Measuring recidivism: defining effectiveness in corrections policy

The process of measuring recidivism can impact the evaluation effectiveness of corrections policies. One of the reasons why the process of measuring recidivism impacts evaluation effectiveness is that most criminal justice policies need to be based on statistical evidence. “Performance measurement—establishing metrics for success and assessing results—is a crucial first step in making informed decisions in all areas of government, including criminal justice policy,” (King & Elderbroom, 2014, p. 1). If recidivism rates rise after a certain policy or program is implemented, then that policy or program is deemed ineffective from a criminal justice standpoint if the goal of criminal justice policy is to reduce recidivism. On the other hand, implementing policies and programs that are designed to reduce recidivism specifically need to be measured for their effectiveness, and the best measure of their effectiveness is not subjective or qualitative reports but the actual numbers. Unfortunately, measuring recidivism is not that easy. Is recidivism a repeat offence, regardless of the penalty issued by the court, or even whether charges were pressed? Or is recidivism measured by an actual prison sentence? What about alternative sentencing? If an individual’s second offence was completely different or for a minor infraction, does that count as recidivism? Because recidivism can be defined and measured in different ways, the National Institute of Justice (2017) admits there are at least four ways criminal justice statisticians and researchers measure recidivism, including self-reports or interviews, analyzing any officially recorded criminal justice event including arrests, charting the trajectory of individual offenders over time, or measuring time elapsed between criminal activity. It is important to measure the effectiveness of criminal justice and corrections policies ethically and judiciously. The goals of the policy should be directly inform the measure used to determine recidivism. Thoughtfully designed corrections policies will outline in their statements of purpose the intended goals and outcomes so that when the program or policy is assessed later, the assessment is valid and reliable. Corrections and criminal justice policies should not be developed only to yield impressive statistical results, but to actually help promote social justice and public safety. Researchers in Norway found that depending on what type of measurement was used both for the dependent variable of recidivism and for the independent variable of policy, the results would vary from 9% to 53%, proving essentially that statistical analyses can be highly misleading. Public policy should be based on evidence, but that evidence needs to be gathered, analyzed, and communicated ethically. Especially when working with a Christian worldview, criminal justice research must have moral underpinnings. The Bible predates the widespread use of statistical data and analyses, but offers criminal justice researchers and policymakers insight into how to act ethically. For example, “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a large and a small,” advises against unscrupulous business activities and can equally apply to unscrupulous researchers who manipulate their data, or to unscrupulous policymakers who rely only on measurements that support their views (Deuteronomy 25:13). When working from a Biblical perspective, the policymaker needs to remain humble, open to new ideas, and willing to accept that their policy might not work. “\\\'You shall do no wrong in judgment, in measurement of weight, or capacity,” (Leviticus 19:35). Assessing corrections policies means keeping in mind core ethical and spiritual principles linked to the underlying goals of the criminal justice system. If rehabilitation is a goal, then the corrections programs and policies need to focus on specific outcomes that promote reintegration rather than measure the effectiveness of the program solely on the grounds of spurious measures of recidivism. Interestingly, research shows that incarceration may actually increase rates of recidivism, no matter how the latter is measured. Evaluating systematically 30 years of literature on recidivism, Przbylski (2008) found that educational programming vocational programming, substance abuse treatment, sex offender treatment, and mental health interventions all reduce recidivism using various measures and among different population groups. The Bible supports both punitive and rehabilitative justice, with the Christian Bible more clearly in favor of compassion and rehabilitation, which is why recent corrections policy is shifting away from its punitive focus. In the article “The Revolving Door at the Prison Gate,” Padfield & Maruna (2006) describe the system that the UK has recently developed for recalling offenders back to prison. Similar to the American parole or probation policies, a person can find themselves back in prison for violating a non-criminal tenet of their parole or probation agreement. The situation has led to a miscalculation in recidivism statistics, and should be cause for alarm. Research