University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

One-Time-Only Program: smart decarceration response to mass incarceration

(USC Thesis Other)

One-Time-Only Program: smart decarceration response to mass incarceration

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Revised Capstone Proposal 1
Everett M. Faison
SOWK 722
One-Time-Only Program: smart decarceration response to mass incarceration
Capstone Project Proposal
Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work
University of Southern California
August 2019
Revised Capstone Proposal 2

Executive Summary
Mass incarceration has become a problem in America over the last five decades The
situation has reached a point that there are several movements focused on making needed
changes to the criminal justice system. The decision to close Rikers Island in New York is one
such movement. This decision was driven by the reports of maltreatment of the inmates which
was highlighted with the Kalief Browder incident. Another that has a countrywide impact is the
ending cash bail for people charged with minor crimes in states like California and New York.
The need for change in the number of people held in prison has been taken up by the National
Association of Social Workers in its 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work by creating one
challenge for the promotion of smart decarceration. This paper will propose a program that is
designed as a response to this grand challenge.
The whole idea of smart decarceration is to establish systems in which persons are being
released from prison in a more effective and safe manner. This refers to the individual as well as
public safety. The major threat factor to both of these parties is recidivism. In recidivism, the
person experiences a return to the maladaptive behavior, and in this case, to criminal activities
that will result in the person being sent back to prison. As for the public safety issue, for there to
be a crime committed, there must be some form of the victim, be it a person or an object. This
new victimization creates new threats to public safety.
This paper proposes a program that will focus on reducing recidivism in a specific male
prison population. The program will operate from the theory that changing the outcomes for
these individuals is possible by creating positive changes for their future and then giving them
the tools to initiate those changes. This positive change will also be facilitated by an equally
positive change in how the immediate society views this population and the way they are
Revised Capstone Proposal 3

subsequently treated. There is a stigma in this country associated with the criminal populations.
The thinking norm of “once a criminal, always a criminal” permeates the very fabric of this
country and has for a long time. Prison has become a place of punishment and not a center for
rehabilitation. When prisoners come out, they are still treated as less than second class citizens;
many do not even have the right to vote. The program will also work on changing this public
view of these individuals as a method of changing how society reacts to and treats them. This
will be accomplished by creating environments of direct contact between the community and its
members with the program participants.
Included in this proposal, there is a Gantt chart (see Appendix G) that outlines the steps
to be followed for the development of this program. At this point, the program would still be in
the early planning stages. The goal will be to locate both a prison and a community that is open
to acting as the pilot sites for this program. The ideal location would be one the is not rural but
not as urban as a Manhattan, possibly a place like Mount Vernon or New Rochelle in New York.
The chart takes the program development through a step by step process that will be helpful to
the program developers in building and monitoring the program’s growth and success. It also
accounts for the important phases for review and restructuring of the program as it moves
forward into its next stages.
The program will be developed as a two-phase process that will incorporate the services
of not only the prison but of the community as well. Prison-based education and vocational
raining programs will be crucial to the development and progress of the program. There will be
a need for cooperation from all the prison and the training program staff in this stage. The next
stage will be in a separate facility that will function as a non-profit organization and provide the
soft skills required for a successful transition back to community life. At this stage, there will be
Revised Capstone Proposal 4

a more diverse group of stakeholders with whom clearly outlined partnerships will need to be set
up to provide the best service to the participants.
This proposal includes comparisons made to other service providers and prison
environments that make the need for this program more evident. These are done to help
establish a stronger understanding of what exactly this program is trying to do differently. The
idea of treating prison inmates with respect and not contempt will be a new approach for this
current justice system. Preparing them for life outside the walls of the prison, before they are
actually on their own and outside, will also be a new concept. Services that will be provided for
the program participants will be well-rounded and focused on skills that will help these men
avoid some of the stress factors that plague prison releases and lead to their return to prisons,
such as lack of housing and unemployment.
This paper will address various potential concerns and barriers that could threaten this
program. Legal resistance from the community, corrections authorities, law enforcement, for-
profit prisons, and state parole agencies will be explored as such barriers. With these
explorations, an alternative approach to the program development will be presented. This
presentation will cover the positives of this approach as well as the negatives as they impact the
participants. Also, an idea of how to bring the for-profit prisons into the fold of accepting this
program is addressed. The program will attempt to avoid much of the community resistance by
finding ways to engage the participants in the community which includes the people, schools,
organizations, businesses, and leading bodies.
In this world of transparency in the actions of professionals, means of open and direct
communications with benefactors, funders, stakeholders, participants, and families will be
necessary for this program from the very start. Methods of reaching and maintaining these lines
Revised Capstone Proposal 5

of communications, from the simplest to the complex, will be identified and explored in this
paper. This will also be used to spread the word about this program and its goals in an effort to
gather supporters as the program nears its inception stages. The final communication would be
to write and submit the findings of the study to be performed on the program.
The program will function under the NASW Code of Ethics with regards to all of its
principles and standards of operations. The approach of the program will be to provide
counseling and support services to the participants on as many life-affecting issues as possible,
including substance abuse, relationships, conflict resolution/anger management, and adult daily
living skills on both individual and group sessions. These services will be provided for the
participants and their families for two years after they have left the facility and are living on their
own. This will allow for the tracking and gathering of data that will be used to support or reject
the programs claim that these services will reduce the rates of recidivism in this population. This
data collection will also involve other persons released from prison that do not engage in the
program to serve as two additional levels of data to further support the claims of the program.
All NASW code of ethics guidelines, including confidentiality and privacy, will apply to these
other individuals as well.
This program will represent a new direction in the treatment of the prison population. It
will take the system back in the direction of rehabilitation and away from punishment, but in a
way that has not yet been tried in the United States. If it is proven successful with the limited
population that will be the pilot target, this design can then be implemented with other
populations. The first such new population could be female inmates. Having the results
replicate in this population would attest to the success of the program. This could then lead to
the design being picked up by other prison communities in other states across the country. It
Revised Capstone Proposal 6

may even be attempted with higher risk inmate populations like repeat offenders or people with
minor violent offenses.
Conceptual Framework

The 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work are issues that the Academy of Social Work
and Social Welfare have identified as growing problems in America. They cover areas of social
needs ranging from education for the youths to homelessness. The one that has been chosen to
be the basis for this proposal is to promote smart decarceration. The issue of smart decarceration
comes in response to the criminal justice trend in America that has become known as mass
incarceration. This trend began in the 1970s with President Nixon and his War on Drugs. In
essence, these mandates made it illegal to be a drug addict, who now became subject to arrest
and incarceration for drug possession charges (Mann, 2013). This situation was further
compounded by additional state legislation against drugs. In New York, there were the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, which carried heavy mandatory sentences for both drug possession and
sales (Mann, 2013). This resulted in some persons being arrested on drug charges and sentenced
to prison terms longer than ones imposed on convicted murderers. In the years leading up to the
mass incarceration period, American incarceration rates were comparable to all other Western
industrialized countries (Travis, Western & Redburn, 2014). During the subsequent five
decades, America’s incarceration rates have increased to over 700 per every 100,000, making the
United States the country with the highest incarceration of citizens in the entire world. American
prisoners also serve the longest sentences as well.
In addition to the legislative issues mentioned in the last section, there are a couple of
long-standing legal, prosecutorial, practices that have also had an impact on the number of
persons living behind bars. These practices which are commonplace in the legal system, have
Revised Capstone Proposal 7

been used to virtually strip judges of their sentencing power and the defense attorney of their
power to take advantage of the legal concept of “reasonable doubt,” which are mainstays in a
legal court proceeding. As a result, they have put all of the legal power over accused individuals
in the hands of the prosecutor, who may not have their best interests in mind. These two
practices are known as plea bargaining and overcharging.
The first that will be examined will be the best known, and that is plea bargaining. This
practice, which is not used in other countries, took hold in America following World War II
(Rakoff, 2014). In general, it is an agreement with the prosecutor for the alleged perpetrator to
plead guilty to a lesser crime, which would carry a lighter prison sentence, rather than go to trial
for the original charge. This practice, combined with the fear of the criminal justice system held
by many minority populations, has been cited as a reason innocent people would plead guilty to
crimes (Rakoff, 2014). In 2013 of all federal charges levied, 92% went through to sentencing.
Of these sentences, 97% of them were reached via a plea bargain evidencing the wide spread use
of the practice by prosecutors (Rakoff, 2014). The past thirty years have seen laws changed to
add more possible charges along with enhancements and stiffer charges (Alkon, 2015) which
have effectively given prosecutors more leveraging power to entice a defendant to accept a plea
deal. Alkon (2015) goes on to quote a Human Rights Watch report from 2013 in which
prosecutors placed undue pressure on defendants to enter a guilty plead were cited and termed as
“coercive plea bargaining tactics abound in state and federal criminal cases.” This statement
brings this paper to the next prosecutorial practice that was mentioned.
The second practice, overcharging, is not so well known because one would probably not
see it acted out in a popular television crime procedural drama. Kyle Graham (2013) identified
two distinct types of overcharging. They are vertical overcharging and horizontal overcharging
Revised Capstone Proposal 8

and are defined in this way. Vertical refers to charging an individual with a crime that is higher
on the scale than the crime the person may have actually committed. An example of this would
be charging a person with first-degree murder as opposed to involuntary manslaughter. The
horizontal type of overcharging refers to piling on various related charges to the initial one that
will all carry a separate prison sentence. One example of this would be a person that gets
arrested on a drug possession charge finding themselves also being charged with possession with
intent to sell as well as drug trafficking. These fear tactics, when used in direct conjunction with
the presentation of a plea deal, helps to account for the aforementioned 97% of federal
convictions (Graham, 2013).
These are some of the factors that have contributed to the current state of mass
incarceration. But what if for some reason, legal or social, all of these contributing factors and
practices were to be ended in America, thus bringing about a slow but inevitable end to mass
incarceration? The question would be, what will happen to all of those currently incarcerated
who may find themselves released? It may be safe to assume that there would be a new problem,
because many of these persons will not be prepared for what they will face. The world they will
return to is not the same one they left those years ago. Without the proper skills, a successful
reintegration is at best, difficult, and for some impossible. Some of these skills include education
equal to or beyond the high school level; ability to seek, obtain, and maintain employment
despite the social stigma that follows former prisoners; building social relationships with persons
that do not have a criminal history; acquiring suitable housing; and adult daily living skills
(ADLs). The program being proposed in this paper identifies and focuses on these needs (see
Appendix A: Logic Model).
Revised Capstone Proposal 9

