Vocational rehabilitation services for an offender population.

Crime and criminal behavior have increased significantly in the last 20 years. The number of adults incarcerated in federal and state facilities in 1970 was 196,429; in 1980 was 315,974; in 1988 was 581,609; and as of December of 1991 there were 751,806 inmates in state facilities; 71,608 in federal facilities; and 422,609 in local, city, and county facilities (National Update, 1992). According to Curry, Posluszny and Kraska (1993), the percentage of juveniles incarcerated parallels that of adult inmates. Additionally, the authors reported a trend of incarcerating youth under age 18, who have committed serious crimes, with adults. There is also a significant increase in the number of females incarcerated, and there are twice as many persons on probation and parole than are incarcerated.

A large number of incarcerated and adjudicated offenders with disabilities who are in need of rehabilitation services are not receiving such services. According to McDaniel (1992), a significant portion of inmates have disabilities, need services, and are being overlooked. Curry et al., (1993) further asserted that human service agencies must provide services to individuals with disabilities who are a part of the offender population. It is estimated that 28% of incarcerated juveniles have disabilities, and 10% of adults in state facilities (Rutherford, Nelson, & Wolford, 1985). Incarcerated individuals with disabilities such as mental retardation, learning disabilities, chemical dependency, mental illness, and various physical disabilities are integrated into the regular prison population with little to no accommodations for their disability (McDaniel, 1992). As a result of not receiving services to address their needs, the offender population is not adqueately prepared to transition into post-incarceration environments, and often experience the "revolving door effect" in which they are simply released to make room for other offenders (McDaniel, 1992). McDaniel (1992) concluded that there is a correlation between this revolving door effect and the recidivism rate among the offender population in general, which is between 45 and 60%.

While inmates are incarcerated for a variety of offenses, there is a cluster of characteristics specific to them. Overwhelmingly, incarcerated offenders have a low level of educational attainment, lack vocational skills, exhibit higher than average rates of unemployment, have mild mental retardation or learning disabilities, have alcohol and drag dependence, and some form of serious emotional disturbance (Curry et at., 1993; McDaniel, 1992; Montgomery & Johnson, 1990). Without appropriate rehabilitation services, incarcerated offenders will continue to be unprepared for community transition, competitive employment, and effective utilization of other support services. Research indicates that offenders are "socially disabled" (i.e. difficulty managing ordinary tasks of life) (Gottfredson, 1986; Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1988) and they continue to display chronic criminal behavior.

The purpose of this article is to discuss the need for vocational rehabilitation services for prison inmates. This will be accomplished through an identification of the scope of the problem, the role of prison facilities in the rehabilitation process, including academic and vocational training, and collaboration between rehabilitation and the correctional system, with a focus on transition. Finally, implications for rehabilitation service delivery will be presented.

Scope of the Problem

Curry et al., (1993) presented an estimation of the number of inmates with disabilities. Based on the prevalence figure of 10% and extending it to the national adult prison population, it is estimated that approximately 120,000 incarcerated adults have disabilities, and that nearly 45,000 are age 24 or younger. The authors further calculated that 260,000 persons with disabilities are on probation and parole, and another 28,000 incarcerated youths have disabilities. These figures suggest that a need exists to further enhance collaboration between vocational rehabilitation and the correctional system in order to successfully rehabilitate the offender population.

Increasingly, criminal defendants are utilizing the guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) plea (Vito & Holmes, 1994). These defendants tend to be relatively young, white, male, and had a previous history with the judicial system and mental health agencies (Keilitz, 1985). A major problem with the GBMI plea is the disparity among states as to what constitutes mental illness or insanity. Consequently, the degree to which the GBMI defense is used is variable, and this variability may dictate whether or not vocational rehabilitation services are utilized. In other words, if the criteria for eligibility are met the offender may be referred to the Department of Vocational Rehabilitation contingent upon transfer to the Department of Mental Health (Vito & Holmes, 1994).

Alcohol and other drugs (AOD) also have been identified as an area in which there is a positive correlation with criminal behavior. Gropper (1985) found that drug users commit more crimes (4 to 6 times more) while under the influence than when sober. Alcohol is a significant factor in homicides and family violence (over 50%), in general assaults (72%), in rape (50%), and in robbery (22%) (Kinney & Leaton, 1991). These statistics suggest that here is a relationship between AOD use and criminal behavior.

Today, the extent of rehabilitation service needs among inmates with disabilities is becoming increasingly obvious. According to Curry et al. (1993), there is little transition planning for inmates with disabilities to post release environments, and community service agencies essentially are not involved in this process. Inmates with disabilities are incarcerated with imprisonment as the goal, not rehabilitation. If the recidivism rate is to be reduced, punishment, incapacitation, and societal protection can no longer be the mainstay of the correctional system for criminal offenders. The provision of vocational rehabilitation services must be administered as part of the overall retributive, deterrent, and incapacitation function of incarceration.

