National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR12
Page xiii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR13
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26459.
×
PageR14

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Pre-publication Copy Uncorrected Proofs The Limits of Recidivism Measuring Success After Prison Committee on Evaluating Success Among People Released from Prison Richard Rosenfeld and Amanda Grigg, Editors Committee on Law and Justice Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education A Consensus Study Report of Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Arnold Foundation (19-02953). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project. International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-XXXXX-X International Standard Book Number-10: 0-309-XXXXX-X Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/26459 Additional copies of this publication are available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242 or (202) 334-3313; http://www.nap.edu. Copyright 2022 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2022. The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/26459. Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. John L. Anderson is president. The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president. The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine. Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.                                     Prepublication copy, uncorrected proofs

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task. Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies. For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo. Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof v

COMMITTEE ON EVALUATING SUCCESS AMONG PEOPLE RELEASED FROM PRISON RICHARD ROSENFELD (Chair), University of Missouri-St. Louis ROBERT APEL, Rutgers University, Newark ELSA CHEN, Santa Clara University JENNIFER COBBINA-DUNGY, Michigan State University RONALD DAY, The Fortune Society DEANNA HOSKINS, JustLeadershipUSA CECELIA KLINGELE, University of Wisconsin Law School WILLIAM SABOL, Georgia State University FAYE TAXMAN, George Mason University CHRISTOPHER UGGEN, University of Minnesota CHRISTY VISHER, University of Delaware EMILY WANG, Yale School of Medicine Staff: AMANDA GRIGG, Study Director ELLIE GRIMES, Research Associate BRIANA SMITH, Senior Program Assistant EMILY P. BACKES, Associate Director, Committee on Law and Justice     Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof vi

COMMITTEE ON LAW AND JUSTICE ROBERT D. CRUTCHFIELD (Chair), University of Washington (retired) SALLY S. SIMPSON (Vice Chair), University of Maryland SHAWN D. BUSHWAY, University at Albany ROD K. BRUNSON, Northeastern University PREETI CHAUHAN, John Jay College of Criminal Justice KIMBERLE W. CRENSHAW, University of California, Los Angeles MARK S. JOHNSON, Howard University CYNTHIA LUM, George Mason University JOHN M. MACDONALD, University of Pennsylvania KAREN J. MATHIS, American Bar Association (retired), University of Denver THEODORE A. MCKEE, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Philadelphia, PA STEVEN RAPHAEL, University of California, Berkeley LAURIE O. ROBINSON, George Mason University CYNTHIA RUDIN, Duke University WILLIAM J. SABOL, Georgia State University LINDA A. TEPLIN, Northwestern University Medical School EMILY OWENS, University of California, Irvine BRUCE WESTERN, Columbia University SAMUEL L. MYERS, JR, University of Minnesota NATACHA BLAIN, Senior Board Director     Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof vii

Acronyms ADI Area Deprivation Index BJS Bureau of Labor Statistics EMA Ecological Momentary Assessment GED General Educational Development MOS Medical Outcomes Study NCRP National Corrections Reporting Program NCSC National Center for State Courts NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey NIBRS National Incident-Based Reporting System NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System NODS National Open Court Data Standards NSDUH National Survey on Drug Use and Health PHQ-9 Patient Health Survey-9 PTSD Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder SAMHSA Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SNAP Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program TANF Temporary Assistance for Needy Families UCR Uniform Crime Reporting USSC United States Sentencing Commission Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof viii