Another factor in the rates of recidivism does not rest within the individual but within
society as a whole. In general, people that have been in prison are not looked upon favorably by
this society. Some practices that are harmful to particular individuals are sustained by social
norms (Cislaghi et al., 2019). The social norm of “once a criminal, always a criminal” is one
such that remains much too prevalent in society today and generates an almost phobic approach
to former prisoners (see Appendix A: Logic Model). The overall stigmatization of persons in
prison begins when they first enter the system. They are stripped of their names and given an
inmate number. Any concept of human dignity, even a simple one of being able to use the toilet
themselves in private, is removed from them, and they become simply convicts. It will be an
underlying purpose of this program to try and change this view of former prison inmates to a
more socially accepting view. Staying in tune with the phobic similarity, perhaps some form of
behavioral conditioning approach could be used to foster this change. All of these changes in
how former inmates are treated and viewed should have a positive impact on the next subject of
this paper – recidivism.
Of those currently incarcerated, there is a large percentage of persons who have been
incarcerated more than once, who are called recidivists. A study done between 2005 and 2010
showed that of all prisoners released in 40 states, around 75% are rearrested and incarcerated
within 5 years, with the highest percentage occurring within one year of release (Durose, Cooper
& Snyder, 2014). In conjunction with the highest incarceration rates, the United States also has
the highest rates of recidivism (Sterbenz, 2014). These numbers are not acceptable. It costs
about $167,000 per year to house and care for a prisoner in New York. To have this financial
burden keep recurring for the same person over and over is something that must be corrected, at
least for those individuals who do not pose any real threat to everyday society. This, however, is
Revised Capstone Proposal 10

just the identified costs of incarceration. This does not take into account what incarceration costs
families, children, and communities. The results of a study shown in a table (see Appendix B)
that encompasses seventeen different cost areas ranging from a low eviction costs of $200
million, moving costs of $500 million, and visitation of $800 million all the way up to increased
criminality in children of incarcerated parents of $130.6 billion and criminogenic nature of
prison of $285.8 billion. This brings the total cost to families, children, and communities up to
$531 billion (Pettus-Davis, Brown, Veeh ,and Renn, 2016). This goes to prove that mass
incarceration is not just unjust to those behind bars, but it is unduly expensive to all those outside
of them as well. It also points a spotlight on the need to work on not only getting people out of
prison, but having some form of process that will help them to stay out of prison.
For this purpose, the Grand Challenge of promoting smart decarceration was established
to encourage creative and innovative thinkers to look at this issue and try to help resolve it. This
term, smart decarceration, seems simple enough, but Epperson and Pettus-Davis (2015)
expanded on it by listing three goals and guiding concepts:
1. Substantially reduce the incarcerated population in jails and prisons
2. Redress the existing social disparities among the incarcerated
3. Maximize public safety and well-being.
Creating a program that addresses all three of the goals would be daunting; therefore, the
program proposed in this paper focuses on the first. If successful, it is possible that the trickle-
down effect could impact on both the second and third goals indirectly.
There are programs that attempt to work with persons returning from prison that have
been around for some time. Some of the agencies in New York are Fortune Society Inc., The
Road to Reentry, and Second Chance reentry. These are all good agencies, and they work very
Revised Capstone Proposal 11

hard at providing for these individuals as they return from incarceration. There is, however, one
concern about their approach that the proposed program would address. The concern is that
those participating in these programs are individuals who have already been released from prison
and are currently living in the community on parole. The support of these programs is evident,
but this support is only during their daily hours of operation, so there is a large portion of the day
in which the individual is left to fend with their issues on their own. It is in this area that these
programs seem to exhibit their inherent weaknesses.
In the proposed program, these young men will still be wards of the state and going
through the transitional process more slowly. By living in a residential facility, the participants
will have access to different levels of support, ranging from peer to staff, for the entire time they
are in the program. However, even before they become eligible for this stage of the program,
they must have shown a desire to make needed changes that are geared towards bettering
themselves. They will have to have completed either a GED course and have their diploma,
attended and passed courses provided in the facility by an accredited college, and/or a vocational
skills training program with the associated certificate of completion. In this way, they will have
acquired one of the previously identified skills that foster successful reintegration. The chosen
participants would then move into a stand-alone facility, not in prison but in the community. In
this facility, the goal will be to not only prepare the participants for community living, but
desensitize the members in the community from some of their inherent negative thinking and
associations they have in regards to former prisoners.
A crucial part of working on changing how society will look at these individuals will be
trying to change how they look at themselves. The old adage of “once a criminal, always a
criminal” is so accepted that individuals can even come to believe it themselves. With this in
Revised Capstone Proposal 12

mind, one might not be surprised if a former inmate responded to the question of where they see
themselves in five years with, “back in prison.” An initial change in the program is that those in
the program will no longer be referred to as inmates, but as participants. One of the first projects
for a new participant entering the program will be to create an “Ideal Self Avatar” (see Appendix
C). The purpose of this avatar is for the participant to identify how they see themselves now and
something socially productive they would like to see themselves as in five years. They must also
identify what tasks they think they need to accomplish to reach this ideal self. This will help
guide the development their full personal treatment plan for the program.
There is a slightly more comparative model for the proposed program stand-alone
facility, and that is the prison system in Germany. In American prisons, individuals are forced to
wear uniforms with identification numbers printed on them. Basically, they are reduced to just a
number, not even a name. In fact, even when they are released, they are given a standard
uniform to wear if the clothes that they came in no longer fit, which is often the case. This
uniform makes them easy to identify as just coming out of prison by anyone that sees them. In
Germany, the prisoners wear their own clothes, live in rooms with doors that they can lock and
unlock, cook their own meals, have outside jobs, and go home on passes to be with family
(Chammah, 2015). In Germany, they are more focused on rehabilitation than on retribution.
The proposed program’s stand-alone facility will operate very similar in approach to the
participants as does a German prison. The participants will have more regular freedom and will
live as though they were already living independently. The goal will be to rebuild the
participant's sense of self-worth and self-sufficiency. One drawback in using Germany as an
example is that though incarceration rates can be compared easily, it is more difficult to do the
same with recidivism rates as recidivism is measured differently in the two countries
Revised Capstone Proposal 13

(Subramanian & Shames, 2013). Another could be the fact that former prisoners do not have to
confront the same negative stigmatizations, as do those in America, which also makes a return to
normal society an easier process.

Problems of Practice and Solutions/Innovations

The issue of mass incarceration has several other problems associated with it. One such
problem that is discussed constantly is the over-representation of minority populations in prisons.
An example of this is the African-American population. The Sentencing Project (2017) created
an infogram (see Appendix D) that shows while only one in seventeen white men born in 2001 is
likely to become incarcerated, this figure is one in three for African Americans, which equates
out to a little over five and a half times more likely. This propensity is even worse for women,
with one in 111 white women as opposed to one in eighteen black women, which equates out to
just over six times more likely. In addition to these statistics, African Americans make up just
about 13% of the population, but they make up 40% of the prison population (Pettus-Davis and
Epperson, 2014). Other disenfranchised populations also make up a disproportionate amount of
the prison populations:
1. Half of all prisoners, prior to their incarceration, were impoverished, with a
history of incarceration reducing men’s annual income by 40%
2. Former prisoners are four to six times more likely than the general population to
experience homelessness
3. Mental illness rates are 14% to 25% in prison, more than twice that of the general
population (Pettus-Davis & Epperson, 2014)
When looking at figures like these, is it any wonder that there are those in these communities that
view the prison system as a means of racial and social control?
Revised Capstone Proposal 14

Another problem that accompanies mass incarceration is the growth of the for-profit
prison movement. These institutions, like the GEO Group, have been growing in size, funds, and
lobby position, especially under this current presidential regime (Cohen, 2015). These billion-
dollar corporations make money off the punishment of crime and criminals. To them, empty
beds represent capital that they are losing. They will most likely be adversarial in nature in
regards to anything this program would seek in doing. As such, it will be important that some
work is done with these corporations to reach if not an early partnership, then at least a well-
established truce.
There have been steps taken in states across the country to try and address the issue of
mass incarceration. In Milwaukee in 2013, Attorney General Eric Holder started an initiative
called Smart on Crime (Toobin, 2015). In the initiative, he encouraged prosecutors to work
towards reducing those sentenced to state and federal prisons as well as the length of stay for
those that were sentenced. The result was that the number of mandatory drug sentences that
were sought in 2014 was reduced by two-thirds.
In New York, there have been two major movements that will have an impact on the
prison/jail populations. The first was a movement to close the infamous Rikers Island. A panel
that was started in 2016 recommended in 2017, recommending the closure of this jail
(Corasaniti, 2017). This is a jail that has had its history of long incarcerations of several years
for persons that have not even been sentenced yet. The plan for this closure was given a ten-year
timetable, but New York state may be on track to close it well ahead of that scheduled deadline
(Foderara, 2018). The closure of this facility is good, but it does not mean an end to
incarceration as the plan is to replace this one facility with other smaller facilities in each of the
boroughs.
Revised Capstone Proposal 15

