Needs Assessment Proposal Paper

Needs Assessment Proposal
Skills
HUS-732L-22A-2012SU

l
Dr. Brian Noon
June 23, 2012
Abstract
Each year, eight thousand felons are released back into the Washington, D.C. community from federal confinement and half of them will be re-confined within three years. The purpose of this project was to identify methods and practices that facilitate successful re-entry of District of Columbia felons back into society. This project used the skills, techniques and theories learned in the Master’s of Human Services program, a review of the current research addressing the problem, and two needs assessment tools that collected data relating to the scope, causes and possible solutions to the problem. The results
of the research will provide empirical data that will be used to institute a Change Project within the agency and community.

Section I: Introduction According to the Council for Court Excellence (CCE), there are 60,000 persons residing in the District of Columbia with a criminal history (Unlocking Employment Opportunity for Previously Incarcerated Persons in the District of Columbia, 2011, p.9). This number is almost ten percent of the current population. Each year 8000 ex-offenders will be released back into the community and within three years, 4000 of them will be re-confined. The report also counts unemployment among ex-offenders at 46 percent.
The history of this problem traces its roots back to the crack cocaine epidemic of the 1990’s. After the institution of the Anti-Drug abuse Act of 1986, drug dealers and users alike were given stiff penalties for crack-related offenses throughout the previous decade and a high number of these offenders are being released or will be released in the coming years. After the sentencing guidelines were relaxed for drug offenses in the 2000’s, offenders were given less time, which is making the majority of them eligible for parole or release. Consequently, there are a convergence of two major groups being released into the community with few skills and fewer opportunities for re-integration.
Current labor market conditions make hiring ex-offenders a low political priority when many unemployed residents do not have a criminal record. The District of Columbia has a city-wide unemployment rate of 8.9 percent (does.dc.gov) but the unemployment rate in the less affluent portions (Wards 7and 8) of the city hovers at over 23 percent. It is no coincidence that the majority of ex-offenders subside in the economically disadvantaged areas of the city. Therefore, practices that will alleviate the chronic unemployment among ex-offender population should be studied and instituted. The Ford Foundation Project makes a case for evaluation of social welfare methods currently being utilized in The Common Good: Social Welfare and the American Future when they concluded “We cannot build enough prisons or buy enough home security systems to protect our private worlds from the social decay that spreads when true opportunity is denied to large numbers of people” (p. 6).
Shannon, Uggen, Thompson, Schnittker and Massoglia (2011) concluded that there is a 72.2 lifetime recidivism rate for African-American males. Bales and Piquero (2010) along with Englehart (2010) studied recidivism by examining the deterrents of confinement and employment, respectively, and concluded that confinement is not a deterrent but employment is a deterrent.
Bales and Mears (2007) displayed a link between visitation, recidivism and/or successful re-entry. Johnson, Lanza-Kaduce and Woolard (2011) demonstrated that a higher recidivism for adult offenders can be directly related to their treatment as juveniles. Wilson, Drane, Hadley, Metraux, and Evans (2011) showed mental illness to be a cause of recidivism.
Bellair and Kowalski (2011) concluded that the higher rate of recidivism among African-Americans can be traced to the reduced availability of low-skilled employment opportunities in the African-American communities. Haugebrook, Jenkins and Zgoba (2008) studies showed that attainment of a GED or high school diploma significantly improves the chances that offenders will not recidivate.
The purpose of the research was to address methods to reduce the problem of African-American felons returning to prison. The study was conducted in order to identify the scope, causes and possible solutions that can serve as a baseline for re-entry programs in the District of Columbia. The research focused on the entire system of the returning citizen, to include family, probation/parole agencies, social service agencies and the community.
Section II: Research Questions There is a high rate of African-American felons in the District of Columbia returning to prison. What is the scope of the high rate of African-American felons returning to prison in the District of Columbia? What are the causes of the high rate of African-American felons returning to prison in the District of Columbia? What are solutions to the high rate of African-American felons returning to prison in the District of Columbia?
Section II: Research Methodology The research was based on the Action Research Model and utilized two needs assessment methods to capture data pertinent to the scope and causes of, as well as solutions to the problem. The SPSS software was used to analyze the survey data and the limitations of the methodology was discussed through the lenses of sample size method, reliability and validity. A content analysis is included for each instrument. DeHaan, Krupp and Ishtai-Zee (1985) presented action research as a guiding principle in Lincoln University’s Master of Human Services program. DeHaan etals’ action research model, who’s major contributor is Kurt Lewin, has four components. They are observation and data gathering, development of a plan based on the data, execution of the plan and evaluation to verify the effectiveness of the plan and its execution. The two data collection instruments used were a target population survey and the key informant interview. The target population survey was used because it captured demographics, causes and possible solutions to the target problem from individuals experiencing the problem. A second reason is because the target population is too large to observe directly. The key informant interviews were used because these informants have a broader scope of the problem and can shed light on macro issues. The interviewees were parole/probation officers, workforce development specialists, and ex-offender agency staffers.
Method I The size of the target population is 60,000 (CCE, 2011) and the sampling size consisted of 25 respondents. The sampling strategy was nonprobability convenience sampling and the particular type was judgmental sampling. Babbie (2010) defines this as sampling based on “knowledge of a population, its elements and the purpose of the study” (p.193). The instrument was a 23 item target population survey.