Preface The recidivism rate is a statistical institution in the criminal legal system. It is widely used by policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to refer to the crimes, convictions, and reincarceration of people released from prison. It is the default benchmark for determining the effectiveness of policies and programs to prevent post-release criminal behavior. From the beginning, however, the recidivism rate has had its critics, who argue that it is based on defective data and is commonly misinterpreted and misapplied.1 Arnold Ventures asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to convene an expert committee to conduct a critical analysis of recidivism and, as needed, propose alternative measures of success for the more than 600,000 persons who reenter society each year after leaving prison. This report is the culmination of the committee’s deliberations. The use of the term “success” in the committee’s charge is telling. It reverses the focus on failure that defines the recidivism rate. The committee was asked to consider the multiple meanings and measures of success after prison in addition to the cessation of criminal behavior. We took this charge literally and have devoted extensive attention in our report to measures of post-release progress and improvement across multiple life domains, including physical and mental health, employment, housing, family attachment and community involvement. Our research and presentations by subject matter experts—particularly those by persons with lived experience of incarceration and the practitioners who work with them—convinced us that a sense of hope, efficacy, and overall wellbeing is of fundamental importance for successful reentry after prison. The challenge is to develop and validate measures of personal wellbeing that are both reliable and sufficiently flexible to encompass the diverse experiences, backgrounds, and identities of those leaving prison. Our analysis of recidivism also poses the same kind challenge. The recidivism critics, we concluded, are essentially correct: We must move beyond the recidivism rate to adequately measure post-release criminal behavior, which will require reversing the polarity of recidivism from failure to success. In this regard, the committee undertook an extensive review of the research literature on desistance from crime. We were struck by the difference between recidivism and desistance. Recidivism is often operationalized as a binary, either-or, measure of post-release outcomes: You were either rearrested, reconvicted, or reincarcerated after leaving prison, or you were not. By contrast, desistance indicates a gradual process that, like recovery from addiction, illness or disease, can involve relapses. From the vantage point of recidivism, committing a new crime is a mark of failure. From a desistance perspective, committing fewer or less serious crimes is a sign of movement toward desistance. Our review led us to conclude that the concept of desistance more accurately depicts the realities of criminal behavior and its cessation and that measures of desistance should augment the recidivism rate. Measures of recidivism, when used, need to be applied with greater precision. Policymakers, practitioners, researchers, and other users should specify whether recidivism reflects rearrest, conviction, or incarceration and clarify the limitations of such measures.                                                              1 See, for example, Michael Maltz’s (2001[1984]) groundbreaking study. Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof ix

Little in our analysis of the limitations the recidivism rate is new. Part of our task was to review and draw conclusions from the quite extensive literature on recidivism. We were also charged, however, with formulating recommendations based on our conclusions. In this respect, we broke some new ground. We do not propose that our conclusions about measuring recidivism or the correlates of successful reentry be taken as the last word on these demanding topics. On the contrary, we recommend that foundations and federal agencies use them as points of departure for extensive evaluation of the kinds and quality of the data underlying current recidivism measures and the development of uniform standards for measuring desistance from crime and successful reentry in life domains including but not limited to the criminal legal system. We recognize that this is a tall order and that, even if our recommendations are taken up by private and government stakeholders, it may be years before they issue their own findings and recommendations. Therefore, the question arises: What is to be done in the mean time? We urge that everyone who cares about what happens to the people who pass through the nation’s prisons and reads this report ask themselves the same questions we did as we were writing it: Do current measures of recidivism tell us what we need to know about success after prison? How can we do better? Richard Rosenfeld, Chair Committee on Evaluating Success Among People Released from Prison       Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof x