Setting a cash bail on a defendant has been a practice in America. The idea is that if a
person has a vested financial interest upon their release, they are more likely to return to court.
This is a sound idea but in practice it tends to be one-sided. In many cases, judges will set bail,
and usually, it is the same for everyone that has committed the same crime. The problem with
this is, as mentioned before, many of those incarcerated are impoverished and unable to come up
with this money, As a result, a high percentage, about 70%, of those in jail are not convicted of a
crime yet, but are unable to pay the bail (Covert, 2017). Some states have recently begun to
move away from cash bail as much as possible. In 2018, the counties of Brooklyn and
Manhattan, in New York, stopped levying cash bails on non-felony cases (Lartey, 2018). In
August of 2018, California became the first state to end cash bail (Romo, 2018). Finally, in early
2019, New York passed legislation to end cash bail in the year 2020 (McMahon, 2019). All of
these measures are a step in the right direction, but they still do not address the fact that there
will still be people that have spent time in prison who will be looking to get out eventually.
Some will have high hopes of being able to stay out despite their criminal history.
This proposal for change will be first presented to parties who have taken a lead position
in pushing for these two changes to the system. This approach will lead to making connections
with persons in positions to make changes to the system and who have already proven that they
are willing to do so. It will be represented as the third part of a three-stage system to address
mass incarceration. Stage one, eliminating cash bail, represents a change to putting people in
jail. Stage two, closing Rikers Island, is the method of improving on the conditions under which
incarcerated individuals are housed. Stage three, this proposal, works on preparing incarcerated
persons for a more effective transition back into the community and reducing recidivism. It will
also have to be presented to the Department of Corrections for their support. During an
Revised Capstone Proposal 16

interview project in a previous course, a man, who is a former corrections officer and is the
current corrections trainer, was interviewed, and he had some positive reactions to the proposed
program. He gave some encouraging information and stated that he probably would know some
officers that would want to be a part of a program such as this. He could be instrumental in
opening doors for this program to be presented to the right persons who may be supportive.
The proposed capstone project is designed to focus in on one particular group within this
general population to begin. The chosen group was selected because of what this writer calls
their lower perceived threat factor. What is meant by the perceived threat factor could best be
explained in this manner; what one might feel seeing three five-year-old children with baseball
bats coming towards them on a street as opposed to three apparent gang members with bats
coming? This varying level of anxiety and fear would be the perceived threat. Thus described,
the group chosen are men who would be classified in prison as first-time non-violent offenders.
Many of these men are victims of the drug war mentality. Others are incarcerated on other
minor, non-violent offenses such as theft and or burglary. This population was selected not
because of the anticipated ease to work with them, but because it is hoped that as non-violent
offenders, they will pose the least perceived threat to the targeted community for the program
and so create the least resistance. There is also the idea that they have not yet been fully jaded by
the societal norms which require the continued mistreatment of persons when they leave prison.
The program would work with these individuals and provide them with the support and skills
needed to make transitioning back into society easier. These activities would take place within
the prison and in a stand-alone facility outside of the prison, within the target community.
The in-prison portion of the program will account for the inmates completing either an
educational or vocational program. This is designed to increase their level of marketability as a
Revised Capstone Proposal 17

study since found that inmates that obtained the certificate while in prison were able to, in part,
overcome the stigma of having been in prison with some employers (Mohammed & Mohammed,
2015). In the facility, they will not be free yet, but they will no longer be considered inmates
but rather program participants. At this stage, they will have behavioral counseling, parenting
skills, and adult daily living skills training that will be provided along with job and housing
search assistance. A Boston Reentry Study that surveyed inmates immediately following their
incarcerations found large percentages of these individuals were unemployed, on public
assistance, or reliant upon other family members and relatives for their support (Western, Braga,
Davis & Sirois, 2015). The proposed program is focused on turning these results around and
helping the individuals become self-sufficient members of society.
There is also a secondary focus of this program. This focus is to try and move society
away from three of the generalized stigmatizations they place on persons who have committed
crimes. Being stigmatized can affect the way a person feels about themselves and how they
expect to be treated by others (Moore et al., 2016). This concept falls in line with the program's
theory of change, that being if how a person sees themselves changes, then how the world sees
them will change as well. If how the world sees someone changes, then their outlook on life will
change. These changes are hampered by the stigmas that hang over those with criminal pasts.
One such stigmatization is that people who commit crimes are all bad people. The second is that
bad people, or criminals, need to be kept away from good people. The last is the old adage of
once a criminal, always a criminal. A young man being released from prison is very likely to
experience negative reactions from the community almost immediately. If a person were to go to
where the Rikers Island bus stops, they would be able to immediately tell who was returning
from a visit, and who was returning from an extended stay. This is because, upon release from
Revised Capstone Proposal 18

jail since they no longer fit the clothes they were arrested in, they are given a standard outfit
(uniform) that is identifiable as prison issue. In this way, the stigma from society has begun
before the person has even had one breath of air as a free person. If they have no place to go
home to, they are placed in a half-way house that is oversaw by a parole officer. In these
environments, the person continues to be treated like a criminal and not a free member of
society.
Changing how a full society thinks about something is extremely difficult. For this
reason, the proposed program will work on a small community where the program will be
located. If they can change a small group, maybe the change in thinking will be spread to other
groups by word of mouth and open community support for the program. This belief draws on
some of the tenants of the cognitive-behavioral theory. The key concept behind cognitive-
behavioral therapy is that if a therapist can change how a person thinks about a thing or situation,
then it will be possible to change how that person behaves in regards to that thing or situation
through various forms of treatment. Since society is in itself a living entity, then this irrational
fear and negative treatment of former prisoners can be looked upon as a phobia, and therefore
this should also be able to be applied to it. In desensitization, the patient is gradually exposed to
more intensive and direct contact with that which they are afraid of. In this case, the process of
desensitization, a process very commonly used in treating people with phobias. In a study
(Cislaghi, 2019) three implementation strategies for such changing of social norms were tested –
a Community Empowerment Program (CEP), Change Starts at Home, and Voices for Change
(V4). All three were proven to have had varying levels of success in changing the targeted views
towards community health and the empowerment of women. For this program, the modified
version of the first two interventions seems to be more in line with the desensitizing activities
Revised Capstone Proposal 19

identified in the Activities and Outputs columns in the structured Logic-Model (see Appendix A)
for the program. Both involve more direct contact between members of society and the targeted
population.
In order to try and work with society, the steps in the process must be taken on a much
grander scale. It will be necessary to expose the society to the participants of the program and
vice versa because there will probably be some level of phobic reaction on their part as well,
though this could be seen as a little less irrational. The plan will be to engage the participants in
any community-based activities as possible. This could range from joining a community clean-
up campaign, planting a neighborhood garden, or attending a town-hall meeting. In this manner,
they will be exposed to the people as members of the community, not a burden on it. This will
constitute the CEP stage of the social norm diffusion.
There should also be activities within the facility that the community members would be
invited to attend. The program will provide a service to the community, such as sponsoring
anonymous format meetings for those dealing with addictive issues. Having regular open-houses
for neighbors to come in and just talk with the participants to help them be seen as just other
people and not as criminals and even promoting the facility as the site for a board or town hall
meeting. It will also be important that business owners and landlords are made a part of these
activities. This will be crucial because of the needs the participants will eventually have for
gainful employment and stable housing. If a potential employer is still fearful of hiring a former
criminal because they think they will become the next victim of that person, no one will get
hired. If a landlord believes the person will attract the negative element into their building, no
apartments will be found. The bottom line here, for the desensitization process, the ultimate goal
Revised Capstone Proposal 20

is to build tear down preconceptions and build relationships between the program and the
community. This would be the “change starts at home” concept of norm diffusion.
This is also important on another programmatic level. If bridges can be built between the
participants and the community through being a part of the program, then the connection to the
program felt by the participant will also be strong. This is crucial for the program because there
will need to be ongoing monitoring of past participants in order to evaluate the programs overall
success in having an impact on recidivism rates. If the participant leaves the program feeling a
connection to the program, having someone come to visit them will feel less like being checked
up on by a parole officer and more like a concerned family member. Also, the tendency to be
open and ask for help before it is too late will also be stronger than if the person leaves feeling
still like just another statistic being tracked.
Project Structure, Methodology, and Action Components
Project structure
The program structure and start-up have been explored in detail. The basic premise for
the program is that the better prepared an inmate is prior to release, the better able they will be to
make the adjustment to society and not re-offend and return to prison. The idea of making this s
two-stage program was one that seemed to make both financial and practical sense. As there is a
portion of the program that will focus on education and/or vocational training being completed
by the participant, there must be qualified programs for the inmate to have attended. In most
prisons, these programs already exist and are run by accredited and certified technical schools.
Financially, therefore, it would make sense for the proposed program to capitalize off these
programs rather than spend the time and money to create new ones that would most likely be
inferior to those in existence and substantially reduce the potential for success. Seeing as these
Revised Capstone Proposal 21

programs tend to be underused, this format would make practical sense to both programs as it
could also foster an increase in enrollments for the schools and lead to a steady flow of new and
potential participants in the program. As for the second part of the program, it is important that
this is not done in the standardized prison environment. Prisons are designed to dehumanize and
control the inmates in an attempt to punish and curtail unacceptable behaviors. The purpose of
the program is to assist these men in regaining a certain sense of dignity, self-respect, and belief
that they can do better for themselves and their families. To achieve the goals of the program, an
environment that is based on trust, respect, and support would be required, and this could not be
established with the confines of a prison cell block.
When preparing to work with people on any level, the idea of service provision being
done in an appropriate and ethical manner must be taken into consideration, and such is the case
for this proposed program. The general foundation for this program is rooted in the Social Work
12 Grand Challenges, specifically to promote smart decarceration. This being the case, the
program will adapt the NASW Code of Ethics (https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-
of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English), and it’s guiding principles and standards. In the code of ethics,
there are six values identified: service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance
of human relationships, integrity, and competence. For each value, the ethical principle
explained is also explained. An entire paper could be written in addressing how these principles
are important to the program, as they all are, but there are two that speak directly to it and its
overall purpose.
For the value of social justice, the ethical principle is that “social workers challenge
social injustice.” These last three words can be directly applied to the purpose for the proposed
program as it will work with those affected by the current criminal justice system. This is a
Revised Capstone Proposal 22

system that over the past few decades has shown a propensity for incarcerating persons of color
at a much higher rate than their white counterparts (see Appendix D). A system, and society,
that has made it very hard for those individuals to permanently remove themselves from this
system once they have become a part of it. Attempting to change how incarcerated persons are
treated both in and out of prison in accordance with this principle idea.
The second value of “dignity and worth of the person” has an ethical principle stated as
“social workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the person.” This principle will be one
that is vital in the operations of the program. As stated earlier, the program will seek to help the
participants regain their personal sense of dignity and self-worth. This cannot be accomplished
in the individual if it is not practiced and expressed by the professionals working with them. It
will be a key driving force for the everyday contacts and interactions between the staff and the
participants in the program. In prison, respect is a one-way street, but in the program, it will be a
two-way highway leading to growth and success for the participants.
The program will not only operate under the principles of the NASW but the standards of
ethics as well. Standard 1 of the “social workers responsibilities to the clients” will be in effect
on a daily basis and will guide all actions. A copy of this standard with the listing of all 17 of the
sub-standards will be given to each employee upon hire with the intent purpose of them learning
each one and what they mean. It will be a common practice for senior staff to ask staff members
in passing to explain one of these standards and how they follow them. The remaining six
standards will be regularly addressed in structured meetings and in-services provided for the
staff. This will be carried out to ensure the protection of the participants as well as the staff and
outside individuals involved in their care and training.
Revised Capstone Proposal 23

