There are many documented reasons for recidivism. Buckmon (2015) defined recidivism as a person committing an act or offense which leads to re-incarceration (e.g., prison) or the loss of liberty, generally, after one-year post criminal justice involvement. Wagner and Rabuy (2016) reported that there were an estimated 2.3 million individuals incarcerated in the United States. In another study by Alper, Durose, and Markman (2018), the researchers reported that 83% of all prisoners were rearrested within nine years of being released from prison. Lamberti (2016) contended that the cessation of recidivism for individuals with a co-occurring disorder is associated with the role of community-based workers.
Researchers have focused on quantitative predictors of recidivism, such as unemployment (Fazel, Hayes, Bartellas, Clerici, & Trestman, 2016); increased government spending on mental health and substance abuse treatment (Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2020). These predictors aligned with Zettler’s (2017) report. The author reported incarceration rates continue to rise among this group facing both health and environmental challenges.
Alper et al. (2018) asserted the cost of providing treatment to a person with a co-occurring disorder and criminal justice-involved, increases yearly. The researchers further explained that policymakers are tasked with easing the financial strain on tax-paying citizens. Frazier et al. (2015) reported that state officials have reduced taxes by redirecting individuals with co-occurring disorders and histories of nonviolent crimes to community-based treatment programs. One assumption by Peters et al. (2015) was that community-based treatment programs are more equipped for co-occurring disorder treatment as opposed to rehabilitation by [re]incarceration. These researchers emphasized that law enforcement personnel, judges, and prison reform advocates have contributed to lowering the cost of treatment by reducing the rate of incarceration of nonviolent offenders with a dual diagnosis.
Wagner and Rabuy (2016) reported there were approximately 2.3 million people with a co-occurring disorder in prison. A year later, researchers estimated that there were over 20 million individuals either previously or currently incarcerated in America with at least a mental health or addiction problem (Al-Rousan, Rubenstein, Sieleni, Deol, & Wallace, 2017). The writers reported that authorities arrested individuals with mental health and substance abuse problems (i.e., co-occurring disorder[s]) at an estimated rate of two to four times more than the general population (Rubenstein et al., 2017). Further, scholars projected that there were ten times as many people with a mental illness in prison than in psychiatric treatment facilities (Al-Rousan et al., 2017). When they adjusted for co-occurring disorder problems, the statistics were higher (Al-Rousan et al., 2017). Kim (2016), in comparison, presented data that aligned with uneven prison rates for people with a co-occurring disorder compared to the general population. Consequently, the social problem of recidivism continues to burden America (Wagner & Rabuy, 2016).
Kingston et al. (2016) argued that the impact of recidivism on communities is more significant than the price associated with incarceration, co-occurring disorder treatment, and increased taxes. Experts have reported how this social problem adversely impacts social bonding, desistance from criminal activity, and familial relationships (Smith, Mays, Collins, & Ramaswamy, 2019). The interpersonal problem causes stress on the individual and their significant others, which does not directly show in the cost of imprisonment (Ogloff et al., 2015). However, researchers have posited that this rupture of pro-social relationships far supersedes the financial blowback absorbed by taxpayers (Kingston et al., 2016).
Polcin (2018) reported a link between healthy relationships with individuals who have a co-occurring disorder, recidivism, and treatment fidelity. According to at least one source of scholarship, Blank, Finlay, and Prior (2016) informed that society tends to minimize individuals with a co-occurring disorder. Blank et al. (2016) went on to say when co-occurring disorders are combined with criminal justice involvement, these individuals are further marginalized and do not receive culturally sensitive treatment.
Consequently, these systematic shortcomings result in higher recidivism rates (Blank et al., 2016). Further, Lamberti (2016) argued that until helping professionals (e.g., co-occurring disorder clinicians, criminal justice professionals, probation officers, etc.) become less fragmented and implement an integrative multi-systems approach, this underserved community will continue to overpopulate correctional facilities.
Lamberti (2016) informed that the presence of a co-occurring disorder increases the chance of incarceration and detaches a person from social support(s). Based on previous studies, researchers have found treatment models that simultaneously address both mental illness and substance use disorders lower the risk of recidivism (Prince & Wald, 2018; SAMHSA, 2020). Similarly, other researchers have corroborated this claim of concurrent treatment for people with co-occurring disorders (Dias et al., 2018; Elison et al., 2016). Begun et al. (2016) went on to write that recidivism contributes to social deprivation, poverty, environmental risks, and a decrease in natural assets. The authors contended that helping professionals in community-based treatment agencies positively impact treatment outcomes through a multi-facet outreach approach (Begun et al., 2016).
The research suggests that helping professionals across the various systems of care utilize seminal and contemporary evidence to develop treatment modalities that are culturally specific to this group of African American men. This marginalized population continues to suffer because of helping professionals’ Euro-Centric approach to treatment. By understanding these barriers and disproportionate levels of quality care, helping professionals can begin to reduce the gap in quality treatment for this marginalized group of African American men.
Published By: Dr. André “Vinnie” Haley, SAP, LSW, CAADC, LCDP