Acknowledgments This report was made possible by the contributions of many people. First, we thank the study’s sponsor Arnold Ventures, for requesting and supporting this endeavor. We particularly thank Jeremy Travis (Executive Vice President of Criminal Justice) and Jocelyn Fontaine (Vice President of Criminal Justice Research). Special thanks go to the members of the study committee, who dedicated extensive time, thought, energy, and good humor to the project on such a compressed timeline. In addition to its own research and deliberations, the committee received input from several outside sources, whose willingness to share their perspectives and expertise was essential to the committee’s work. We thank Susan Burton (A New Way of Life Reentry Center), George Braucht (Brauchtworks), Kenneth Cooper (Game Changers Reentry Program), Jai Diamond (New York Criminal City Justice Agency), Jennifer Doleac (Texas A&M University), Jerry Flores (University of Toronto), Adam Gelb (Council on Criminal Justice), Peggy Giordano (Bowling Green State University), Diana Good Collins (Metropolitan Community College), Nneka Jones Tapia (Chicago Beyond), Lila Kazemian (City University of New York), Pamela Lattimore (RTI International), Andrea Leverentz (University of Massachusetts, Boston), Sam Lewis (Anti-Recidivism Coalition), Charles Loeffler (University of Pennsylvania), Shadd Maruna (Queen’s University, Belfast), Reuben Miller (University of Chicago), Merry Morash (Michigan State University), Daniel Nagin (Carnegie Mellon University), Kara Nelson (True North Recovery), Lisa Puglisi (Yale School of Medicine), William Rhodes, Walter Strauss (New York City Housing Court-retired), Dana Rice (University of North Carolina), John Valverde (Youthbuild USA), Venus Woods (Cook Inlet Tribal Council), Caryn York (Job Opportunities Task Force). The committee was also able to gather input from correctional officials and service providers for crime victims and survivors. We extend our gratitude to David Edwards (Missouri Department of Corrections, Department of Planning), Michelle Garcia (DC Office of Victims Services and Justice Grants), Travis Gramble (Multnomah County DCJ Gang Unit and African American Program), Sarah Ohlsen (National Center for Victims of Crime), Alejandro Palacio (National Organization for Victim Assistance), Anne Precythe (Missouri Department of Corrections), Erika Preuitt (Multnomah County Department of Community Justice), Katie Roller (Multnomah County DCJ, Women and Family Services Unit), Bryan Smith (Multnomah County DCJ, Alternative Incarceration Program and Short Term Transitional Leave Program), Bridgette Stumpf (National Network for Victim Recovery D.C.), Glenn Tapia (Colorado Probation Agency), Heather Warnken (Center for Criminal Justice Reform), and Heidi Washington (Michigan Department of Corrections). The committee also gathered information through a commissioned paper. We thank Lila Kazemian (John Jay College of Criminal Justice) for her contributions to this report and for her willingness to work on an abbreviated timeline. Tyler Harvey (Yale University) contributed valuable research support for Chapters 3 and 4. Finally, we thank John Laub (The University of Maryland) for sharing his enthusiasm and expertise with the committee, and for offering commentary on a report draft. Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof xi

We also extend our gratitude to the staff of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Briana Smith provided key administrative and logistical support to ensure that the committee process ran efficiently, as well as providing essential support in preparing the report for publication. Ellie Grimes made critical substantive contributions to the committee’s information gathering and literature review. Emily Backes provided guidance at every stage of the study process, along with contributing to the writing and editing of the report. Throughout the project, Natacha Blain, director of the Committee on Law and Justice, provided oversight. From the Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, we thank Kirsten Sampson Snyder and Douglas Sprunger, who expertly shepherded the report through the review process and assisted with its communication and dissemination. We thank librarian Anne Marie Houppert in the National Academies Research Center for her crucial assistance with fact- checking. We also thank Marc DeFrancis for his skillful editing. This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. We thank the following individuals for their review of this report: Kristofer Bucklen (Planning, Research, and Statistics, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections), Adam Gelb (Office of the President and CEO, Council on Criminal Justice), Beth Huebner (Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri-St. Louis), Michael Jacobson (Institute for State and Local Governance and Sociology Department, CUNY Graduate Center), Pamela Lattimore (Research Development, Division for Applied Justice Research, RTI International), Magnus Lofstrom (Criminal Justice, Public Policy Institute of California), Giovanni Mastrobuoni (Public and Labor Economics, Collegio Carlo Alberto) (James P. Lynch, Criminology and Criminal Justice Department, University of Maryland), Ellen W. Clayton (Center for Biomedical Ethics and Society, Vanderbilt University). Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions or recommendations of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by James Lynch, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland and Ellen Wright Clayton, Vanderbilt Law School. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies. Richard Rosenfeld, Chair Amanda Grigg, Study Director Committee on Evaluating Success Among People Released from Prison Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof xii

Contents Summary 1 Introduction Study Charge and Scope Statement of Task Study Approach Language Organization of the Report 2 Measuring Recidivism Release and Recidivism Measures: Context Annual Prison Releases The Measurement of Recidivism in National Surveys Defining Measures of Recidivism Strengths and Weaknesses of Various Definitions of Recidivism Recidivism as a Concept Recidivism Design Elements Data Sources for Measuring Recidivism Self-Report Data Administrative Data Measurement Error Efforts to Standardize Administrative Data Recidivism as Binary: Limitations Conclusions 3 Beyond Recidivism: Toward a More Comprehensive Understanding of Reentry Challenges and Successes Theoretical Frameworks for Recidivism and Criminal Offending Personal Risk Factors Confinement Experiences Social Attachments and Reentry Stressors Ecological Influences Supervision Regimes Models of Reentry Success Desistance from Crime Social Reintegration and Well-Being Key Domains of Successful Reintegration Housing Employment Familial and Social Relationships and Support Physical Health, Mental Health, and Substance Use Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof xiii