No matter how well these guidelines for service provision are explained and protected,
there will potentially be claims of impropriety made by a participant or some other person who is
involved in the program. It will be the policy of this new program that all such claims will be
fully investigated with as much transparency as is ethically and legally possible while protecting
both the claimant and the accused. If a claim is substantiated, there will be a zero tolerance
policy, and the person responsible for the action will be released from future involvement in the
program. This policy will hold forth for participants, staff, and stakeholders alike.
The initial exploration began with looking at the outer and inner contexts based on an
EPIS (Exploration, Planning, Implementation, and Sustainability) table (see Appendix E). The
process, though simplistic, helped to look at the proposed program from concept stage to
continuing practice. It allowed for some critical thinking in regards to potential concerns for the
program. It also placed a spotlight on two essential areas of the program, funding, and
sustainability. It also opened the door for the need of other planning tools and methods of
program assessment.
As stated earlier, this program would be structured as a dual phase program. The first
phase would be the individuals actual time in prison and what they do with it. Though prison
education programs have been in existence for a while, there has been a low enrollment level for
inmates that could have benefited from such programs (Hill, 2008). These educational services
are provided to try and help inmates live more productive lives upon their release from prison.
Another study found that completion of any form of prison education program resulted in a
significant and substantial reduction in the odds of returning to prison, either on a new charge or
parole violation (Pompoco et al. 2017). The proposed program will not only work with first-time
non-violent offenders, but the other participant criteria will be the completion of some form of
Revised Capstone Proposal 24

education/vocation program while in prison. This will only be waived for an applicant that
entered prison with a high school, or GED, diploma and some legal work history. The Logic
Model for this program accounts for the screening and processing activities that will take place
in the prison facility for identifying program participants. Comprehensive records of every
applicant to the program will be maintained as even those not selected to participate could be
integral in later assessments of the program’s effectiveness.
The second part of the program is when things will begin to look differently from other
prisons and programs. Though the individuals will still be official wards of the state, inmates,
their environment will be changed. Instead of being in cells, they will be in rooms. Instead of
wearing prison uniforms with numbers on them, they will wear their own clothes and be known
by their given names. They will have the freedom to move about as they please and even to
leave the facility, after an initial adjustment period. They will be expected to attend program
groups and self-improvement sessions. In this structure, the prison component of the program
will be more reflective of a German prison than an American one in that it will be more of a
therapeutic relationship between staff and inmate (Chammah, 2015). This part will also be
similar to some pre-existing inmate re-entry assistance programs such as The Fortune Society in
New York but with one very important difference. With The Fortune Society, the person has
been paroled and is now subject to all of the stress of once as well as the barriers that may be
placed in the way of returning the program as expected. They will already be dealing with issues
of employment, housing, and social connectivity or lack thereof. With the proposed program,
the individual will move from inmate to participant status. Residents will reside in the facility
while they are given assistance, emotional and psychological, with dealing with their transition.
Revised Capstone Proposal 25

Their days will be structured in a way to provide groups and services continuously that will focus
on their individual transitional needs (see Appendix I).
The program, unlike The Fortune Society, will also work closely with the surrounding
community and local businesses to establish working relationships at the very least, and business
partnerships at the most. Establishing these linkages will be beneficial to the participants as they
learn to navigate their way through society and find work and housing. It will also work towards
the desensitization process of society towards this population. In addition, it will give them a
feeling of vested interest in the success of the program as they will see the benefits to them. It is
also important to note that for the length of time it has existed, The Fortune Society has not been
able to report any reductive influence upon the rate of recidivism in New York resulting from
their services.
There is one other initial program policy that must be addressed as it resides in the area of
ethical operations of the program. All members that are screened for the program will be given
an informed consent form to sign, even those who may not be selected. They will also be asked
to sign at least one release of information form between the program and the prison. Informed
consent is required before any services can be provided to any client/patient since even persons
not enrolled in the direct services program may be asked to participate in the effectiveness study
to be conducted on the program. These two program-specific forms will be developed as the
program moves towards reality.
Financial
This program would be established as a not-for-profit, 501(c)3. As such, for initial
operating revenues, the program would be reliant upon three general funding sources as
identified on the EPIS. The first would be government grants. For these, the program would be
Revised Capstone Proposal 26

applying to agencies such as the New York Department of Corrections and the National Institute
of Justice. The second funding source would be in the form of organizational grants. Amnesty
International, The Marshall Project, and The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would be the
most likely to head this list of places the program would apply to. The final source would be in
the form of charitable/philanthropic donations. The target initial operating revenue goal for the
first year of operations would be $2.25 million. The overall funding goal would be to get
commitments from the funding sources for three years of funding. The three-year projection will
be explained later in this proposal. The first two funding sources will require the completion of
the appropriate applications, many of which can be found on the associated websites. One such
application with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) is the NIJ-2019-15563 (see Appendix F
for pages 4-6). This application not only details what needs to be presented to be considered for
it initially but also what subsequent documentation must be provided if awarded the grant to
maintain eligibility.
The third form of funding requires a more social endeavor to gather financial support
being sort after. As daunting as this may seem to some, this may be the easiest source of funding
to gather. The nature of society today has been to look at our current criminal justice system and
how it can be reformed. Several celebrities have come to the forefront of this issue and made an
impact. Most notably would be the work done by Ms. K. Kardasian in getting the President of
the United States to grant clemency to Ms. A. M. Johnson, after 22 years in prison for a crime,
she always stated she did not commit (Polus, 2018). The fact that it may have become trendy to
fight for justice on the parts of celebrities could be a benefit to the funding work for this
program.
Revised Capstone Proposal 27

These first-year operation funds may be higher than subsequent budgetary needs for the
program because they will include the one-time purchase of items that would not appear in an
operating budget for at least another five years. These items would include items such as
computers, agency vehicle, office furniture, and equipment. For this reason, the budgetary needs
for the next two years could be considerably lower.
Considering the acquisition of the funding for the program leads to the need for an
outline of the steps that will be taken to start the program once the funding has been secured.
This was done in the production of a Gantt chart (see Appendix G). This chart accounts for the
first sixteen months of the program. This covers not only the initial planning and
implementation of the program but also allows for review, restructuring, and reimplementation.
These last three stages were crucial because it would be folly to assume that a new program
would be perfect from day one. Making allowances for changes from staffing (organizational
chart or personnel) to the basic program is vital in a startup. In fact, the only thing that has to be
right from the start is the location of the program. All other factors in the operations will be
subject to review and corrective actions.
This would also cover the salaries of all paid employees of the program. The staff would
be limited to only two administrative staff, one junior administrator, with the remaining staff
being a line, part-time, consultant, and intern level positions. A detailed Line Budget (see
Appendix H) that explains the overall cost/expenditure structure has been created. This budget
has taken into account most of the known concerns for the program, but it is not final or meant to
be unchanged. Consistent program review and evaluation, including finances, will account for
any required adjustment to the use of funds while also being aware of all areas of potential
misappropriation of funds so as to avoid such illegal actions. As mentioned earlier, this budget
Revised Capstone Proposal 28

accounts for the purchase of one-time items that will be essential to the operations of the
program. It also covers all staff salaries, including benefits and insurance. It will be noted that it
covers a budget manager and an outside accounting and payroll firm as opposed to hiring a Chief
Financial Officer. It was decided that the difference between this salary and the other two would
fund better used in other areas of the program at its early conception stages. This is just the first
year budget, and the proposal will be seeking three year grants to begin to allow for the study
and assessment stages of the program. In order to measure the overall success of the program,
some form of metrics must be established and followed.
Assessment and Barriers
Metrics for the measurement of success for this project will come in several ways. It will
be part of the program to track all participants for up to a five-year time frame after completion
of the program. The tracking will be done by way of ongoing, face-to-face support contacts with
the participants for the first year to two years after they have left the facility. There will also be
continued contact with the parole officers involved in each participant’s case. After the two
years, self-report surveys will be mailed to each participant to continue the tracking process.
This tracking will monitor any and all future contact with the legal system the participant is
involved in for any minor or major crime or offense. This method of tracking will allow the
program to measure the participants on three levels of success, all of which can have an impact
on rates of recidivism. The three measurements will be defined as follows:
1 - contact with any form of criminal justice personnel aside from parole officers (this
means any form of detainment and need to appear before a judge, not being stopped for a
minor traffic violation or for questioning on the street
Revised Capstone Proposal 29

2 – continued and consistent employment (no terminations, any job changes was in order
to obtain a better job whether this is based on salary, benefits, or location) and
3 – maintaining stable housing.
During the success study, there will be a need for a control group, one that was not involved in
the program so here is where having all applicants to the program sign an informed consent form
was important.
At this time, those applicants that fit the criteria but were not accepted – perhaps their
parole date was too close for the program to have had any effect on their outcomes would be
asked to be a part of the ongoing survey/follow-up process. They would be subject to the same
level of scrutiny as a program participant to ensure fairness and equity in the evaluation
processes. Ideally, there should be a third group. This group would consist of former inmates
that completed their sentence but did nothing to better their education or vocational status from
when they first came in prison. Being able to gather data from a group of these individuals
would add an extra level of validity to the overall outcome of the program. This group would
also be held to the same level of standards in the way recidivism would be defined as well as
housing and employment evaluated.
A second measurement metric will be the level of business involvement in the program,
including real estate agencies. The initial goal will be to have five businesses partners that reach
an agreement with the program as potential employers and landlords of the participants. The
ability to gather employment partners will be enhanced by allowing them to offer internships to
those participants that may be less job-ready than others. These potential internships will be
regulated and structured, not unlike a college internship and will require a signed agreement (see
Appendix J). By the end of the first year, the program will be assessed for two possible areas of
Revised Capstone Proposal 30

improvements to register success. The first would be the number of businesses seeking to
become partners to increase by at least two. The second would be for the existing business
partners to be willing to accept more of the new program participants as employees and tenants.
These two factors in conjunction will be a testament to the level of preparedness the participants
gain through the program and their ability to function within the world s both employee and
neighbor.
The last metric will be community acceptance. The program proposal anticipates that
there will be community resistance to this program. The concept of NIMBY (not in my
backyard) has been very strong in many communities today. However, it may not be as
prevalent today as it was, especially in the sense of criminal justice reform activities. But to
address whatever level of it that may arise, the program will rely on the concepts and ideas put
forth in the Logic Model (Appendix A). The program will engage in active community
involvement and keep, as much as is realistically and legally possible, an open door policy with
the community and its leaders. Potential participants will meet with the community board and
share their story so that they will not be seen as criminals but as individuals that made a mistake
and are working on learning from it. Even allowing it to seem as though they have some say in
which participants are selected to the program will help to alleviate some, if not all of the
pushback, if it occurs. Seeing an increased sense of acceptance by the community would register
as a success. Another sign of acceptance of the program will come as the community board
involves itself less in the process of screening program participants and begins to accept anyone
that joins openly.
One factor that could help to influence this stage of the program is the methods used for
communication about the program. People, especially today, use various forms of getting a
Revised Capstone Proposal 31