The data was collected from participants in a job readiness program within the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and participants in a nonprofit social service agency program based in the poorest ward of the city. The group was surveyed during daily program sessions. There were three classes of 30 people, conducted simultaneously, and survey participation was limited to those participants that have been convicted of a felony. The program, called Project Empowerment, only serves persons with severe barriers to employment. The nonprofit agency is named Opportunities Industrialization Center and its participants were enrolled in an ex-offender program. The SPSS software will be used to analyze the survey data. The limitations of the methodology included sample size, reliability and validity. The sample size was a small percentage of the target population (25:60000). Reliability and validity were limitations because researcher did not have the opportunity to test the survey instrument prior to delivering the instruments to the respondents.
Method II
The method chosen was the key informant interview. The size of the population was estimated at approximately 1500. The sample size was ten. The sampling strategy was nonprobability convenience sampling and the particular type was judgmental sampling. The respondents in this sample were supervision officers, workforce development specialists and ex-offender agency staffers selected because of their daily service to and with the target population. The instrument was a key informant interview of 23 questions.

The data was collected from parole/probation officers, workforce development specialists and re-entry program staff in the District of Columbia. Participation was limited to those participants that work with returning felons. The researcher chose five workforce development professionals, three re-entry staff workers and two parole/probation officers
. The limitations of the methodology included sample size, reliability and validity. The sample size was a small percentage of the target population (10:1500). Reliability and validity were limitations because researcher did not have the opportunity to test the survey instrument prior to delivering the instrument to the respondents.

Section IV: Research Findings
Method I. Each of the 25 respondents were residents of the District of Columbia. The majority of the respondents had been convicted of felonies on more than one occasion, as illustrated in figure 1.
Figure 1 reflects the number of felony convictions of respondents to the survey.

Figure 1. Respondents / number of felonies (N=25)

f
%

1
6
23.1

2
8
30.8

3
6
23.1

4
2
7.7

5+
3
11.5

Total
25
100.0

Figure 1 demonstrates that 76.9 percent of the respondents had one or more felony convictions before their last conviction. Thirty-two percent of respondents served less than 12 months for their first conviction but that number decreased to 24 percent when examining the respondents’ last conviction. Fifty-two percent of the respondents served less than five years of confinement for their first conviction. Seventy-two percent of the respondents served five years or more for their last conviction. Sixty-eight percent of respondents to the survey were last convicted of non-violent crimes.
As figure 2 illustrates, 52 percent of the respondents to the survey had dropped out of school before graduating with a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma.
Figure 2 illustrates the highest education level achieved
Figure 2. Respondents by education (N=25)

Thirty-two percent of the respondents indicated that they had received three or more visits during their most recent incarceration. Sixty percent of the same respondents answered that they were housed more than 200 miles away from the District of Columbia. Sixty four percent of respondents indicated that they believed the distance away from home in which they were incarcerated had an effect on the number of visits they received. Sixty-eight percent of the respondents indicated that they were unemployed at the time of their last felony conviction. Twenty percent of respondents stated they were employed part-time and 12 percent of respondents indicated that they were employed full-time. Figure 3 illustrates the percentages of respondents’ employment before last felony conviction.

Figure 3 represents the percentages of respondents working before most recent conviction.
Figure 3. Respondents working before last conviction. (N=25).

Seventy-two percent of respondents were on probation or parole before their most recent conviction. Eighty-eight percent of persons taking the survey indicated that they had not been offered any kind of treatment before their last incarceration. Forty-four percent of respondents indicated that they did not have access to educational programs while incarcerated. Figure 4 illustrates that 48 percent of respondents were last incarcerated for a parole violation and not a new criminal conviction.

Figure 4. Confinement as result of parole violation or new conviction
Figure 4. Confinement/ parole violation / New conviction. (N =25.)

Parole Violation
New conviction
Totals

f
12
13
25

%
48
52
100

Sixty percent of respondents indicated that their parole officer did not actively assist with the re-entry process. Almost half of the respondents to the survey stated that a having a case manager upon release from confinement can assist in the re-entry process. Seventy-two percents of respondents indicated that having a criminal conviction has been a barrier to finding a job. Eighty-five percent of respondents stated that having a job would reduce their chances of returning to prison. Ninety-two percent of respondents believed that a life-skills program and a mentor would be beneficial to them during the re-entry process. Respondents indicated that jobs and training were the services that would have benefitted them most upon release from incarceration. When asked what was most needed when returning from prison, 92 percent of respondents indicated jobs. Two percent of respondents to the survey stated that treatment or therapy was needed.
Method II. The terms recidivate and recidivism were defined in key informant’s interviews as a return to criminal activity after being released from confinement. The key informants indicated that some of the things the District of Columbia (DC) government can do to lower the recidivism are to provide more jobs and training, loosen the background requirements for employment and make the insurance bonding process easier. Half of the respondents to the interviews stated that sexual offenders are more likely to recidivate than those not convicted of sexual offenses. All of the key informants believed that there are not enough employment opportunities for ex-offenders. Nine out of ten key informants indicated that there are not enough job readiness/training programs for returning citizens. Ninety percents of key informants labeled substance abuse a huge or large factor in determining whether an offender recidivates. Sixty percent of the interview participants indicated a juvenile record is not a factor in recidivism rates. Seventy percent of key informants believe that prison is not a deterrent to recidivism and the same percentile indicated that longer sentences were not a deterrent to recidivism.
Eighty percent of the respondents to the key informant interviews stated that visits by prisoner family members have a large effect on the rates of recidivism. Key informants were evenly split on whether poor physical health is an indicator of increased recidivism. Eighty percent if respondents to the interviews believed that family history plays a role in whether an offender recidivates. Seven out of ten interview respondents indicated that the availability of housing has little or no effect on whether a returning citizen
recidivates
Seventy percent of key interview participants stated that attainment of a general equivalency diploma while incarcerated plays a major factor in the decrease of recidivism rates. Six out of ten key informants stated that supervision levels while on probation had little or no effect on whether an offender recidivates. Ninety percent of key informants indicated that mental health problems are a factor in recidivism. The same percentile believes that offenders with mental health issues need more management than those offenders without mental health issues. Ninety percent of the key informants labeled social capital networks as a factor in successful reintegration into the community. Sixty percent of the respondents indicated that cognitive skills programs will decrease recidivism. All of the key informants believe a helper therapy program would reduce recidivism and sixty percent of the same respondents indicated that a victim/offender group would decrease the rate of recidivism for the offender. Eighty percent of key informants believe that employment is the most important factor in reducing recidivism and all key informants indicated that employment was an indicator of successful re-entry. Seventy percent of informants believe therapy to be a factor in successful re-entry. The key informants indicated that most offenders gain employment through social or family contacts.
Section V: Interpretation and Discussion The target population consisted of DC residents and 70 percent of the respondents in the target population indicated that they had been convicted of a felony more than once. Target population responses support studies delineating the scope of the problem by the The Pew Center on the States (2011), which found that there is a 40 percent re-incarceration rate in the United States. There is also a 72.2 percent lifetime recidivism rate among African-American males (Shannon, Uggen, Thompson, Schnittker and Massoglia, 2011). The query concerning the last conviction was an attempt to gather information on sex offenders. Six percent of the target population had been convicted of sexual crimes prior to their last conviction. Concomitantly, more than fifty percent of the key informants believed that sex offenders were more likely to recidivate. This dichotomy is examined by Lave (2001) who concluded that there is a major difference between what is assumed about sex offenders and what the statistics reveal. Lave’s (2001) study concludes that sex offenders are less than likely to re-offend than non-sex offenders. It appears that the key informants were influenced by sensational news stories as much as the general population. The target population reported that the length of time served between first and last conviction increased by 24 percent. The key informants reported that prison sentences were not a deterrent to recidivism. The Council for Court Excellence (20110 reported that the District of Columbia has a 46 percent recidivism rate. Bales and Piquero (2010) support the key informant statistics in studies which appeared to show that prison and longer sentences increase recidivism. Forty percent of the key informants indicated that prison made offenders more susceptible to criminal activity upon release. Fifty-two percent of the target population respondents did not have a high school diploma or general equivalency diploma and 70 percent of key informants labeled a high school diploma or GED a large factor in reducing recidivism. Haugebrook, Jenkins and Zgoba (2008) concluded that attainment of a GED significantly improved an offender’s chances of successful re-entry in the community but 42 percent of survey respondents reported they were not offered educational opportunities during their last incarceration. The unemployment rate for the target population group was 70 percent. The target population overwhelmingly indicated that having a criminal record hindered their employment opportunities and that employment reduced their chances of returning to prison. The key informants listed employment as the greatest factor in successful re-entry and the reduction of recidivism. These results mirror the conclusions about employment and recidivism in the literature review. Englehart (2010), Wang, Mears & Bales (2010), and Bellair and Kowalski (2011) conducted studies that concluded employment was a major factor in the reduction of recidivism. Each of these studies showed a link between high offender unemployment and recidivism. The literature review and research also demonstrated a link between the low high school diploma/GED attainment rates, unemployment and recidivism. Figure 5 is a cross-tabulation of the respondents to the key informant survey who had not attained a high school diploma or GED and their employment rates. Over 50 percent of those respondents who had not

Figure 5 shows highest education level/ employment status before last conviction
Figure 5. Highest Education level * Employment Status (N=25)

Highest Education Level
Employment Status Before Last Conviction

Total

f unemployed f employed full-time f employed part-time

Some HS
11
1
1
13

HS diploma/GED
4
1
4
9

Post HS training
2
0
0
2

College degree
0
1
0
1
Total
17
3
5
25

achieved a high school diploma were also unemployed at the time of their last conviction. These results would appear to support Haugebrook, Jenkins and Zgoba’s (2008) contention that attainment of a GED or high school diploma significantly improves the chances that offenders will not recidivate. It also affirms Englehart’s (2010) studies showing the link between education, employment and recidivism. The majority (60%) of the target population survey respondents were housed more than 200 miles away from the District of Columbia. Sixty-four percent of the same respondents reported that they received fewer than three visits from friends and family members during their last incarceration. Sixty-three percent of the target population reported that the distance housed away had an effect on their visits. The key informants indicated that visitation played a role in the reduction of recidivism and the literature agreed with their statements. Bales and Mears’ (2007) findings displayed a link between visitation, recidivism and/or successful re-entry. Drago, Galbiati and Vertova (2011) provides evidence of the manifestations of certain populations because DC prisoners are always housed at federal facilities that are hundreds and sometimes thousands of miles away from their respectives homes. This study suggest that there is an increase in recidivism in correllation with these factors. Although 70 percent of the target population respondents were on probation or parole, only 52 percent the respondents were convicted of new charges. Nearly half of the survey respondents were re-incarcerated for violating the terms of probation or parole which could include missing a curfew, among other non-prosecutable offenses. The target population overwheling reported not receiving re-entry assistance from supervision officers. Bechtel, Lowenkamp and Smith (2007) studied supervision levels and recidivism and concluded that high supervision for low-level offenders increased recidivism. The majority of respondents to the survey were drug/nonviolent offenders, yet many have had high levels of supervision in the past. Eighty percent of the target population respondents indicated that they were not offered treatment or therapy before their last conviction and none of the same respondents listed treatment or therapy as a service that was needed. In contrast, 70 percent of the key informant respondents stated drug treatment and mental health therapy is needed by returning citizens. The key informants were concerned about the institutionalization of offenders and believed that nearly all offenders serving over five years needed therapy. Key informants also listed drug addiction as a driving force behind criminal activity. Wilson, Drane, Hadley, Metraux, and Evans (2011) compared the recidivism rates of offenders with mental illnesses and those with a mental illness and substance abuse problems. Wilson etal’s study concluded that there is a direct link between mental illness, substance abuse and recidivism. Wales, Hiday and Ray (2010) conducted a study in the District of Columbia that was centered on defendents in mental health courts. Their study demonstated a correlation between therapy and lower recidivism rates. The question of whether a case manger was needed was answered in the affirmative by 48 percent of the target population and 90 percent of the key informants. Goldstein, Warner-Robbins, McClean, Macatula, & Conklin, (2009) produced a study that supported the key informants belief that offenders need case management when leaving prison although the target population is split on this recommendation. The target population respondents and key informant respondents were nearly unanimous (90%) in their agreement that job and cognitive skills programs are necessary. Hollin, Mcguire, Hounsome, Hatcher, Bilby, & Palmer, (2008) produced a study that placed offenders in cognitive skills programs and the recidivism rate of the participants decreased. One hundred percent of the key informant group and 92 percent of the target population respondents felt that a helper therapy or mentor program would be beneficial to returning citizens. Lebel (2007) reported a higher degree of self-esteem and a lower propensity for criminal attitudes and thinking amongst participants in a helper therapy study program. The agreement of both groups of respondents makes this program seem noteworthy. A minority (30%) of key informant respondents viewed housing as a major issue but Geller and Curtis (2011) examined a link between a limited labor market and housing insecurity and concluded that this link can lead to homelessness and the propensity for a return to criminal activity, thereby increasing recidivism. The target population did not place housing high on the list of beneficial services for successful re-entry. It would be instructive to examine the reasons for the exclusion of housing. Wallace and Baumeister (2008) produced a victim/offender therapy study which indicated that transgressors were less likely to reoffend against those that had previously forgiven them. A majority of the key informant respondents believed this type of therapy to be valuable in decreasing recidivism. Only forty percent of key informants believed poor health contributes to recidivism but Schnicttker, Massoglia, and Uggen, (2011) examined African American felons through a health prism and found a correlation between poor health and recidivism. Both the target population respondents and the key informant interviewees placed major importance on social capital and recidivism. Each group believed that a lack of social capital was the reason for the high unemployment rate among DC felons. The key informants also pointed out that the District of Columbia is not an industry city, hence the lack of entry-level jobs that pay above-poverty wages. Smith and Hattery (2010), Wang, Mears & Bales (2010), Bellair and Kowalski (2011) and Hattery and Smith (2011) all have conducted studies that agree with both groups of respondents. Social capital of inner city African-American males, which may be minimal to begin, is further depleted when they are incarcerated. The lack of social capital has been shown to be the determining factor of whether an offender returns to criminal activity or not.