Participation in Peer Support and Help-giving Roles Voting and Civic Engagement Education Community and Macro-Level Impacts on Reentry Success Structural Inequality Reentry Challenges Facing People Color Gender-Specific Reentry Challenges Intersecting Effects of Race and Gender on Reentry Reentry Challenges for Individuals Experiencing Trauma Reentry Challenges Associated with LGBTQ Status Persons with Disabilities and Reentry Reentry Challenges and Socioeconomic Status Reentry Barriers Facing Rural Populations Structural Reentry Barrier and the Measurement of Success Conclusion 4 Measuring Success Beyond Recidivism The State of the Science: Evidence-Based Rehabilitation and Reentry New Approaches to Measurement: Contextual Conditions and Data Collection Methods for Measuring Community and Structural Conditions New Approaches to Data Collection: Self-Report Data Beyond Recidivism: Alternative Indicators of Success Overall Well-Being Criminal Desistance Overall Health Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Engagement in Health Care Housing and Homelessness Employment and Job Retention Educational Attainment Social Relationships (Children, Families, Peer Support) Civic Engagement Research Needs Conclusion 5 The Path Forward From Recidivism to Desistance Measuring the Cessation of Criminal Activity Measuring Success Barriers to Success National Standards for Measuring Post-Release Success Conclusion Appendix Biographical Sketches of Committee Members and Staff Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof xiv

Boxes, Figures, and Tables BOXES 1-1 Evaluating Success Among People Released from Prison: Statement of Task 2-1 Listening Session: The Expertise of Individuals with Lived Experience of Incarceration 2-2 Administrative Data 3-1 Collateral Sanctions of Incarceration 3-2 Correctional Perspectives on Measures of Success 3-3 The Role of Social and Community Support 3-4 The Value of Lived Experience in Reentry Programming 3-5 Slavery and the Origins of the Criminal Legal System 3-6 Perspectives on Reentry: Service Providers for Victims 3-7 Trauma and Barriers to Success 4-1 Listening Session: Partnering with Individuals with Lived Experience in Reentry Research and Programming 4-2 Listening Session: Social Context, Structural Conditions, and Post-Release Success 4-3 Listening Session: Defining Reentry Success, and the Need for Resources 4-4 Listening Session: Education and Post-Release Success   FIGURES 2-1 Annual admission to, and releases from, state and federal prisons 2-2 Annual percentage of new parole admissions, by type of admission TABLES 2-1 Recidivism Estimates for 2012 Prison Release Cohort in 34-State Study 2-2 5-Year Rearrest Estimates for 2012 Prison Release Cohort in 34-State Study, by Post-Release Offense Type and Commitment Offense 2-3 Illustrating Impact of Type of Sample on Recidivism Rates in 17 States 2-4 Measures Derived from Sources and Strengths and Weaknesses 4-1 Subjective and Objective Measures of Post-Release Success Pre-Publication Copy, Uncorrected Proof xv

Next: Summary »
The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Nearly 600,000 people are released from state and federal prisons annually. Whether these individuals will successfully reintegrate into their communities has been identified as a critical measure of the effectiveness of the criminal legal system. However, evaluating the successful reentry of individuals released from prison is a challenging process, particularly given limitations of currently available data and the complex set of factors that shape reentry experiences.

The Limits of Recidivism: Measuring Success After Prison finds that the current measures of success for individuals released from prison are inadequate. The use of recidivism rates to evaluate post-release success ignores significant research on how and why individuals cease to commit crimes, as well as the important role of structural factors in shaping post-release outcomes. The emphasis on recidivism as the primary metric to evaluate post-release success also ignores progress in other domains essential to the success of individuals returning to communities, including education, health, family, and employment.

In addition, the report highlights the unique and essential insights held by those who have experienced incarceration and proposes that the development and implementation of new measures of post-release success would significantly benefit from active engagement with individuals with this lived experience. Despite significant challenges, the report outlines numerous opportunities to improve the measurement of success among individuals released from prison and the report’s recommendations, if implemented, will contribute to policies that increase the health, safety, and security of formerly incarcerated persons and the communities to which they return.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!