Boston Reentry Initiative: Reducing Recidivism Evidence-Based
This paper examines the Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI), a collaborative program developed by the Boston Police Department and Suffolk County Sheriff's Department to reduce recidivism among newly released offenders. The paper begins by contextualizing the problem: the United States incarcerates more citizens per capita than any other nation, yet nearly two-thirds of released prisoners reoffend within three years. It then summarizes the BRI's structure, selection criteria, and evidence-based rationale before offering a critique that highlights both the program's strengths and a significant limitation — namely, its failure to incorporate mental health screening into the offender selection process. The paper concludes that evidence-based reentry initiatives represent a sound investment of public resources.
- Introduction: U.S. recidivism crisis and BRI overview
- The Recidivism Problem and the BRI's Origins: Rising incarceration rates and reentry failures
- How the Boston Reentry Initiative Works: BRI structure, eligibility, and mentoring services
- Critique of the BRI's Selection Process: Subjective criteria flaws and missing mental health screening
- Conclusion: Evidence-based reentry as sound public investment
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The paper grounds its argument in concrete statistics — such as the 240% increase in incarceration rates and the 44% first-year reoffense rate — giving its claims immediate empirical weight.
- It maintains a balanced tone, acknowledging the BRI's genuine strengths before pivoting to a focused, evidence-supported critique rather than wholesale condemnation.
- The critique zeroes in on a single, well-defined weakness (the absence of mental health screening) rather than scattering objections, which keeps the argument coherent and persuasive.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective use of direct quotation from a primary empirical study (Braga et al., 2009) to ground both the summary and critique sections. By quoting the source's own language — especially the five subjective selection criteria — the author allows the evidence to speak for itself before adding analytical commentary, a technique that strengthens credibility without overstating the writer's own authority.
Structure breakdown
The paper follows a classic four-part structure: an introduction that frames the national recidivism problem and states the paper's purpose; a summary section that describes the BRI's origins, scale, and selection process; a critique section that evaluates the initiative's strengths and identifies its primary limitation; and a brief conclusion that reaffirms the value of evidence-based reentry programs. This transparent organization makes the argument easy to follow and is well suited to an undergraduate criminal justice course.
Introduction
One of the ironies of the United States — the "Land of the Free" — is that this country incarcerates more of its citizens per capita than any other country on earth. While substantive changes are currently being envisioned for reforming the nation's criminal justice system, the harsh reality facing many lawbreakers has been the potential for lengthy prison sentences, even for some nonviolent offenses. Further exacerbating the problem are the numerous challenges that offenders face when they are released from incarceration back into the community.
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the recidivism rate for ex-offenders remains disturbingly high. Indeed, nearly 44% of all incarcerated persons reoffend during their first year, and more than two-thirds reoffend within three years following their release, despite increasingly aggressive efforts by public and private sector organizations to help these individuals make the transition to society successfully. One initiative that has shown promise in helping to reduce this alarming recidivism rate is the Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) (Braga, Piehl & Hureau, 2009). This intervention provides a collaborative framework in which law enforcement agencies, social services agencies, and faith-based organizations can pool their resources to directly address the obstacles facing newly released offenders, in order to reduce their potential for reoffending and returning to prison.
The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the research and an overview of the Boston Police Department and Suffolk County Sheriff's Department's BRI, followed by a critique of the initiative and a conclusion that presents key findings about this timely effort to reduce recidivism rates in a major American city.
The Recidivism Problem and the BRI's Origins
During the period between 1980 and 2001, the number of offenders released back into their communities kept pace with the staggering 240% increase in incarceration rates that took place during this era. This percentage translates into approximately 630,000 offenders released from U.S. prisons and jails annually — a fourfold increase in the number of released offenders compared to 1981 (Braga et al., 2009). As noted above, a majority of these prisoners will reoffend within one to three years, and part of the problem can be traced to the poor condition of the nation's prisons and jails. Not only are many of these facilities already dangerously overcrowded, they also lack any meaningful opportunities for prisoners to learn the skills they will need to successfully transition back into society (Braga et al., 2009). According to the study by Braga and his associates, "Regrettably, the American correctional system does little to prepare these inmates for life after release [and] many inmates do not participate in work assignments while incarcerated" (2009, p. 412).
In response to these trends, the Boston Police Department (BPD) in collaboration with the Suffolk County Sheriff's Department (SCSD) developed and implemented the BRI, which is specifically focused on reducing recidivism rates by providing newly released prisoners with the skills they need to survive legally on their own and become contributing members of society. Although the initiative is comparatively modest in the number of offenders it can assist at any given time, the BRI does attempt to make a significant difference in the lives of the 15 to 20 newly released prisoners it accepts each month (Braga et al., 2009). Notwithstanding its modest capacity, the BRI is among the largest such initiatives in the country today (Braga et al., 2009).
How the Boston Reentry Initiative Works
The criteria used to select newly released offenders for participation in the BRI are fairly straightforward and are intended to help those individuals most likely to benefit from the intervention. According to Braga et al., "The BRI targets male inmates who are between the ages of 18 and 32, reside in Boston, and are considered by law enforcement agencies to be at high risk for continuing their involvement in violent crime" (p. 417). These objective selection criteria are applied in an equitable manner that serves to identify individuals most at risk of reoffending.
The rationale behind this selection process relates to the fact that many of these offenders became involved with the criminal justice system due to a lack of legitimate, marketable workplace skills. Since many of them do not typically receive any rehabilitation while incarcerated and may have acquired new criminal associations in the process, their potential for reoffending is especially high because they may lack viable alternatives upon release. The BRI continues to provide individualized mentoring services for up to eighteen months following completion of the program, reinforcing the lessons learned and helping participants make a legal go of it on their own (Braga et al., 2009).
Conclusion
The research showed that the need is great and the stakes are high. While it is possible to quantify the economic costs of property crimes, it is impossible to calculate the human toll exacted on individuals and their communities by violent crime. Violent crimes not only harm direct victims — they also adversely affect American society as a whole. Moreover, given the prohibitively high costs of apprehending, prosecuting, and incarcerating offenders, every dollar prudently invested in reducing the potential for released criminals to reoffend represents a sound use of scarce taxpayer resources. In the final analysis, it is reasonable to conclude that evidence-based interventions such as the Boston Reentry Initiative provide multiple valuable outcomes that can improve the quality of life in American communities by helping released offenders successfully rejoin society.
References
Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009). Controlling violent offenders released to the community: An evaluation of the Boston reentry initiative. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 411–436.
Can corrections heal? Reducing recidivism and increased public safety in Virginia. National Institute of Corrections. Retrieved from
Hooley, D. (2010, March 30). Six evidence-based practices proven to lower recidivism. Corrections1. Retrieved from https://www.corrections1.com/re-entry-and-recidivism/articles/6-evidence-based-practices-proven-to-lower-recidivism-MRzqFIO9P1okPNBF/.
Interventions for adult offenders with serious mental illness. (2013, August). Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 121, 3-I, 1–15.
Lipsey, M. W., Wilson, D. B., & Cothern, L. (2009, April). Effective intervention for serious juvenile offenders. U.S. Department of Justice Bulletin. Retrieved from
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.