The Role of Prison Facilities

With rehabilitation as the goal, prison facilities can serve as a valuable source for educational and vocational training for inmates with disabilities. One of the major objectives of the industrial component of prisons is "to provide more adequate, regular, and suitable employment for the vocational training and rehabilitation of the inmates" (McDaniel, 1992, p. 430). The types of training offered in prison facilities are diverse in scope and product outcome. For example, industrial/production operations may include such categories as data and graphics, automotive repair, wood and metal products, and textile products (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, 1989). Vocational training programs can provide an avenue for vocational exploration and job retention skills. This is a necessary component of the program due to the dismal in-house employment rate of inmates. According to Skinner (1990), only approximately 1 in 10 inmates is able to secure a job in a prison industry. In part, this can be explained by the overcrowding in prisons and funds being diverted from inmate rehabilitative programs to new prison construction.

Academic programs is another means by which inmates can prepare to function in society once released. Such programs may offer basic skills since many inmates read below the sixth grade level (Skinner, 1990), or provide access to additional educational opportunities such as the general educational development (GED) test and college degrees (McDaniel, 1992). It is also necessary for academic programs to be responsive to current trends in curriculum content such as technology, microcomputers, and cultural diversity. A comprehensive academic program should offer both theory and application of concepts and constructs.

Collaboration Between Rehabilitation and Corrections

The basic premise for a collaboration model between vocational rehabilitation and the correctional system should be designed to promote an effective process to assist in transition to post-released environments for inmates. Ongoing partnerships between vocational rehabilitation and prison institutions are mutually beneficial. The shared goal of the collaboration model increases the likelihood that the rehabilitation philosophy will move from a conceptual model to one of application in which transition services are at the core of the process. Clearly, a collaborative relationship can circumvent some of the contradiction that exists between the inherent restrictions of incarceration and the requirements of independence in society for inmates upon release. Collaboration can positively facilitate this paradox between incarceration and rehabilitation. Connecting criminal offenders to post release resources is a shared responsibility.

While transition is a process that moves an individual from one point to another in a forward direction along a continuum, it is important that selective attention be given to the planning of such services. According to Defur, Getzel and Kregel (1994), the skills of interagency team members (i.e., vocational rehabilitation, education, correctional system) are necessary to identify and offer transition services. Transition services can benefit inmates because such services will afford them the opportunity to develop skills necessary to function in post release environments. McDaniel (1992) indicated that transition services for juvenile offenders tend to involve transition from the correctional institution to school while adult inmates make the transition directly to the community. The transition process is accompanied by a myriad of adjustment problems for inmates such as culture shock (inability to adjust to change), emotional instability, addictive tendencies, false expectations of self and the world, and so forth (Rollo, 1988). The double whammy effect of having a disability and being an ex-convict elicits transition services as a most viable avenue in the rehabilitation process of inmates.

A key aspect of the implementation of effective transition programs and success in post release environments for inmates is collaboration between correctional institutions and vocational rehabilitation programs. In general, rehabilitation is not viewed as a priority at most correctional facilities (Curry et al., 1993; Skinner, 1990). According to Skinner (1990), "prisoners are deliberately de-socialized when what many of them need is just the reverse: to acquire the skills and motivation to work productively in society" (p. 21). As such, collaboration should not be viewed as an alternative approach but as an integral component of the incarceration-rehabilitation dyad.

Implications for Rehabilitation

Criminologists and rehabilitationists share a common theoretical perspective because both of them seek to generate practical solutions to problematic [handicapping] situations. Byrne, Lurigio and Baird (1989) found that Intensive Supervision Programs (ISP) have been successful in reducing recidivism rates among criminal offenders. Latessa and Vito (1988) examined the rehabilitative aspects of the ISP and concluded that when adequate services and referrals are provided, the success rate is higher. These findings offer a justification for collaboration between vocational rehabilitation and the correctional system. Vocational rehabilitation can intervene with the offender prior to the parole and probation phase. A multistage vocational rehabilitation plan (M-VRP) can be formulated with inmates before release and the latter stages of the plan can be implanted upon release.

There are several areas in which the M-VRP can be designed. First, while inmates are still incarcerated an initial vocational assessment can be done to identify a disability and special needs. A complete battery of medical, psychological, and achievement tests should be performed. Based on these tests results and observations by the evaluator an initial report should be written containing diagnosis, functionality, and prognosis. The evaluator also should obtain corroborating information from prison personnel, family, and other relevant parties.

Once deficits have been identified, the next step is to identify service needs and develop a plan of action (i.e, the M-VRP). Ideally, the M-VRP should contain two basic parts, the first being for service while the individual is still incarcerated, and the second for post release environments.

An individual being able to function in a socially acceptable manner is an important part in the identification of objectives to be written as a part of the M-VRP. Job skills, work behavior, and social skills can be developed and enhanced in the prison workshop and supplemented with adjustment classes and educational programming. McDaniel (1992) identified the prison industry system as a means of reinforcing appropriate behavior for inmates.