message across to those they feel need to know. This program will be no different. There will
be a need to communicate with potential and current stakeholders. This communication will be
needed even before the program opens its doors. One such need for communication would be
focused on addressing the concerns of the community members around the NIMBY (not in my
back yard) effect. This has been a knee-jerk reaction in communities for even the most strongly
supported projects designed to help the more disenfranchised populations. Basically it means
that the person supports the program as long as it is done in someone elses neighborhood. In
some areas this has a root in financial concerns such as how will this program impact on property
values in the area. It would be important to provide these individuals with some real time facts,
figures, and number in regards to prisoners and recidivism rates. Informing them of the changes
in these rates when persons coming home from prison are given certain opportunities and treated
more humanely. Making the point that working with these men could actually decrease the
crime rates (recidivism) and make the community safer.
When talking about making changes to improve the lives of convicted criminals, one
might expect to get some negative responses. Even in the world today, where there is so much
focus on the inequalities and injustices in the criminal justice system, there will still be those
who will oppose any new idea, and this proposal will undoubtedly see its share as well. One
might anticipate such resistance coming from the corrections, parole, and private for-profit
prison systems. The key word to address all of these areas is partnerships. The program must
make every effort to establish collegial and not combative relationships with these entities, one
in which they see what is it in for them. It will be the task of the program to convince these
parties that the goal is to partner with them. They should understand that they will have a seat at
Revised Capstone Proposal 32

the table when it comes to all major decisions that affect them directly, including the selection of
the qualified participants in the program.
There will be little expected resistance from potential participants. There are inmates that
are involved in the education/vocation programs in prison already. From these individuals, it is
expected that a pilot group of fifteen would not be difficult to select once they are made aware of
the general perks of becoming a participant of the program. The program would anticipate the
biggest problem might come from those not selected initially. For this reason, they will be
informed that there will be placed on a waiting list to become new participants, and the existing
ones complete the program or the program goes in capacity. These individuals will see what
there is to be gained immediately upon hearing about the program. They all want to get out of
prison, and this program will seem like an early release. This very nature is what will keep the
program in potential and active participants allowing for a continuing flow of participants as long
as the program is effective enough to continue providing its services.
In working with corrections, like-minded individuals, such as the former corrections
officer that was mentioned earlier in this proposal, will be sought. The benefits of working with
the program will have to be discussed with them. In a time when issues like ending cash bail in
order to try and reduce mass incarceration rates, ideas that impact on the prison population are
being more readily accepted. The Department of Corrections may be more willing to work with
this program simply because it will give the impression that the department is being sympathetic
to the needs of the population that are tasked with controlling. A similar approach would have to
be taken with the Division of Parole. It might be helpful to remind Parole of their longstanding
work and partnerships with residential drug treatment programs. Paroled persons with drug
histories have been mandated to these programs for decades. The relationship has proven to be
Revised Capstone Proposal 33

beneficial to both parties. The programs had a continuous flow of residents coming out of prison
while parole had a built-in monitor system for their parolees right down to the monthly drug
screenings. It can be presented to them that this program can function for them in a very similar
manner because the participants will have to continue to be assessed and counseled by the
program for at least two years after their discharge from the program.
It is also projected that one of the biggest challenges will be from for-profit prison
organizations. For them, every person going to, or returning to, the prison could mean dollars in
their pockets. It is easy to accept they would have some reason to create pushback to the
program through some of their substantial supporters as these groups have seen a great deal of
growth. Private prison populations doubled between 2000 and 2010, while housing half of the
country”s immigrant detainees (Cohen, 2015). For them, the approach would have to be a
numbers game. They would have to be convinced that the size and scope of the program as it
stands would pose no real financial threat to their operations.
Another approach to the for-profit prisons would to also seek a partnership with them. It
might be looked at that they could become the prison of choice so to speak for the more hardened
and long-term criminal and the program would work with the identified population which would
be coming out of their system shortly anyway. This way, they would be working less like the
revolving door and more like the fire door that closes and stays closed. This may not be possible
since the idea of a for-profit is to get every dollar available, but it would at least deserve to be
looked at and presented as a potential method of dealing with the resistance.
All of the afore-mentioned opposition possibilities can be some-what eased from the start
of the program if the right type of backing is there from the beginning. This backing would take
the form of strong political and social personalities coming to support the program. To get a
Revised Capstone Proposal 34

name like Oprah Winfrey, for example, to back a program such as this would garner a large
amount of social support from her followers and there are a large number of people who live and
breathe based on what she believes and says. Getting the political backing of someone on the
level of a Barack Obama would carry huge weight in certain corners of the political and
governmental arenas. As such, the strategy for trying to move forward is to seek out the
community and political leaders that will back this proposal and finding a strong public figure, or
several would be a great accomplishment. Some of this will have to be done via social media.
The program will need to establish a campaign that asks for support. In fact, using social media
to connect with certain high profile individuals would be very effective in at least getting that
door opened. Almost all of the A-list personalities have a Facebook account and followers. It
could even be possible to get on their shows with the right approach. Additionally, doing a TED
talk would also be a positive move in getting the word out about what this program is about and
trying to accomplish. Finally, trying to get at least a 30 second sound bite on the radio and on
local news broadcasts would go a long way in promoting the cause as well
Sustainability will be a concern for the program from the start of implementation. It is
for this reason that all initial funding requests will be for a full three years of support. The need
for this will be rooted in the study that will be conducted for at least two full years from the
program anniversary. This study will be crucial to the ongoing nature of the program as it will
either prove or rebuke the program claim the services provided will reduce the recidivism rates
of those in the program down from the norm of 44% of all released prisoners in the first year
after release, and up to 68% within three years (Alper et al., 2018). Being able to prove this
through the ongoing study of program outcomes would lead to enough backing to work at seeing
Revised Capstone Proposal 35

if the program is equally effective in reducing the nine-year recidivism rate of 83% (Alper et al.,
2018).
The program will continue to monitor its success not just in the long run outcomes but
also in the daily activities. Records will be kept to ensure that all groups are run as scheduled
and to track the number of participants. Active participation in the activities provided is a must
in order to verify that it was these interventions that fostered the change. It will also help to
determine if the program is, in fact, appropriate for the current participant population. For
example, running a substance abuse group for a house full of individuals who claim no substance
abuse problem is wasteful of time and also completely unnecessary. Evaluations such as these
will help to keep the program fresh and engaging for the participants. Staff will be evaluated
every six months for performance (the program of them) on satisfaction (them of the program).
A budgetary review meeting will be held monthly to act as a check-and-balance to check that all
funds spent were done out of necessity and on the appropriate slotted items. The evaluations, at
all levels, will be documented and shared with the appropriate information stakeholders as a
means of engagement and transparency by the program. In the case of the funding sources, such
as the National Institute of Justice, these evaluations will be compiled into one quarterly report
and made available to them. This report will also be discussed with a request for improvement
plans when required, thereby engaging the entire staff in the process of regulating the program.
Socially relevant parts of the report will also be made public by posting them on the program
website so that anyone in the community that is interested can be aware of the growth and
successes of the program they have worked so hard to support.
Conclusions, Actions, & Implications
Revised Capstone Proposal 36

A lot has been covered in this proposal detailing a humane smart decarceration approach
to the issue of mass incarceration. Where the roots of the problem lie and what has gone into
creating the issue have been examined. The thought of how society responds to this
disenfranchised population and how this impacts on their ability to thrive once they are given the
opportunity to return to that same society was presented to the reader. A way to address this
need and to incorporate this program into an in-depth study on recidivism was a part of this
proposal. The need for a program such as this is supported by the existence of government
grants such as the one accompanying this proposal (see Appendix F) focusing on addressing
prison re-entry programs. But in reality, this all leads up to some final questions. What does all
of this mean now and in the long run? Are there any risks or limitations that could impact on the
success of this program that has not been confronted in this proposal? Where would the program
go, if successful, in the future? This last section will try to answer these questions.
In its current imaginings, this program would directly address the issue of recidivism
among a specific targeted prison population, first-time non-violent offenders. As this group
could be presented as the least threatening to modern society, it could be a much easier sell to get
this program running. Once it is running, this process would provide returning individuals that
are ready to be productive members of society as opposed to being a burden on it. In fact, they
will have already proven to be solid community-minded citizens. They will have shown the
ability to maintain a job and a secure household. They would not be coming out of prison and
seeking forms of public assistance such as Medicaid and food stamps. They would no longer be
a spending source for tax dollars but active contributors to them. One undeniable fact would also
be that if these men can come out and be self-efficient in this society, then they will pose no form
of potential threat to the safety of said society.
Revised Capstone Proposal 37