bias and lack of substantive research have led to ineffective corrections policies. The “sudden increase” in prison recalls described by Padfield & Maruna (2006) is related to differential enforcement and shifts in procedure even more than changes to policy. Similar issues can be observed in the United States, as corrections or law enforcement officials, as well as members of the judiciary might act differently in spite of little difference in the actual legislation or criminal justice policy. “The source of the change in recall rates is likely to be found in enforcement practices rather than releasee behaviour,” (Padfield & Maruna, 2006, p. 338). Different methods of monitoring the released offenders, for example, has led to increased numbers of prison recalls. Moreover, Padfield & Maruna (2006) show how the criminal justice system in the UK has shifted from a social service orientation towards a surveillance-led one that has as its goals public safety. The United States has similar goals for its criminal justice and corrections programs, but whether these methods are effective or not is up for debate, largely determined by the research methodologies used. Within a punitive system, as it has been practiced in the United States or Great Britain, offenders are categorically written off: “According to this model, a dangerous class of ‘lifetime correctional clients’ with ‘no realistic potential’ to reform is ‘treated as a kind of toxic waste’ to be contained,” (Padfield & Maruna, 2006, p. 339). This approach is not only problematic from a community policing perspective, a human rights, or a psychosocial perspective, it also contradicts Biblical principles. Both the Hebrew and Christian Bibles offer ample support for criminal justice and corrections reform, to help reduce criminality, reduce recidivism, and simultaneously enhance public safety. Forgiveness is typically found in religion and spirituality, which can be integrated into corrections programs. “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh,” (Ezekiel 36:26). Because research substantiates the importance of education and counseling, it is important to reform the system from a punitive one towards a more goal-directed and evidence-based one (Przbylski, 2008). Lessons from the current American policy show that it is cost-prohibitive, discriminatory, and most importantly from a public safety perspective, ineffective (Padfield & Maruna, 2006, p. 342). Although not a systematic review of literature or an experimental study, the Padfield & Maruna (2006) research supports reforming corrections policy to reflect evidence-based practice. The studies cited in the report use different research methodologies, to provide a comprehensive overview of the relative success or failure of different programs. When considering criminal justice and corrections in light of Biblical principles, it makes little sense to revert to a punitive system. Likewise, a punitive system is proving ineffective at achieving the very aims it intends to: such as reducing rates of crime. Community-based sanctions and other alternative sentencing methods are integral to corrections reform. “Rigorous studies have shown that incarceration is associated with higher rates of recidivism when compared with community-based sanctions,” (Przbylski, 2008, p. 2). Furthermore, research has consistently shown that incarceration has even more detrimental effects on communities than crime itself. For instance, “community-level studies have found that the social fabric of neighborhoods can be negatively affected by the incarceration of large numbers of young adult men, thereby increasing rather than preventing crime at the neighborhood level,” (Przbylski, 2008, p. 2). Recidivism studies have shown, on the other hand, that focusing on root causes can lead to desirable outcomes. The root causes do not necessarily need to be broad, daunting, or sociological in nature such as mitigating the effects of poverty or racism. Przbylski (2008) cites numerous criminal justice studies that show how focusing on individual factors reduces recidivism far better than re-entering prison. “Research shows that when supervision is service-oriented and focuses on the individual offender’s deficits that are related to criminal behavior...recidivism can be significantly reduced,” (Przbylski, 2008, p. 2). Mental health interventions are the most important of the alternative and preventative reform measures. Finally, it is important to understand better the ways measuring recidivism impacts the effectiveness, legitimacy, or validity or program evaluation. Both the studies used to test recidivism and those used to measure the outcomes of corrections programs need to be designed ethically, according to Biblical principles, and within the standards of the profession. King & Elderbroom (2014) suggest using multiple measures of success simultaneously in order to better evaluate the effectiveness of corrections programs in achieving goals such as lowering recidivism risk or recidivism rates. As King & Elderbroom (2014) show, “There is no “right” measure of recidivism,” (p. 2). Likewise, there is no one correct way to measure corrections program efficacy.