Fourth, transition goals and objectives should be included in the M-VRP. These goals and objectives should focus on addressing the inmate's needs that will make his or her adjustment to post release environments less stressful and more productive. As with the overall M-VRP, the transition component must be responsive to individual needs. It is necessary for the transition plan to include strategies for the inmate to contact the appropriate public and human service agencies in post release environments. Vocational rehabilitation can assume the role of lead agency and coordinate services and resources.

Finally, the M-VRP should include specific exit criteria. These criteria should measure the inmate's ability to demonstrate basic skills in reading, math, writing, job seeking skills (i.e. resume writing and interview skills), and transferable skills which can be utilized in post release environments. The exit criteria are not intended to be outcome measures of inmate rehabilitation, but to serve as the intermediate step in the overall rehabilitation process. Since rehabilitation is a process, (Marinelli & Dell Orto, 1977), the M-VRP can follow the inmate from the point of incarceration to transition into post release environments.

The M-VRP is a "working document" because it outlines services along a continuum at various points in the inmate's development. Appropriate vocational rehabilitation services must be established early in the inmate's incarceration. Targeting inmates with disabilities allows for the concurrent transformation of these individuals into adequately functioning members of society and accommodation of individual differences (Council for Preparation for the Handicapped's Transition Task Force, 1989). To be successful, inmates with disabilities require vocational rehabilitation services.

Conclusion

The presence of a prison record and a disability serve as barriers to inmates for successful transition into post release environments. The sheer numbers of inmates with disabilities provide a justification for vocational rehabilitation intervention. Overcrowded conditions in prisons result in the warehousing, not rehabilitation, of inmates. Skinner (1990) stressed that "given no opportunities to take responsibility, make decisions, and structure one's time productively, tends to breed both deep hostility and institutionalized passivity in convicts - the opposite of the qualities needed to successfully rejoin outside society" (p. 21). A solution to this institutionalized idleness is the implementation of the M-VRP which can identify inmates with disabilities and design individualized service needs and transition programming which can lead to successful functioning in post release environments.

Vocational rehabilitation should be viewed as a facilitative, not coercive, process. If we are to be successful in rehabilitating inmates, it is necessary to pursue ways to equalize access to services and to gradually integrate criminal offenders into society. Failure to address disabling conditions among inmates will yield high rates of recidivism.

References

Byrne, J. M., Lurigo, A. J., & Baird, C. (1989). The effectiveness of new intensive supervision programs. Research in Corrections, 2, 1-48

Council for Personnel Preparation for the Handicapped's Transition Task Force. (1988). Austin, TX: Texas Education Agency.

Curry, K. L., Posluszny, M.P., & Kraska, S. L. (1993). Training criminal justice personnel to recognize offenders with disabilities. OSERS News in Print, 5(3), 4-8.

Defur, S., Getzel, E. E., & Kregel, J. (1994). Individual transition plans: A work in progress. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 4(2), 139-145.

Gottfredson, M. (1986), The true value of lambder would appear to be zero: An essay on career criminals, criminal careers, selective in capacitation, and related topics. Criminology, 24, 213-234.

Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1988). Science, public policy, and the career criminal, Criminology, 26, 37-55.

Gropper, B. A. (1985). Probing the link between drugs and crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

Keilitz, I. (1985). The insanity defense and its alternatives. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Kinney, J., & Leaton, G. (1991). Loosening the grip: A handbook of alcohol information. St. Louis, MO: Mosby Year Book.

Lastessa, E. J., & Vito, G. F. (1988). The effects of intensive supervision on shock probationers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 319-330.

Marinelli, R. P., & Dell Orto, A. E. (1977). The psychological and social impact of physical disability. New York: Springer.

McDaniel, L. G. (1992). Transition programs in correctional institutions. In F. R. Rusch, L. Destefano, J. Chadsey-Rusch, L. A. Phelps, and E. Szymanski (Eds.), Transition from school to adult life: Models, linkages, and policy (pp. 425-441). Sycamore, IL: Sycamore Publishing.

Montgomery, R. H., & Johnson, N. P. (1990). Alcohol and drug experiences in criminal justice higher education. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 36(1), 35-38.

National Update. (1992, July). Bureau of Justice Statistics (Report No. NCJ-137059). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Rollo, N. (1988). 99 days and get up: A pre-and post-release survival manual for inmates and their loved ones. Open, Inc.

Rutherford, R. B., Jr., Nelson, C. M., & Wolford, B. I. (1985). Special education in the most restrictive environment: Correctional special education. Journal of Special Education, 19, 59-71.

Skinner, C. (1990). Overcrowded prisons: A nation in crisis. Crisis, 98(4), 18-21.

Texas Department of criminal Justice - Institutional Division. (1989). Annual Overview, 1989. Austin, TX: Publication Information Office.

Vito, G. F., & Holmes, R. M. (1994). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.

Windham School System of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Institutional Division. (1989). Annual Performance Report, 1988 - 1989 School Year. Huntsville, TX: author.