The program, in the prisons, should also have a positive impact on the vocational and
education programs running in them. This potential has some validity because as it stands, most
of these programs are underused by those that need them the most as most inmates do not see
what is in it for them. However, should there be some form of incentive for inmates to enroll in
these programs, such as potential participation in a program that could be viewed as a form of
early release from the prison by them, interest in enrolling in a school or tech program would
become more attractive. Of course, all of them would not get into such a program but if they get
a diploma in prison could improve on their ability to survive when they return to society and also
reduce the rates of recidivism.
This process would also benefit the potential employers of these men who now may have
a new outlook on life. They would be hiring men that previously thought they would have no
chance of doing anything except re-offending and ending up back in prison, as has been the usual
pattern. Now, however, they are working at a job for a boss that sees them not as a potential
liability that needs to be watched closely, but as a valued and trusted employee. This could lead
to feelings of gratitude and loyalty to the agency by this young man that is unmatched by any of
the other employees.
There would have to be some sustainability established for the program just to fulfill the
needs of the grant to be applied for. That is, there will be a research component that will cover at
least two years after a participant leaves the program. This portion will also follow the progress
and outcomes of other individuals leaving prison that did not get into the program, some that did
engage in prison activities that are purported to increase their employment marketability, and
some who did not. These two groups will serve as comparison factors to prove that the program
Revised Capstone Proposal 38

has been effective in all of its initial claims. Success in these areas will open the door for where
the program would be able to go as next steps.
This proposed program is directed at young men only for its start-up phases. With the
success of the program, it should be able to expand and open a facility the will cater to female
inmates that fit the same criminal classification of first-time non-violent offenders. This step
would be a major move in proving the effectiveness of the program. Whereas men and women
can suffer the same afflictions of circumstance, the overall impact may not be the same for both.
For example, parenting skills are something that is slated to be a part of the process in this
program. It may garner the attention of maybe 25% of the men in the program who are fathers,
or at least plan on being a part of their children's lives. For women, that percentage could
conceivably go up to 75%, and this is just one example of potential differences. If the program’s
proven results with men can be duplicated with women, the intervention could be seen, from a
statistically data-driven standpoint, as both valid and reliable.
This would only be the first step in expanding the program. The next would be to try to
work with individuals, both male and female, who are incarcerated for crimes with a higher level
of community perceived threat factor. This higher threat level participant could be the group of
repeat non-violent offenders or even first-time offenders with minor assault charges. In essence,
the program would aim to gradually work its way up the criminal ladder to encompass as many
types of offenders as could potentially benefit from it without posing a threat to the participants,
stakeholder, and staff at the facilities.
In an ideal world, this program would be able to become a reality without any additional
complications, but as this is not such a world, so said complications must be accounted for. This
next section of the paper will attempt to do just that. The first such problem, what has been
Revised Capstone Proposal 39

called the root of all evil, would be money. A proposed budget has been developed for the
program, but as it’s a creator is by no means a financial professional, there may be some
miscalculations. If this is so, then there could be some drastic results. If, for example, the
proposed budget is reached, but it proves not to be sufficient to do all that is required, this
program could be doomed to failure before it even gets started. On the other side of the coin, as
a non-profit organization, a budget that is too high, and results in excess in surplus funds at the
end of the operating year, could bring the program under intense scrutiny by stakeholders and
funders alike. To try and address such issues as they arise the program will enlist the services of
an accounting/payroll firm and a Budget Officer, listed on the line budget (see Appendix H), to
work cooperatively to ensure neither of these two conditions materializes.
There is another risk that is far more daunting should it become a reality. The second
part of the program is centered around a separate, stand-alone facility. The problem is that the
targeted population will be prison inmates that have not yet been granted parole. The legal
system, as it exists, may find it difficult to allow this individual to live in an environment that is
not completely under the control of the Department of Corrections (DOC). The Division of
Parole may also object to individuals being released from prison who have not been granted such
privileges by them through their process of evaluation and approval. Some additional arguments
against the program design could be based on not just legal but ethical grounds as well. One
such argument could be whether or not it is ethical to place the care and protection of criminals
in the hands of the social workers and human service professionals who are technically
untrained, in the eyes of the state, to deal with the prison population. Another could be based on
the same premise but focus on these individuals being in the community without proper
supervision.
Revised Capstone Proposal 40

The writer of this proposal could see these as valid points of contention should they be
presented. An alternative plan to address these concerns has been considered and is in the early
formative stages. For this plan to be feasible, a prison that can meet a very specific qualification
would be identified as the target prison. There are some prisons that are made up of several
separate buildings that serve a different purpose. Riker’s Island is one such facility, though it is,
in fact, a jail and not a prison. This structured environment would constitute the ideal alternative
to the program as it is proposed herein. The plan would be to work with the prison authorities to
have one of the buildings, perhaps a decommissioned one if it exists, repurposed to serve as the
stand-alone facility.
If this can be done, the proposed environment such as rooms instead of cells and regular
clothes instead of prison uniforms, for the participants could still be created within the facility,
but they would still be on the prison grounds. Prison guards, though not located within the
facility at all times, would be able to make regular rounds through the facility as long as they do
not interfere with the operations of the program. This setup, where it would satisfy potential
concerns for the legal and prison communities, it would create some problems for the process of
integrating the participants with the community and the other stakeholders. For example, an
employer may not want to come to visit a program and participate in activities held there, if that
program is located on prison grounds. This anxiety could be addressed by creating a separate
entrance and exit system for the program, but this again may create contention from the DOC.
This barrier, however, could be lessened depending on the general location of the prison that
does become the partner with the program. It may be easier to get some concessions and
partnerships from a DOC in a smaller area in New York, like in Westchester County, than in
Manhattan or the Bronx. It is possible though that such a partnership could lead to some
Revised Capstone Proposal 41

leniency and compromise on the part of the Department of Corrections and parole boards for that
particular county or region.
This concept of leniency, if reached, would be ideal in regards to future target goals for
the program in regards to the participants. The participants that would be in the program would
still be expected to go in front of a parole board to argue their case as to why they deserve to be
paroled. In fact, that step would have to be taken, and parole granted before the participant is
allowed to seek housing. The goal for the program would be to eventually negate the process of
the parole board and have the participants be granted parole immediately upon completion of the
program. This is a lofty goal, but it would be one that would increase the programs overall
credibility.
Understanding the potential successes and pitfalls for the program allows the proposer to
consider the next steps in moving this project forward. These steps will have to be arranged as
many meetings as possible with the powers that will have an influence in the approval of this
project. These meetings will not solely be with political and community leaders. Naturally, a
good number of them will be, but the area of reach for this program must go beyond this circle.
The program must be presented to people of notoriety and prestige within society in general.
The Feed, the Children movement of the past, did not get a politician as their spokesperson.
Rather they got Sally Struthers who reached her level of notoriety from a popular, and now
classic, TV show. Possibly applying to do a TEDtalk to present this project to other
professionals in the field of social and prison reform. Writing an article that addresses the need
for change in the system and also brings the concepts of this program to the forefront could be
yet one more use of the current media possibilities. Making effective uses of other everyday
social media tools like blogs, vlogs, and Facebook would be ways to get the message out to the
Revised Capstone Proposal 42

younger, and in some cases, more activist members of the community. Individuals that are
looking for another just cause to get behind and help push through the opposition. Finally, one
additional thing that needs to happen in the next steps is to create a website that will promote this
program, which would possibly include applying for a copyright to the name One-Time-Only
Program. The need for this program exists, and the idea for it has been developed. Now, what
is called for is to build it.

Revised Capstone Proposal 43

Appendix A: Logic Model

Capstone: Smart Decarceration – Reduce Recidivism in First Time Non-Violent Offenders
INPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS OUTCOMES IMPACT
Physical/Functional:
Facility to house up
to twenty participants
and provide office
space for staff
Purchase furniture,
computers,
maintenance supplies,
cable, food, kitchen
supplies, phones
(office and cellular),
TV’s, an agency
vehicle, utilities, and
miscellaneous
support services

Operational (staff):
Case managers (3),
senior case
manager/counselor
(1), clinical director,
budget officer,
human resources
officer, executive
director, housing
specialist, cooks,
security, and SW
interns

Prison-based:
Program promotion
and application
processing
Participant screenings
Educational and
vocational training

Program-based:
Adult Daily Living
skills training
Parenting skills
training
Various types of
counseling provided
in both group and
individual session
formats including –
Substance abuse
Anger management
Relationships
Readjustment
Job Readiness
training
Job search assistance
Housing search
assistance
Community support
services

Community-based:
Participant home
visits
Family-focused
support groups
Engagement in
community services
by participants

Prison-based:
25 applications
processed per month.
10 potential
participant screenings
per month
Educational and
vocational ran daily
for at least 20 inmates
each per day

Program-based:
12 ADL training
sessions per month.
Three 12-week
parenting skills
training per year
4 group counseling
sessions per week.
20 individual
counseling sessions
per week
2 job readiness
training sessions per
week
Daily job search
assistance provided
Housing applications
filled as needed
2 housing search
assistance sessions
per week
Community support
services – NA
meetings, or
community board
meetings, open
houses

Community-based:
Two home visits per
month to each
participant that
reaches the
independent living
status
Participants:
A higher level of self-
esteem and self-worth
Increased
marketability
Increased level of
personal functioning
and ability to self-
care
Ability to maintain
their own housing
and tend to personal
needs
Improved
relationship with
family and significant
others
Reduced need and
desire to return to
criminal acts to
provide for their need

Prison:
Reduced number of
hostile acts by
inmates seeking
participation in the
program

Community:
Community members
will feel less
threatened by the
participants.
Increased acceptance
by the community.
More businesses
become willing to
engage in the
program

Participants:
There is a reduction
in the rate of
recidivism
There is an increase
in both employment
longevity and
housing stability

Prison:
There is an increase
in the sense of safety
within the prison for
both inmates and
officers

Community:
The feeling of public
safety is increased,
and the fear of
returning inmates by
those in the
community sees a
reduction
More businesses seek
to become active
sponsors of the
program
Reduction in phobic
reaction to former
inmates

Revised Capstone Proposal 44

1 family support
group per week
provided
Two community
service activities each
month

Appendix B: List of Costs Borne by Families, Children, and Communities

Cost $ (Billions)
Criminogenic nature of prison 285.8
Increased criminality of children of incarcerated parents 130.6
Children’s education level and subsequent wages as an adult 30.0
Marginal excess burden 17.8
Divorce 17.7
Decreased property values 11.0
Adverse health effects 10.2
Reduced marriage 9.0
Child welfare 5.3
Interest on criminal justice debt 5.0
Reentry programs, nonprofits, movement to end mass incarceration 2.9
Homelessness of formerly incarcerated persons 2.2
Infant mortality 1.2
Children rendered homeless by parental incarceration 0.9
Visitation costs 0.8
Moving costs 0.5
Eviction costs 0.2
Total 531.0

Revised Capstone Proposal 45

Appendix C: AVATAR PROJECTION OF IDEAL SELF

Appendix D: Imprisonment Statistics Table

Revised Capstone Proposal 46

Appendix E: EPIS Table
Exploration Preparation Implementation Sustainment

Outer context:
Identifying funding
sources
Political environment
Dept. of Corrections
facility location
Prison education
programs
The social response
to the concept
Community support
or resistance

Inner context:
Facility requirements
Leadership needs
Staffing needs
Potential participant
requirements

Outer context:
Applying for grant
funding:
Federal
Organizational
Donation fundraising
activities
Prison arrangements
for staff
Community/state
board meetings
Business partnership
negotiations
Communications
arrangements

Inner context:
Identification of
possible facility
Leadership selections
Staff identification
and hiring
Participant selection
processes
Communications
arrangements

