safety needs, the Urban Institute has released a timely report on the cost-benefits of expanding the availability of drug treatment among arrestees. In To Treat or Not to Treat: Evidence on the Prospects of Expanding Treatment to Drug-Involved Offenders, the authors find that strict eligibility rules are limiting access to treatment, and they simulate several policy changes to provide guidance to policymakers on the cost-benefits of treatment expansion. In their striking findings, "every policy change simulated in this study yields a cost-effective expansion of drug treatment. ... In particular, removing all eligibility restrictions and allowing access to treatment for all 1.47 million at risk arrestees would be most cost effective--producing more than $46 billion in benefits at a cost of $13.7 billion."

State Sentencing and Corrections Legislation

CC Pro — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 21:17:00 GMT

The National Conference of State Legislatures has published a report that examines state legislative actions during 2007, the elements that drove these actions, and the potential impact of sentencing and corrections in the near term. Principal legislative concerns were/are burgeoning prison populations and the accompanying budget growth. Measures passed to address prison construction and operating costs, reducing recidivism, and increasing the efficacy of correctional systems without compromising public safety include:

Expanding community corrections;
Managing probation and parole violators;
Boosting incentives for good behavior;
Preparing inmates for reentry; and
Linking released offenders to community support.

What Works in Reducing Recidivism and Preventing Crime?

Eileen Conway — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 17:05:00 GMT

The literature on What Works has a major new addition. "What Works: Effective Recidivism Reduction and Risk-Focused Prevention Programs" was prepared by Roger Przybylski, RKC Group for the Colorado Division of Criminal Justice, but the literature reviewed is national in scope. Its promising subtitle reads "A Compendium of Evidence-Based Options for Preventing New and Persistent Criminal Behavior."

Request for Proposals (RFPs) for Marquette County, Michigan Youth Home Evaluation

Leslie LeMaster — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 19:02:00 GMT

County of Marquette
Courthouse Complex
234 W. Baraga Avenue
Marquette, Michigan 49855
Fax: (906) 225-8155
www.co.marquette.mi.us

March 7, 2008
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS - YOUTH HOME PROGRAM EVALUATION

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

As stated in the first paragraph of the RFP, below, the Marquette County Board of Commissioners and the Marquette County Probate Court are requesting proposals for an evaluation of the Marquette County Youth Home.

The expected evaluation products are recommendations for use by Probate Judge Michael Anderegg and the Board of Commissioners in determining the most effective use of appropriated funds for juvenile treatment.

Please see RFP below for details. Responses are due by Monday, May 5, 2008, at 4 p.m. (EST).

Sincerely,
Steven D. Powers
Marquette County Administrator

RFP Contact
Steve Powers, Marquette County Administrator
234 West Baraga
Marquette, MI 49855
906.225.8152
spowers@mqtcty.org

Request for Proposals - Youth Home Program Evaluation

The Marquette County Board of Commissioners and the Marquette County Probate Court are requesting proposals for an evaluation of the Marquette County Youth Home. The expected evaluation products are recommendations for use by Probate Judge Michael Anderegg and the Board of Commissioners in determining the most effective use of appropriated funds for juvenile treatment. Marquette County intends for the review to be a collaborative evaluation process.

Background

The Marquette County Youth Home is a twelve-bed, non-secure facility housing girls and boys assigned by Hon. Michael Anderegg, Probate and Family Court Judge. The facility is licensed by the state of Michigan. The Youth Home was established in 1976 as a point in the juvenile services continuum. The facility provides short-term detention of delinquents and status offenders who cannot remain in their own homes. It operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

The Youth Home uses a behavior modification program designed to allow a resident to earn privileges, including fewer restriction on activities.

The Youth Home occupancy rate has fallen from a recent high of 84% in 2000 to 57% in 2007. In 2007, the Youth Home provided 2,481 days of care to 79 different children.

The Youth Home also houses Project W.E.A.V.E., a program funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

The Youth Home also serves as an alcohol and drug screening center for law enforcement agencies in Marquette County. All juveniles taken into custody by police are given a standardized instrument, the MAYSI 2, to determine the existence and/or extent of any substance abuse or mental health problems. In 2006, 43 juveniles were screened.

The total annual operating cost for the Youth Home is slightly less than $1 million per year. Half of the operating cost is funded by the state of Michigan and half is funded by Marquette County.

As the average daily population has declined, and costs have risen, the cost per child has increased.

In 2007, the Board of Commissioners appropriated up to $10,000 for the evaluation.

Objectives of the Evaluation

The overall objective of the Juvenile Division of the Probate Court is to provide high quality services to juveniles as economically as possible. When services are required, the least restrictive type of service appropriate to the case will be used.