Section VI. Conclusions and Recommendations The target population and key informants both agree that employment reduces recidivism. There is a substantial amount of literature that supports their assertion (Englehart, (2010), Wang, Mears & Bales (2010), Bellair and Kowalski (2011). The survey and interview respondents appeared to endorse skills training and some form of on-the-job training (OJT) for returning citizens. There was a distinct dichotomy in the responses about the need for therapy. The key informant respondents felt that it was a missing component yet the target population barely addressed therapy as a component of re-entry. The research appears to conclude that employment, skills training and therapy are needed to decrease the recidivism rate of African American felons in the District of Columbia. The unemployment rate amongst felons in the District of Columbia is 46 percent yet the unemployment rate for the entire city is 8.8 percent (does.dc.gov). It appears that jobs are not the problem. The lack of employment among ex-offenders is a problem. Skills training provides the skills necessary to compete and gain employment yet skills training programs are cost-prohibitive, particularly in the current economic climate. Therapy can help offenders cope with substance abuse problems, mental illness issues and assist in the shift from prison to society yet offenders rarely receive comprehensive mental health services prior to, or after release from prison. There are three recommendations that align with the aforementioned conclusions.
Recommendation I. Therapy Wilson etal (2011) delineate the improvement in the successful re-entry rates amongst offenders with mental illness and substance abuse issues who receive therapy. Imprisonment has been shown to produce aggressive and anti-social behavior in males (Cohen and Taylor, 1972). Ex-offenders bring the coping skills and behaviors learned in the restrictive prison environment into society (Zamble and Poporini, 1978). Gorski (2003) has clustered four mental disorders and labeled the condition derived from them as Post-Incarceration Syndrome (PICS). PICS results from long prison sentences in a restrictive environment with few or no opportunities for education, rehabilitation or skills training. Ex-offenders learn a set of coping skills in order to survive in the prison environment and often are maladjusted when bringing prison coping skills back into society. Those that are assaulted or subjected to solitary confinement are particularly predisposed to PICS. The four disorders that make up PICS are Post Traumatic Stress Disorder,
Anti-Social Personality Traits, Social Sensory Deprivation Syndrome and Institutionalized Personality Traits. The long-term recommendation is that prisoners who have sentences longer than two years be mandated to therapy in order to identify and treat mental illnesses that were present before incarceration and become exacerbated as a result of confinement. The United States Bureau of Prisons has jurisdiction over DC felons and could advocate for federal funds in order to implement a program. The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) provides a substance abuse treatment program for prisoners being released back into the District of Columbia with drug convictions. A therapeutic program for all returning offenders should be instituted. Employment is hard to maintain if ex-offenders display the resistance to authority and anti-social behavior that is endemic to prison life. The offender has to be work ready in order to be successful at work.
Recommendation II. Skills Training/On the Job Training The research project and the literature demonstrate the need for skills training for returning citizens. Success in today’s labor market is predicated upon updated skills because manufacturers have updated their skill requirements (Cappelli, 1993). The District of Columbia recognized the need for occupational skills training and has partnered with the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) and placed an emphasis on in-demand skills training in accordance with the Workforce Investment Act of 1998. The DC government has also allocated millions of dollars in local funds towards occupational skills training. A major concern is that in-demand occupations, as defined by DOL, are in the information technology and healthcare fields. Felons who want to enter the healthcare industry are often denied access if they have drug convictions and information technology applicants have to be proficient in mathematics in order to pass the entrance examinations. The DC Department of Employment Services (DOES) has an Office of Apprenticeship Training (OAT) that facilitates the entrance of DC residents into apprenticeship programs, but most of the actual apprenticeship companies are based in Maryland and Virginia, thereby reducing the leverage the DC Government can apply towards the admittance of ex-offenders. There is also an On the Job Training (OJT) initiative that allows businesses to hire DC residents for six months with the acknowledgement that the businesses will hire the OJT participant thereafter. The employer is reimbursed 90 percent of the participant’s salary for six months. The program was interrupted when it was learned that employers were not abiding by the spirit of the program by hiring friends and relatives. DOES has operated a Transitional Employment Program (TEP) since 2003 that places citizens with significant barriers to employment into life skills classes and subsidized employment. It is an innovative program that has paved the way for thousands of welfare-to-work participants, high school dropouts and ex-offenders to gain viable employment. The economic downturn has had an effect on the TEP. Employers have the option to choose from a plethora of candidates without criminal convictions There is a rising demand for interpersonal and cognitive skills at the expense of motor skills (Howell and Wolff, 1991) which appears to validate the need for therapy within the returning class. The political and monetary costs of skills based training for ex-offenders make wholesale investments unlikely in the near future. It would be instructive to conduct a survey on the costs of not having enough skills-based training programs.
Recommendation III. Employment Employment has been the overriding theme amongst the target population, key informants and the literature review, This is an obvious answer that needs more than just a general statement about the need for jobs. The option chosen for Change Project is two-fold. Employers will be surveyed as to their attitudes and practices towards hiring of ex-offenders. Employers will be informed of the incentives that are offered by state and federal agencies if ex-offenders are hired. The federal government offers a bonding program for ex-offenders- up to 25,000 dollars. The Work Opportunity Tax Credit is an incentive to hire low-income or residents receiving government assistance. The OJT program mentioned previously is an incentive to employers. An important question to be asked is whether the incentives make a difference to the employers. Employer attitudes have been shown to be less than friendly toward the hiring of ex-offenders (Yang, Kadouri, Reva-Levy, Mulvey & Falissard, 2009). The researcher will attempt to learn from employers how to market ex-offenders in the most hiring-friendly manner. The second portion of the change project is to put together a training module in order to present to the staff of the agency. The information gleaned from the employers and DOES will be used to introduce best practices to the Workforce Development Specialists that serve returning citizens. The goal of the training will be to imbue the agency staff with effective methods for preparing, presenting and selling ex-offenders to employers. An important part of the training will center on the marketing function of the staff. Andreason and Kotler (2003) define marketing management as “the process of planning and executing programs designed to influence the behavior of target audiences by creating and maintaining beneficial exchanges for the purposes of satisfying individual and organizational objectives (p. 27). Andreason and Kotler (2003) proceed to explain how marketing is crucial to the success of any organization because every organization has a ‘target audience’ or customers and the goal of any organization is to influence the behavior of its customers. Andreason and Kotler (2007) in their book Strategic Marketing for Nonprofit Organizations delineate three marketing mindsets; product, sales and target audience (customer). The product mindset “holds that success will come those organizations that bring to market goods and services they are convinced will be good for the public’ (Andreason & Kotler, 2007:37). The product mindset focuses on the services or products an organization has to offer. This mindset looks at the marketplace, decides what product or service is needed or can be improve upon and then proceeds to provide that service or product without actually taking into account what the customer wants or needs. Andreason and Kotler (2007) state “A sales mindset toward marketing hold that success will come to those organizations who persuade target audiences to accept their offerings rather than competitors ' or rather than no offering at all” (p. 38). The sales mindset is primarily concerned with advertising and influencing customers to behave in a certain way or buy a certain product. The customer centered or target audience mindset to marketing assumes that the customer knows what they want and it is the job of the market to provide those services. Andreason and Kotler (2007) state “A target audience mindset holds that success will come to that organization that best determines the perceptions, needs and wants of target markets and continually satisfies them through the design, communication, pricing and delivery of appropriate and competitively viable value propositions” (p. 39). The purpose of the training for the agency will be to introduce the agency employees to the three mindsets and emphasize that they have to utilize each of the mindsets when working with returning citizens. Agents have to believe in the product (the ex-offender) and persuade employers to invest in the product by positioning the ex-offender as a viable option for employment. The training will examine the mental models the agents have about ex-offenders. Peter Senge (1990) defines mental models as “deeply ingrained assumptions, generalizations, or even pictures or images that influence how we understand the world and how we take action” (p. 8). Mental models play a crucial role in developing marketing mindsets because they can limit agents in the marketing process. It is expected that the training will make a difference in the employment rates of ex-offenders who come to the agency for employment services, thereby reducing the recidivism rate. The project can serve as a framework for institution of the proposed remedies to the problem on a larger scale.

References
Babbie, E. (2010). The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage.
Bales, W., & Mears, D. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: does visitation reduce recidivism? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(3), 287-299.
Bales, W. & Piquero A. (2011). Assessing the impact of prison on recidivism. Journal of Experiential Criminology, 8, 71-101. DOI 10.1007/s11292-011-9139-3.
Bellair, P., & Kowalski, B. (2011). Low skilled employment opportunity and African American-White difference in recidivism. Journal of Research and Crime and Delinquency, 48(2), 176-208.
Cappelli, P. (1993). "Are Skill Requirements Rising? Evidence Production and Clerical Jobs." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 46(3): 515-530.

Cohen, S and Taylor, L (1972). Psychological survival: The experience of long-term Imprisonment. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Council for Court Excellence, (2011). Unlocking Employment Opportunity for Previously Incarcerated Persons in the District of Columbia. Retrieved from: http://www.courtexcellence.org/PublicationsNew/CCE_Reentry.pdf.
Defina, Robert, Hannon, Lance (2010). For incapacitation, there is no time like the present: The lagged effects of prisoner reentry on property and violent crime rates. 39, DeHaan, R., Krupp, S., & Ishtai-Zee, S. (1985). Action research: a guiding principle in a non- traditional master 's program.
District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment Statistics. (Sep 2012) Retrieved from District of Columbia Department EmploymentServices: http://www.does.dc.gov/does/cwp/view,a,1233,q,538030.asp

Drago, F., Galbiati, R. & Vertova, P. (2011). Prison conditions and recidivism. American Law and Economics Review, 13(1), 103-130.
Englehart, Bryan (2010). The effects of employment frictions on crime. Journal of Labor Economics, 28(3), 677-718.
Haugebrook, S., Jenkins, K., & Zgoba, K.(2008). The influence of GED obtainment on inmate release outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 375-392.
References
Hollin, C., Mcguire, J., Hounsome, J., Hatcher, R., Bilby, C., & Palmer, E.(2008). Cognitive skills behavior programs for offenders in the community: A reconviction analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(3), 269-284. Howell, D. and Edward W. (1991). "Trends in the Growth and Distribution of Skills in the US Workplace, 1960-1985." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 44(3): 486-502. Johnson, K., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Woolard, J. (2011).Disregarding graduated treatment: why transfer aggravates recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 57(5), 756-757. Lave, Tamara (2011). Ineveitable recidivism- The origin and centrality of an urban legend. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34, 186-194. LeBel, Thomas (2007). An examination of the impact of formerly incarcerated persons helping others. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(1-2)
Lovell, D. & Theurer, G. (2008). Recidivism of offenders with mental illness released from prison to an intensive community treatment program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 47(4), 485-401.
Pew Center on the States (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons. Retrieved from: http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrusts.org/Reports/sentencing_ and_corrections/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prison%20.pdf Schnicttker, J., Massoglia, M. & Uggen, C. (2011). Incarceration and the health of the African- American community. Du Bois Review, 8(1), 133-141.
Shannon, S., Uggen, C., Thompson, M., Schnittker, J., and Massoglia, M. (2011). Growth in the U.S. Ex-Felon and Ex-Prisoner Population, 1948-2010. Retrieved from: http://paa2011.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=111687
Smith, E. & Hattery, A. (2010). African-American Men and the prison Industrial Complex, The Western Journal of Black Studies 34(4), 387.
Tripodi, S., Kim, J., & Bender, K.(2010). Is employment associated with reduced Recidivism? The complex relationship between employment and crime. Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(5), 706-721.
Wallace, M., Exline, J., Baumeister, R. (2008). Interpersonal consequences of forgiveness: Does forgiveness deter or encourage repeat offenses? Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 453-460.
References

Wang, X., Mears, D., & Basles, W. (2010). Race specific emplyment contexts and recidivism. Criminology, 48(4), 1171-1211.
Wehrman, Michael (2010). Race, concentrated disadvantage, and recidivism: a test of interaction effects. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 538-544.
Wilson, A., Drane, J., Hadley, T., Metraux, S., & Evans, A. (2011). Examining the impact of mental illness and substance use on recidivism in a county jail. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(4), 264-268.
Wilson, A., Drane, J., Hadley, T., Metraux, S., & Evans, A. (2011). Examining the impact of mental illness and substance use on recidivism in a county jail. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(4), 264-268.
Zamble, E and Poporino, F. (1988) Coping, Behavior, and Adaptation in Prison Inmates New York, NY: Springer-Verlag

Appendices

1. Key informant survey
2. Target population survey

1. Key Informant Interview Survey

Scope

1. In your opinion, what are some of the things the District of Columbia government can implement to lower the recidivism rate? 2. Are sex offenders more likely to recidivate? 3. Are there sufficient employment opportunities for ex-offenders? 4. Is there sufficient job training/readiness programs geared towards ex-offenders? Yes No
Causes
5. Do you believe that incarceration is a deterrent to recidivism?

6. Do you believe that the length of time served is a deterrent to felons returning to prison?

7. Is poor physical health a factor in whether a felon recidivates?

8. What effects do visits by family member/friends have on recidivism?
Large effect Little effect No effect No opinion
9. Does the offenders’ family history play a role in the offender recidivism rate?

10. How much of a factor is substance abuse in recidivism?
Large factor Little factor No factor No opinion

11.
Is a juvenile record an indicator of whether adult offenders recidivate?

Solutions
12. How much of a factor is housing in the re-entry process?
Large factor Little factor No factor No opinion

13. What effect does GED attainment have on whether a felon returns to prison?
Large effect Little effect No effect No opinion

14. What is the relationship between supervision level and recidivism?
Large relationship Little relationship No relationship No opinion

15. What factors do mental health problems have in reducing recidivism?
Large factor Little factor No factor No opinion

16. Do offenders with mental illness issues need more care/management than offenders who do not have mental illness issues. Yes No

17. How much of a factor is social capital networks in keeping ex-offenders from re-committing crimes?
Large factor Little factor No factor No opinion

18. What effects do cognitive skills programs have on the rate of recidivism?
Large effect Little effect No effect No opinion

19. Would a helper therapy (a program that utilizes ex-offenders that have successfully re-integrated) reduce recidivism
rates?

20. Do you believe that groups that bring together victim and offender are helpful in the reduction of recidivism?

21. What are the most important factors in the reduction of recidivism?

22. Is employment an indicator of successful re-entry? 23. Do offenders gain employment mostly through social/family contacts or independent job searches or job programs?

Social/family contacts Independent job search Job Programs

2. Target Population Survey

Scope
1. Are you a District of Columbia resident? _____Yes _____No
2. How many times have you been convicted of a felony?
____1 ____2 ____3 ____4 ____5+

3. What was the length of your first incarceration?

_____1-11 month(s) ____1-5 years ____6-10 years _____ 11-15 years _____15+

4. What was the length of your last incarceration?
_____1-11 months _____1-5 years ____6-10 years _____11-15 years _____15+

5. What charge were you last convicted of?
_____Theft/Property Crime _____Robbery ____Assault(Bodily, Sexual) _____Weapons(gun, knife) _____Murder ____Other/Drugs

6. What was your highest education level before your first incarceration?

_____Some High School _____HS Diploma/GED ______ Training After High School ____ Some College ______Completed Training ______College Degree

7. What was your employment status before your last incarceration?
______Unemployed ______Employed Full-time _____Employed Part-time

Causes
8. How far away from the District of Columbia was your last place of incarceration?
____0-50 miles ____51-100 miles ____101-200 miles ____201-500 miles ____500+ miles
Indicate your opinion on the following questions by circling True or False.
9. I received multiple (3 or more per year) visits from family/friends during my incarceration. True False
10. The distance that I was housed away from home did not have an effect on my visits. True False
11. I was on parole or probation when I was last incarcerated True False
12. I was offered treatment and/or therapy before my last confinement.
True False
13. My last incarceration was because of a parole violation-(did not get convicted of new crime). True False
Solutions
Please indicate your opinions to the following questions by circling the number that best represents your attitudes about services before, during and after incarceration.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

14. There were opportunities for educational programs (GED, therapy, self-help groups) while I was incarcerated.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

15. I completed educational program(s) while incarcerated.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

16. My parole/probation officer actively helped me during the re-entry process.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

17. Having a case manager upon release from prison can benefit me in the re-entry process.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

18. A criminal history has not interfered with me finding a job.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

19. Being employed would reduce my chances of returning to prison.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

20. I can benefit from an employment readiness/life-skills class that prepares me for employment.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

21. I can benefit from having someone who was in my situation mentor me through the re-entry process.
1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- No Opinion 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree

22. What services could you have benefitted from during the re-entry process.?

23. What are the most important services that returning citizens require when leaving incarceration?