Outer context:
Spending reports for
funders
Engagement on
community boards
and activities
Adherence to prison
and education
program policies
Arrange businesses to
meet participants as
potential employees

Inner context:
Facility acquisition
Disbursement of
funds as specified
Hire and promote
employee
engagement in the
program
Address developing
participant needs

Outer context:
Continue existing
funding processes
Seek new sources of
funding
Look to improve and
increase business
partnerships
Establish better
community
relationships and
support
Proof of success

Inner context:
Encourage staff
improvement and
growth
Track and report on
program success
Increase the number
of active participants
in the program

Revised Capstone Proposal 47

Appendix F: NIJ-2019-15563 Grant Application Pages 4-6
Research and Evaluation on Promising Reentry Initiatives
(CFDA no. 16.560)
A. Program Description
Overview
With this solicitation, NIJ seeks to build knowledge on best practices in offender reentry
initiatives. Specifically, NIJ requests proposals for rigorous research to examine reentry
initiatives that incorporate promising practices, strategies, or programs. For this solicitation, NIJ
is interested in supporting evaluations of innovative reentry initiatives that focus on juveniles,
young adults (aged 18-24), and adults with a moderate-to-high risk of reoffending. A particular
focus on the risk of reoffending with a violent crime is encouraged. These initiatives may be
applicable to juvenile residential facilities, institutional and/or community corrections.
The primary goal of this solicitation is to sort the rigorous examination of innovative reentry
initiatives, including those in rural communities. Proposals that seek to evaluate reentry
initiatives funded by the Second Chance Act or other reentry initiatives will be considered.
Preference in award decisions will be given to applications that propose to use a randomized
controlled trial (RCT).
This research supports the U.S. Department of Justice priorities to reduce violent crime and to
protect police and other public safety personnel by reducing recidivism and giving individuals
tools to be law-abiding, productive members of society.
Applications proposing research involving partnerships with criminal justice or other agencies,
are to include a strong letter of support, signed by an appropriate decision-making authority from
each proposed partnering agency. A letter of support must include the partnering agency’s
acknowledgment that de-identified data provided through this project will be archived by the
awardee in the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD) at the conclusion of the
award (please see Goals, Objectives and Expected Scholarly Products section
below). If selected for the award, applicants will be expected to have a formal agreement in place
with partnering agencies by January 1, 2020. That agreement must include provisions to meet the
data archiving requirements of the award. In rare circumstances —for example, where the law
prohibits the archiving of agency data — NIJ may agree to a successful applicant creating and
archiving an appropriate synthetic dataset. Those circumstances will be rare, decided by NIJ on a
case-by-case basis, and will require extensive documentation and justification for exceptions to
be made.
Statutory Authority: Any awards under this solicitation would be made under statutory authority
provided by a full-year appropriations act for FY 2019. As of the writing of this solicitation, the
Department of Justice is operating under a short-term “Continuing Resolution”’ no full-year
appropriation for the Department has been enacted for FY 2019.
Program-Specific Information
A recently released (2018), nine-year study of recidivism for 401 ,288 state prisoners that were
released in 2005 found that 83.4 percent were rearrested within nine years post-release! Offender
reentry is an often difficult process to navigate, specifically understanding the types of programs
and services that work to encourage cessation of criminal behavior. Offender reentry initiatives
Revised Capstone Proposal 48

provide one or many types of services, skills training, or therapeutic interventions designed to
promote prosocial behavior, reductions in recidivism, and the offenders’ successful reintegration
into the community from jail or prison. Given the potential public safety and fiscal implications
of an offender’s successful reentry into society, it is critical for correctional stakeholders to know
which reentry initiatives are the most efficacious. This solicitation is intended to support research
to provide knowledge on offender reentry, building on prior research, funded in part by N\J.
Proposals should include process, outcome/impact, and cost studies. Successful applicants will
examine outcomes related to reductions in recidivism
3
and delinquency or criminal behavior, and
related reentry outcomes (e.g., housing stability, employment, demonstrating academic
engagement, participation in structured activities). For an initiative to be considered for
evaluation under this solicitation, one of its overall goals must be recidivism reduction.
Preference in award decisions will be given to research proposals that adhere to the principles
underlying RCT designs, including the implementation of random assignment. Importantly, there
should be discernible and significant differences between the control and treatment groups, e.g.,
the control group can receive no services or the common business practices for the site
participating in the evaluation.
Applicants should provide a compelling justification that the reentry initiative is suitable for
evaluation and that the practices, strategies, or programs associated with it are promising.
Evidence supporting the selected reentry strategy, practice, or program should meet at least one
of the following criteria:
Referenced in NW’s web-based clearinghouse of programs and practices, Crime solutions-qov,
as promising or effective;
Cited in the empirical literature on offender reentry;
Funded by a federal agency, including but not limited to, the Bureau of Justice
Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention; or
Implemented abroad and logically applied to U.S. offender populations.
NIJ will consider single- and multi-site evaluations of reentry interventions. In both instances, a
large enough sample that provides sufficient statistical power to detect true differences between
the treatment and control groups, and the generation of generalizable knowledge about the
offender

Aper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-Year
Follow-up Period (2005-2014). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
For the purposes of this solicitation, NIJ encourages applicants to define recidivism as rearrest,
reconviction, and reincarceration. Specific to rearrest, NIJ encourages the collection of technical
violation and new crime data. These outcomes measures should be collected for at least 36-
months. Additionally, successful applicants will be expected to produce a report detailing interim
study results that would include, but not be limited to, 1 -year post-release rearrest rates.
Reentry is imperative. If a multisite evaluation is proposed, applicants should submit research
designs that include both pooled and site-specific outcome analyses. Applicants should also
account for any program deviations in the outcome analysis. All applicants should document, via
letters of support or Memoranda of Understanding, that they have established a collaborative
relationship with the participating site(s) and all relevant agencies to facilitate the acquisition of
data required to support the proposed research or evaluation effort.
Successful applicants should expect to meet regularly with NIJ staff — either in-person or by
phone — and provide regular updates of evaluation progress, in addition to standard reporting
Revised Capstone Proposal 49

requirements. These updates (frequency to be determined by NIJ staff in consultation with the
successful applicant) may include information on programmatic services delivered, fidelity
measures, current sample enrollment, and evaluation activities.
In their proposals, applicants are encouraged to envision how these initiatives can be expanded
or implemented in different jurisdictions or programmatic settings in order to build on the
knowledge base of what works in reentry. Applicants may also consider how the core logic
model of a reentry intervention could be adapted to varied programmatic conditions and
objectives to meet different needs.
RCT Evaluation Considerations
Applicants are strongly encouraged to include the following information in the Program
Narrative of their application:
A description of the reentry intervention program model with fidelity benchmarks of
implementation activities. Applicants should describe likely model adaptions that may be needed
at proposed evaluation sites. A discussion of how these adaptations may impact model fidelity
should be included. If a multisite evaluation is proposed, applicants should indicate how
consistent implementation fidelity will be achieved.
An explanation of the theory of change behind the model activities. Applicants should clearly
describe how proposed project activities contribute to the expected outcomes, such as reducing
recidivism. The narrative should clearly identify the data to be collected, or that is available to
measure both activities and outcomes.
The logic model of the evaluation. The logic model should include the randomization plan that
will outline how the participants will be identified and randomized into either the treatment
group(s) or control group(s). The randomization plan should also give an estimate of the rate of
enrollment, if the evaluation will rely on stock or flow enrollment (or a combination of both),
and when the applicant anticipates that the target sample size(s) will be reached, The study
should use an intent-to-treat design when analyzing differences between the treatment and
control groups. Finally, the applicant should identify what reentry services, if any, the control
group(s) participants will receive.
A power analysis. Applicants should connect the power analysis to anticipated effect sizes
necessary to detect a difference in the treatment and control groups based on the services the
control group will receive. If a multisite evaluation is proposed, applicants should include pooled
and site-specific calculations in their power analysis.
A discussion of likely sources of contamination in the evaluation design and how the applicant
proposes to mitigate contamination.

Revised Capstone Proposal 50

Revised Capstone Proposal 51

Appendix G: Gantt Chart

Appendix H: Line Budget
PROJECTED FIRST YEAR BUDGET

REVENUE
Government grants $1.00 M
Foundation grants $0.75 M
Charitable donations $0.50 M
---------
$2.25 M

EXPENSES
Staffing
Executive Director $115 K
Budget Officer $95 K
Human Resources Officer $95 K
Accounting & Payroll services $25 K
Clinical Director $90 K
Senior Counselor (1) $70 K
Case Manager (3) $150 K
Task Name
Q1 2019 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2020 Q5 2020
Sep
‘19
Oct
‘19
Nov
‘19
Dec
‘19
Jan
‘20
Feb
‘20
Mar
‘20
Apr
‘20
May
‘20
Jun
‘20
Jul
‘20
Aug
‘20
Sep
‘20
Oct
‘20
Nov
‘20
Dec
‘20
Planning
Research
Design
Implementation
Operation
Follow up
Review
Restructure
Revised Capstone Proposal 52

Housing Specialist (P/T) $20 K
Cooks (2 – P/T) $30 K
Security $150 K
---------
Subtotal $840 K
Benefits (30%+ of salaries) $260 K
----------
Staffing total $1.1 M

Operations
Facility (rent $50K/mo) $600 K
Furniture $325 K
Utilities ($1K/mo) $12 K
Agency vehicle (minivan) $35 K
Electronics $50 K (1-television, 15-computers, software)
Cable service $4 K (television, internet and phone)
Communications equipment $10 K (15-office phones, 5-cell phones)
Office supplies $15 K
Maintenance supplies $5 K
Food $15 K
Miscellaneous support $25 K
Training supplies $4 K
Legal services $30 K
Insurance $20 K
---------
Operations total $1.15 M

Expenses total $2.25 M

Surplus/Deficit $0 M

Appendix I: Program Weekly Schedule
WEEKLY ACTIVITY SCHEDULE

TIME MON TUE WED THU FRI
9:00am

Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast Breakfast
10:00am

Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Revised Capstone Proposal 53

11:00am

Active Job
Housing
Search
Active Job
Housing
Search
Active Job
Housing
Search
Active Job
Housing
Search
Active Job
Housing
Search
12:00pm

Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch
1:00pm

Active Job
Housing
Search

Anger
Management
Active Job
Housing
Search

Housing
Search

Parenting
Skills
2:00pm

Job
Readiness
Group
1:00 – 2:30
Conflict
Resolution
Group
1:00 – 2:30
Group
1:00 – 2:30
3:00pm