The evaluation to be undertaken should establish a means to measure the performance of the Youth Home. Using qualitative and quantitative measures, the evaluation should focus on the effectiveness of Youth Home strategies and implementation. The evaluation should determine if the program objectives have been carried out according to Court and County objectives. The effort should also determine the feasibility of other counties using the facility. Finally, the evaluation should make policy and program improvement recommendations.

Scope of Services

Conduct a program evaluation and analysis of the Youth Home that will measure the effectiveness of goals, outcome objectives, and strategies set for the Youth Home. The evaluation should be designed to address at least the following questions:

Are the Youth Home objectives realistic based on the resources available?
Is the Youth Home helping the Juvenile Department accomplish objectives?
What is the community's level of satisfaction with program impact and activities?
What problems or obstacles are affecting positive outcomes?
How can these barriers be removed with or without additional resources?
What adjustments in program strategies and activities or management support will lead to improved performance toward achieving objectives?
What are the unintended impacts of program strategies, if any?
What changes should be made to objectives and strategies for 2008 and beyond?
Is there sufficient organizational capacity to deliver the program activities such as: vision and leadership; collaboration across agencies; sufficient and qualified staff; appropriate policies and procedures to implement the program; and sufficient financial resources?
Who is served by the program, and do the characteristics of these individuals match the target population?
What resources, policies, or procedures should be changed, if any?
How satisfied were participants with program activities? For example, what changes in knowledge, skills, attitude, or behavior occurred among participants?
What benefits accrued for the community as a result of the program?
Do community stakeholders believe the program was beneficial? If so, in what way?
What suggestions do stakeholders have to improve or strengthen the program?

Specific Project Components

Design an evaluation plan with processes and outcome measures sufficient to answer critical evaluation questions.
Develop data collection instruments and protocols. The process and outcome measures selected should inform the Juvenile Department and Board of Commissioners whether the program is operating efficiently, accomplishing objectives, and having positive effects on program participants.
Train staff on how to collect program data.
Review/monitor accuracy and completeness of data that have been collected by staff.
Meet with program staff to review program activities and any organizational or service delivery barriers.
Consult with program staff on solutions to any barriers or weaknesses.
Conduct interviews with stakeholders or clients as specified in the evaluation plan.
Receive survey responses and perform appropriate content analysis.
Compile and analyze other program data.
Prepare draft report.
Finalize report and make recommendations.

Proposal Requirements

Deliverables for the projects:

An interim report;
A final report;
Presentations of preliminary and final results. Specify in proposal the number of presentations.

A draft report will be due four months after contract signing. A final report will be due six months after contract signing.

The interim report shall be reviewed by a team comprised of the Probate Court and Board of Commissioners.

Proposals shall include:

Qualifications of proposer - the people who will work on the project, including their current resumes;
Project responsibilities of each person;
Proposer's methodology - a detailed discussion of the evaluation plan;
Schedule for completion of work;
Fee proposal;
Cost summary by project component;
Prior work in program evaluation and references from similar projects.

An original and three copies of the RFP must be submitted to the County Administrator in a sealed enveloped clearly marked "RFP Consultant for Youth Home Evaluation".

Proposals must be received by May 5, 2008.

Proposal Evaluation

The following factors shall, at a minimum, be considered in contract award:

Proposer's qualifications and experience;
Proposer’s methodology;
Monetary fee.

Marquette County is under no obligation to award this project to the proposer offering the lowest fee proposal.

Right of Rejection and Clarification

Marquette County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to request clarification of information from any proposer. Marquette County is not obligated to enter into a contract on the RFP. Marquette County reserves the right to negotiate with the selected proposer the exact terms and conditions of the contract. Marquette County may request any or all proposers to make a presentation in Marquette. Marquette County will not reimburse for any costs associated with the preparation, submittal, or presentation of proposals.

Exceptions to the RFP

Proposers may find instances where they must take exception with certain requirements or specifications of the RFP. All exceptions shall be clearly identified, and written explanations shall include the scope of the exceptions, the ramifications of the exceptions for the county, and a description of the advantage to be gained or disadvantages to be incurred by Marquette County as a result of these exceptions.

Indemnification

Proposer, at its own expense and without exception, shall indemnify, defend, and pay all damages, costs, expenses, including attorney fees, and otherwise hold harmless the county its employees, and agents, from any liability of any nature or kind in regard to the delivery of these services.

Rights to Submitted Material

All proposals, responses, inquiries, or correspondence relating to or in reference to this RFP, and all reports, charts, and other documentation submitted by proposers shall become the property of Marquette County when received.

RFP Contact

Steve Powers, Marquette County Administrator
234 West Baraga
Marquette, MI 49855
906.225.8152
spowers@mqtcty.org

Contract

The contract between Marquette County and the contractor shall include: (1) the Request for Proposal (RFP) and any amendments; and, (2) the proposal submitted by the contractor in response to the RFP. In the event of a conflict in language between the two documents referenced above, the provisions and requirements set forth and/or referenced in the RFP shall govern. However, Marquette County reserves the right to clarify any contractual relationship in writing with the concurrence of the contractor, and such written clarification shall govern in case of conflict with the applicable requirements stated in the RFP or the contractor’s proposal. In all other matters not affected by the written clarifications, if any, the RFP shall govern.

Make A Smile

National Institute of Corrections — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:09:00 GMT

The North American Association of Wardens & Superintendents (NAAWS) in partnership with Correctional Peace Officers (CPO) foundation is organizing a project called "Make A Smile." They are going to go into Louisiana and Mississippi to build playgrounds for children of those families who were so horribly affected. Especially targeting those areas where correctional families live.

They are going to build two playgrounds. One in the 9^th Ward in New Orleans and another will be in the town of Bogalusa, a few miles from Rayburn Correctional Facility. It is their intent to construct playgrounds and picnic shelters at both sites.

They have found a playground manufacturer to work with them and give them a great price. After these two playgrounds they hope to move on to Mississippi to the town of Moss Point. In addition, the week before ACA Congress, they hope to rehab at least 2 playgrounds inside the city of New Orleans. What we need now is your money and your sweat. We will need to raise over $100,000 and we will need 150 volunteers on site.

Abuse Claims in Juvenile Detention

CC Pro — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:48:00 GMT

In a survey conducted by the Associated Press, over 13,000 claims of abuse in juvenile detention facilities were reported. The abuse claims ranged for physical to sexual abuse, and deaths while in restraints. While only a small percentage were confirmed by authorities, the number of complaints based on the juvenile population and the likelihood of non-reported incidents is striking. The survey covers the years 2004 to 2007.

Examining the Incarceration Policy/Funding Bind

Eileen Conway — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:56:00 GMT

The Pew Center on the States has released a new report examining how states are coping with burgeoning prison populations and whether public safety is effectively being purchased with high incarceration costs. In One in 100: Behind Bars in America 2008, Pew reviews the varying state trends in prison growth, costs associated with them, and efforts to forge new directions in controlling crime and costs.

More About What Influences Reentry

Eileen Conway — Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:24:00 GMT

The Urban Institute has just posted a significant addition to its extensive examination the reentry process. In Health and Prisoner Reentry: How Physical, Mental, and Substance Abuse Conditions Shape the Process of Reintegration, authors Kamala Mallik-Kane and Christy A. Visher examine the experiences of a representative sample of 1,100 inmates returning from state prisons in Ohio and Texas. The report documents the pervasiveness of health problems among returning prisoners and the effect of health status on reentry outcomes.

In the Mind's Eye

CC Pro — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 16:05:00 GMT

It's been said that a picture is worth a thousand words, but, can a picture prompt a thousand urges? Through the use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a team of researchers have found that drug-related images flashed for just 33 milliseconds to cocaine patients activated the limbic system, a brain network associated with reward and emotion. Dr, Nora Volkow, Director, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) said, "This is the first evidence that cues outside one's awareness can trigger rapid activation of the circuits driving drug-seeking behavior." For additional information on this study and its implications, click here.

How Are the States Coping?

Eileen Conway — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 16:37:00 GMT

In an era of budget shortages and policy reconsiderations, the Sentencing Project has produced a summary document of state criminal justice policy reforms and legislation, The State of Sentencing 2007: Developments in Policy and Practice. Stateline.org has further summarized the findings in a Top Story today.

Hot Best Practices Tool-Kits

Eileen Conway — Mon, 31 Dec 2007 18:22:00 GMT

The Institute for Excellence in Justice has been very busy this week, catching up on posting the Best Practices Tool-Kits out of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction's Ohio Institute on Correctional Best Practices. New on the site are tool-kits addressing "Faith-Based Programming, Reentry and Recidivism," "Offender Job Readiness and Job Retention," "Employing Ex-Offenders after Release from Prison," "Sex Offender Assessment and Treatment," and "Sex Offender Registration and Notification."

New Jersey Abolishes Capital Punishment

CC Pro — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 18:47:00 GMT

The State of New Jersey has become the first state in over 40 years to abolish the death penalty. The eight men currently on death row will have their sentences commuted to life without parole. Executions have been on hold in the U.S. pending a decision by the Supreme Court on whether the use of lethal injections violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment.