Offender Reentry And Elderly Health

1,176 views

Published on

Elderly offenders, transition, and health in Multnomah County.

0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,176
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
2
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • I worked with Charlene Rhyne in quality systems management and evaluation services, as well as with LivJenssen who is the manager of the Transition Services Unit
  • I chose this project primarily because I wanted to explore the dichotomy between criminal justice program policies and the health impact on specific populations.
  • There are discrepancies regarding the age of “elders” within the context of incarceration. Some say 55, some 60. For my purposes, I defined it as over the age of 50. Studies have consistently shown that incarceration ages an individual.
  • Even though there is paucity of evaluation data, experts state re entry success is facilitated by housing, employment, and access to healthcareMultnomahCounty: TSU prioritizes high needs. TAB program for SS benefits, apply for food stamps before released. Medicaid is now suspended and reinstated post-incarcerationCollateral consequences: basically what continues to affect someone with a criminal history.
  • My logic model specifically catering to elderly offenders in Multnomah County
  • Client DCJ Satisfaction Survey: To assess elderly offenders’ experiences with the Department of Community JusticeStaff Satisfaction Survey: To assess staff satisfaction within the Department of Community JusticeClient Healthcare Assessment: To assess an elderly offender’s access to healthcare resourcesAgency Questionnaire: To assess the comprehensiveness of a reentry program. Aimed at an agency director or someone with the knowledge to complete.
  • Reentry programs deal have multiple stakeholders involved: law enforcement, community corrections, housing authorities, mental health services, faith based organizations, community advocacy groups, community leaders, and state legislators are some examples**There is very little known about this population and contributions are needed and will be valued**There are current assessment, satisfaction forms but there is a compelling need to customize them for this population**conducting interdisciplinary team projects on a decade long basis between and among community justice, police, and community health researchers will help to decrease the stigmatization, transfer best practices, and build interest in multiyear funding.**non management of these populations in producing higher level costs in unplanned care, homelessness, and recidivism**this area of interest touches upon many areas of collateral study: chronic disease, function, infectious disease, and self care.
  • One of the ongoing themes was resource allocation and “deserving” and “undeserving” populations. This is a population that is often viewed as “undeserving,” and accessing resources for these individuals can often be hindered by this designation. It is important to realize that 95% of incarcerated individuals will return to the community, and their successful reentry is tied to the health and safety of the community. And elders are not a homogenous group by any means; they reflect different life experiences, backgrounds, ethnicities, sexual orientations, and gender.
  • Offender Reentry And Elderly Health

    1. 1. Offender Reentry and Elderly Health<br />Multnomah Department of Community Justice<br />Supervisor: Charlene Rhyne<br />By Jessica Robb<br />
    2. 2. Why is the process of Reentry important?<br />Nearly 2.2 million men and women are incarcerated in prisons and jails in the US; the rough equivalent of one out of every 136 US residents (Williams, N.H.,2007) <br />The 50+ are the fastest growing population in prison, increasing 3x faster than the general population (Reimer, G. 2008)<br />95% of incarcerated individuals will eventually be released back into the community (Williams, N.H.,2007)<br />
    3. 3. Cost/Benefit Numbers<br />Approximately 2 out of every 3 people released from prison in the US are re-arrested within 3 years of their release. (Langan, PA & Levin, DJ, 2002)<br />Economics of care: &gt;50 = $60,000/yr. &lt;50 = $21,000 (Reimer, G.2008)<br />The average cost of nursing home care would be around 25K/yr/per person. (Regan, JJ, Alderson, A, Regan, WM, 2002) <br />
    4. 4. Emphasis of Work<br />Evaluate the reentry program in Multnomah County with regard to an “elderly” offender population over the age of 50<br />Develop framework to measure unmet health needs of elderly offenders in Multnomah County<br />Recommend best practices from current reentry literature<br />
    5. 5. Literature Review<br />Recent focus on evidence-based practices with regard to offender reentry<br />Paucity of literature regarding reentry EBPs and specific population outcomes<br />Nexus of community health and community justice perspectives<br />Reentry policies vary from state to state<br />
    6. 6. Best Practices report<br />State/county/national programs: No measurement/evaluation tools<br />Success of reentry determined by access to the following: housing, employment/income, community/family connections, healthcare, and reduced recidivism*<br />Collateral consequences of a conviction<br />In Oregon, benefits reinstated once released, but may take time<br />*Recidivism: relapse into criminal behavior<br />
    7. 7.
    8. 8. Tools for Assessment<br /> Client DCJ Satisfaction Survey<br />Staff Satisfaction Survey<br />Client Healthcare Assessment<br />Agency Questionnaire<br />
    9. 9. Significance of work<br />Elderly population previously not looked at<br />Knowledge of local policy hurdles that prevent population from access to services<br />Survey tools assess reentry program from various angles: client perspective, service perspective, and health outcomes<br />
    10. 10. Implications for career<br />Networking through various agencies<br />Negotiate policies at city, county, state, and federal levels<br />Research<br />Emphasis in continual improvement<br />Tool design<br />IRB application exposure<br />
    11. 11. Implications for career<br />Look at issues through a public health lens<br />Ask questions and develop working relationships <br />Focus on health disparities in vulnerable populations<br />Discussion for appropriate resource allocation<br />
    12. 12. References<br />Langan, PA & Levin, DJ (2002) National Recidivism study of released prisoners: recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, NCJ 193427<br />Reimer, G. (2008) The graying of the US prisoner population Journal of correctional health care 14(3): 202-208<br />Regan, J.J., Alderson, A, Regan, W.M., (2003) Psychiatric disorders in aging prisoners, Clinical Gerontologist 26(1):117-124<br />Williams, N.H. (2007) Prison health and the health of the public: Ties that bind. Journal of correctional health care 13(2):80-92<br />

    ×