Group
2:00 – 3:30

Family
Group
2:00 – 3:30

Relationships
Active Job
Housing
Search
4:00pm

ADL Skills
Nutrition
Visits
3:00 – 5:00
ADL Skills
Shopping
Group
3:00 – 4:30
ADL Skills
Cooking
5:00pm

Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
Individual
Counseling
6:00pm

Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner
7:00pm

Substance
Abuse

Housing
Search

Family

Job
Readiness
Free-time
Recreation
8:00pm

Group
7:00 – 8:30
Group
7:00 – 8:30
Visits
7:00 – 9:00
Group
7:00 – 8:30
Free-time
Recreation
9:00pm

Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
10:00pm

Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
Free-time
Recreation
11:00pm

Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out Lights Out

Revised Capstone Proposal 54

Appendix J: Internship Agreement
ONE-TIME-ONLY PROGRAM
INTERNSHIP AGREEMENT

PARTICIPANT NAME:

INTERNSHIP SITE/ COMPANY NAME:
INTERNSHIP SITE ADDRESS:

COMPANY WEBSITE:

INTERN POSITION TITLE: Intern

INTERN’S WEEKLY SCHEDULE:

START DATE: END DATE:

DESCRIPTION OF INTERN’S DUTIES (provide separate page if necessary):

SITE SUPERVISOR’S NAME & TITLE:

SUPERVISOR’S TELEPHONE #: SUPERVISOR’S FAX #:

SUPERVISOR’S EMAIL:

This form is an agreement between the internship site, the OTO program, and the program participant.
Termination of this agreement and its terms are subject to review and acceptance of cosponsors.

Whereas, the internship site agrees to:
 Provide training experience for the participant
 Signed weekly timesheets provided by the participant to be returned to the program
 Report any inappropriate behaviors or interactions immediately to the program
 Upon completion of internship hours, submit an evaluation with employment recommendations for the
participant

Whereas, the participant agrees to:
 Complete the internship requirement of eight weeks or a minimum of 280 work hours
 Adhere to all policies and regulations of both the program and internship site including ethical behavior,
professionalism, and fraternization
 Report any change in status immediately to the program counselor and site supervisor

Whereas, the program agrees to:
 Provide support and assistance to the site supervisor whenever requested
 Make periodic site visits

We, the undersigned, agree to comply with the conditions set forth in this agreement.

_________________________________ __________ ______________________________ ____________
Internship Site Supervisor’s Signature Date Participant’s Signature Date

___________________________________________ ________________
OTO Program Director’s Signature Date

*Employers must provide an “Employment Letter” on company letterhead for paid internships,
including the student’s internship title, duties, and salary.
Revised Capstone Proposal 55

References
Alkon, C (2015). An overlooked key to reversing mass incarceration: Reforming the law to
reduce prosecutorial power in plea bargaining. U. Md. LJ Race, Religion, Gender & Class, 15,
191.

Alper, M., Durose, M. R., & Markman, J. (2018). 2018 Update on Prisoner Recidivism: A 9-
Year Follow-up Period (2005-2014). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs,
Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Chammah, M. (2015). German prisons are kinder, gentler, and safer than the ones in America.
Vice/The Marshall Project

Cislaghi, B., Denny, E. K., Cissé, M., Gueye, P., Shrestha, B., Shrestha, P. N., ... & Clark, C. J.
(2019). Changing Social Norms: the Importance of “Organized Diffusion” for Scaling Up
Community Health Promotion and Women Empowerment Interventions. Prevention Science, 1-
11

Cohen, M. (2015). How for-profit prisons have become the biggest lobby no one is talking about.
Washington Post, 28.

Corasaniti, N. (2017). Riker's island commission unveils plan to shut down jail complex. The
New York Times.

Covert, B. (2017). America is waking up to the injustice of cash bail. The National

Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30
states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Office
of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Farley, H., & Pike, A. (2016). Engaging prisoners in education: reducing risk and
recidivism. Advancing Corrections: Journal of the International Corrections and Prisons
Association, 1, 65-73.

Foderaro. L. W. (2018). New York state may move to close Rikers ahead of city’s 10-year
timeline. The New York Times

Graham, K. (2014). Overcharging. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 11(1), 7-13.

Hill, E. (2008). From cellblocks to classrooms: Reforming inmate education to improve public
safety. Retrieved from California Legislative Analyst’s Office website: http://www. law. ca.
gov/laoapp/PubDetails. aspx.

Lartley, J. (2018). New York City to end cash bail for non-felony cases in win for reform
advocates. The Guardian

Revised Capstone Proposal 56

Mann, B. (2013). The drugs laws that changed how we punish. NPR

McMahon, J. (2019). New York ends cash bail for most: what it means for people charged with
a crime. Central NY News

Mohammed, H., & Mohamed, W. A. W. (2015). Reducing recidivism rates through vocational
education and training. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 204, 272-276.

Moore, K. E., Stuewig, J. B., Tangney, J. P. (2016). The effect of stigma on criminal offenders’
functioning: a longitudinal mediational model. HHS Public Access

Pettus-Davis, C., & Epperson, M. W., (2015). From mass incarceration to smart decarceration
(Grand Challenges for Social Work Initiative working paper No. 4). Cleveland, OH: American
Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare.

Pettus-Davis, C., & Epperson, M. W., (2015). Smart Decarceration: Guiding Concepts for an
Era of Criminal Justice Transformation.

Pettus-Davis, C., Brown, D., Veeh, C., and Renn, T., 2016. The economic burden of
incarceration in the US.

Plous, S. (2018). Kim Kardashian fought for a woman to be freed from jail. The Washington
Post

Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing inmate
misconduct and prison returns with facility education programs. Criminology & Public
Policy, 16(2), 515-547.

Rakoff, J. S. (2014). Why innocent people plead guilty. The New York Review of Books, 20.

Romo, V. (2018). California becomes the first state to end cash bail after a 40-year fight. The
Not-for-Profit Press

Sterbenz, C. (2014). Why Norway’s prison system is so successful. Business Insider, 11.

Subramanian, R., & Shames, A. (2013). Sentencing and prison practices in Germany and The
Netherlands. Center on Sentencing and Corrections. Vera Institute of Justice.

Toobin, J. (2015). The Milwaukee experiment. The New Yorker

Travis, J., Western, B., & Redburn, F. S (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United
States: Exploring causes and consequences.

Western, B., Braga, A. A., Davis, J., & Sirois, C. (2015). Stress and hardship after
prison. American Journal of Sociology, 120(5), 1512-1547.

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Mass incarceration has become a problem in America over the last five decades. The situation has reached a point that there are several movements focused on making needed changes to the criminal justice system. The decision to close Rikers Island in New York is one such movement. This decision was driven by the reports of maltreatment of the inmates which was highlighted with the Kalief Browder incident. Another that has a countrywide impact is the ending cash bail for people charged with minor crimes in states like California and New York. The need for change in the number of people held in prison has been taken up by the National Association of Social Workers in its 12 Grand Challenges of Social Work by creating one challenge for the promotion of smart decarceration. This paper will propose a program that is designed as a response to this grand challenge. ❧ The whole idea of smart decarceration is to establish systems in which persons are being released from prison in a more effective and safe manner. This refers to the individual as well as public safety. The major threat factor to both of these parties is recidivism. In recidivism, the person experiences a return to the maladaptive behavior, and in this case, to criminal activities that will result in the person being sent back to prison. As for the public safety issue, for there to be a crime committed, there must be some form of the victim, be it a person or an object. This new victimization creates new threats to public safety. ❧ This paper proposes a program that will focus on reducing recidivism in a specific male prison population. The program will operate from the theory that changing the outcomes for these individuals is possible by creating positive changes for their future and then giving them the tools to initiate those changes. This positive change will also be facilitated by an equally positive change in how the immediate society views this population and the way they are subsequently treated. There is a stigma in this country associated with the criminal populations. The thinking norm of “once a criminal, always a criminal” permeates the very fabric of this country and has for a long time. Prison has become a place of punishment and not a center for rehabilitation. When prisoners come out, they are still treated as less than second class citizens

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The Nonviolent Communication Program (NVC): the innovative step to combat prison violence

PDF

Grand challenge: promote smart decarceration multidisciplinary collaborative database

PDF

The Behavior Correction Unit (BCU)

PDF

Empower Faith: equipping faith communities for effective engagement & compassionate reentry support

PDF

Employed! A supported reentry program

PDF

Rethink Homelessness project

PDF

The Senior Social Isolation Project (SSIP): a comprehensive response to a growing aging population

PDF

Stopping the school to prison pipeline: a restorative intervention for educators

PDF

Second chance or second class: creating pathways to employment for individuals with criminal records

PDF

From “soul calling” to calling a therapist: meeting the mental health needs of Hmong youth through the integration of spiritual healing, culturally responsive practice and technology

PDF

Homeless female veterans—silent epidemic

PDF

Acculturation team-based clinical program: pilot program to address acculturative stress and mental health in the Latino community

PDF

Promoting smart decarceration: mitigating racial bias as a strategy for addressing disproportionate minority contact and confinement (DMC)

PDF

Kids Cope Primary Prevention Services: evidence-based practices for supporting children impacted by parental incarceration

PDF

The Hand to Home Project

PDF

New Path Mentoring: a step toward better serving at-risk community college students

PDF

Social emotional learning the future of education

PDF

Warrior tribe: veteran utilization of aquaponics to fight loneliness

Promoting emotional intelligence and resiliency in youth: S.U.P.E.R. peer counseling program ©

PDF

Climate work is social work: addressing environmental justice to facilitate achievement of the Grand Challenges for social work

Asset Metadata

Creator Faison, Everett M. (author)

Core Title One-Time-Only Program: smart decarceration response to mass incarceration

School Suzanne Dworak-Peck School of Social Work

Degree Doctor of Social Work

Degree Program Social Work

Publication Date 09/04/2019

Defense Date 07/26/2019

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag first-time,mass incarceration,non-violent,OAI-PMH Harvest,offenders,recidivism,smart decarceration

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Knoepke, Christopher (committee member)

Creator Email faison751@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-217614

Unique identifier UC11674231

Identifier etd-FaisonEver-7809.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-217614 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-FaisonEver-7809.pdf

Dmrecord 217614

Document Type Capstone project

Rights Faison, Everett M.

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the a...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA