-28

knowledge about the drug culture of the District, rates of addiction, and rates of production of addict-offenders; 2) clear-cut strategies of prevention ranging from interdiction of major supplies of drugs to aggressive school and neighborhood educational programs and family counseling; and 3) accelerated development of treatment programs modeled on plans that have proved successful in other localities.

Of special interest as programs that should be actively worked with here are 1) the methadone maintenance programs that are being used in New York and several other cities, 2) the narcotic-antagonist programs that are undergoing development in Chicago and New York City, and 3) the self-help programs that make use of "encounter" therapies in both residential and outpatient formats.

Publication

Stuart Adams, Dewey F. Meadows and Charles W. Reynolds, Narcotic-Involved Inmates in the Department of Corrections, pp. 23, February 1969

13) IN-PROGRAM AND POST-RELEASE PERFORMANCE OF WORK-RELEASE INMATES: A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE WORK-RELEASE PROGRAM

Purpose and Method

To obtain information on in-program and post-release performance of Work Release "graduates," the 281 cases that moved into and out of the Work Release Program between its start in April 1966 and the end of July 1967 were identified and their records were traced. Follow-ups were made through the record systems of the Work Release Unit, the D.C. Jail, the Board of Parole, the institutions of the Department of Corrections, and the FBI.

-29

To facilitate analysis of the data, the study group was separated into 156 felony offenders and 125 misdemeanants.

Findings

Of the 156 felony offenders, a total of 50 (32.2%) absconded or were revoked during their stay in the Work Release Unit. The absconds and revokes were reincarcerated for periods that averaged 4.9 months and then released to the community.

A post-release follow-up of the graduates from work-release and from reincarceration showed that at twelve months out, about 26% of the 156 felony offenders had been detained in the D.C. Jail. The remaining 74% may be defined as "successes" at the end of the twelvemonth follow-up.

Of the 125 misdemeanants, a total of 36 (28.8%) absconded or were revoked during their stay in the Work Release Unit. The absconds and revokees were reincarcerated for an average of 3.0 months and then released to the community.

A post-release follow-up of the 125 misdemeanants showed that after an exposure time of twelve months, about 24% of the group had been detained in the D.C. Jail. The remaining 76% may be regarded as successes at the end of one year of community exposure.

The 125 misdemeanants included a group of 51 who had been ordered to work release by the adjudicating courts. This group showed no absconds during the stay in the Unit; it also showed a revocation rate of only about 14%, which was about one-half the revocation and abscond rate (28.8%) for all misdemeanants and about one-third of the revoke and abscond rate of the non-court-ordered misdemeanants (40%).

The 76 percent success rate for the 156 felony offenders on work release is somewhat lower than the 85 percent success rate for the 432 felony offenders who were released from the Reformatory in 1965, comparing the two groups at 12 months out. This comparison is not wholly valid since the work releasees were

Months after Release: Absconds & Revokes (A&R's)

-31

-32

drawn primarily from the groups that ordinarily go out as expirees and conditional releasees. The work releasees appear in other words, to be a high-risk group.

Recommendation

To provide better information on the effects of work release on recidivism, it is essential to follow up with two kinds of research:

1) The Department should conduct one or more controlled experiments which randomly assign work release eligibles to control and experimental statuses. The latter should include several varieties of work release experience and settings. Comparison of the outcomes among controls and the several experimental groups should provide relatively precise information on the effectiveness of work release with various kinds of offenders in different kinds of work release programs or settings.

2) The Department should develop parole success probability measures to assist in the evaluation of programs in which controlled experimental designs are not feasible.

In addition to assessments in terms of recidivism, future work release should examine the cost-effectiveness of the work release program. Costs of the program should be analyzed against new correctional costs, earnings in the program, reductions in relief costs and effects on post-release earnings.

Publication

Stuart Adams and Joseph B. Dellinger, InProgram and Post-Release Performance of Work Release Inmates: A Preliminary Assessment of the Work-Release Program, pp. 23, March 1969.