Assessing Offender Reentry Programs and Recidivism Reduction

Introduction

Offender reentry covers all activities and programs that help prepare former offenders to return safely to their communities, assimilate, and live again as law-abiding citizens (James, 2011). It is, however, unfortunate that some of them eventually return to prison—at the 1994 rate of two-thirds within three years of release. Recidivists, compared with average law-abiding citizens, are less educated, less gainfully employed, and more likely to be involved in drug use or to have a history of mental illness. These are consequences of incarceration (James). Mass imprisonments in the 1980s and 1990s generated a prisoner reentry crisis and its unpredictable long-term consequences (O'Hear, 2007). Almost all of them eventually re-enter the communities where they previously committed their crimes (O'Hear). These communities are already burdened with many kinds of serious social problems. These prisoners also return to their former homes and neighborhoods carrying the scars accumulated in prison, in addition to a criminal record. Records indicate that there are eight times more re-entering prisoners today than in 1970. The communities they return to will inevitably experience higher rates of crime, homelessness, substance abuse, and increased demand for social services. Resources in social agencies are already thinly spread (O'Hear).

The three phases of offender reentry programs are: during incarceration, during release, and during permanent reintegration into the community (James, 2011). Current offender reentry program designs vary widely in range, scope, and methodology. Research has suggested that the most effective programs are those begun in the first phase and carried through release and reintegration (James).

The purpose of this study is to evaluate current prison reentry reform programs. Its significance lies in providing policymakers a basis for streamlining current programs. The hypothesis is that a more realistic prison reentry reform program will satisfactorily reduce recidivism rates and address related issues. The central problem is that a more responsive prison reentry reform program is urgently needed.

Methods

Keywords used in this study include offender reentry programs, prison reentry statistics, and effective prison reentry programs. Databases consulted included BioMed Central, PubMed, The Prison Journal, Federal Probation, the Congressional Research Service, and the Urban Institute. Selection criteria encompassed a range of offender reentry programs proportional to the scope of the study, background information and statistics on prison reentry, and challenges and evaluations of program effectiveness.

A total of nine sources were selected on the basis of these criteria. Of these, five studies evaluated five offender reentry programs; one source provided statistics; and three offered insights, challenges, and assessments of current programs. The years covered by the selected sources ranged from 2001 to 2011. Their databases included the Rappaport Institute, the CRS Report for Congress, the Journal of Psychoanalytic Drug from PubMed, Addiction Science and Clinical Practice at BioMed Central, Crime and Delinquency, and the Justice Policy Center.

This study employs the descriptive-normative method of research in recording, describing, interpreting, analyzing, and comparing data from five updated and authoritative sources.

Results: Reentry Programs Reviewed

The first program reviewed is the Second Chance Act, grounded in a $300 million prison reentry budget (O'Hear, 2007). The concept was to help returning inmates who cannot find jobs and to keep them from sliding back into criminality. The Act was designed to complement other initiatives of federal, state, and local agencies, such as the Department of Justice's Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative—a $130 million grant program that ran from 2003 to 2005 (O'Hear).

A multi-state longitudinal study on the experiences of offenders on parole disclosed a high level of rapport between parolees and parole officers (Yahner et al., 2008). The study, entitled "Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry," examined the perspectives of 740 former male prisoners in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas from 2002 to 2005. Their average age was 36, with 31% below age 30 upon release. Of that number, 68% had been previously incarcerated and 74% were released on parole. The parolees were 15% white and 85% non-white. Rather than genuine parole supervision, surveillance was largely practiced. Surveillance has shown to be ineffective in curbing recidivism. Bureau of Justice Statistics data indicated that prisoners released to parole supervision reoffended at rates similar to those released without it. This suggested that a business-like, surveillance-oriented atmosphere was unlikely to enhance community safety or improve parolees' lives. A separate report on parole by the National Research Council in 2007 found that the results of community reintegration were unclear and that some offenders appeared to benefit from it while others did not (Yahner et al.).

The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) was an interagency assistance program available to released violent adult offenders to help them transition from local jail back into the Boston community. Assistance covered mentoring, social services, and vocational development. The study was designed to evaluate the effects of the BRI on participants' subsequent recidivism (Braga et al.).

Drug-abusing parolees need specific interventions that provide effective treatment (Prendergast, 2009). First, their patterns of thinking, behavior, and daily life require that treatment not only prevent recidivism but also address their responses to drug abuse treatment. Second, criminal activity leading to a return to prison will interrupt—and perhaps permanently derail—progress toward recovery. Reentry programs that adhere to the principles of effective treatment utilize already-tested approaches and techniques while collaborating with criminal justice agencies and social services systems. With this combination, such programs can offer drug-abusing parolees the best chance to reduce their drug use and criminal behavior and gradually reintegrate into society. This review examines evidence-based drug abuse interventions for adult parolees and probationers, then considers interventions developed for general drug-abusing populations that appear promising for offenders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses from the past 20 years suggest key features associated with the effectiveness of certain interventions (Prendergast).

Conclusion

The combined results of evaluating these select offender reentry programs showed inconsistent findings. The Second Chance Act reflected unclear indications of community integration by offenders. The Boston Reentry Initiative's holistic approach suggested a reduction in the incidence of repeat crimes. The Returning Home study indicated that a surveillance-oriented, business-like atmosphere discourages offenders' reintegration into the community. And the evaluation of 32 reentry programs reflected generally encouraging results: vocational training and employment reduced recidivism and enhanced job readiness, while drug rehabilitation reduced the likelihood of arrests. This set of evaluations provides appropriate direction for policymakers in determining which programs work and which do not.

These evaluated offender reentry programs may be considered representative of current efforts to address the problem of recidivism. Their results can thus be regarded as broadly indicative of how current efforts stand. They provide needed direction for policymakers on what further reforms to pursue and advocate. They equip policymakers with the basis for streamlining existing programs, filling gaps, and making them more responsive. In the context of a continuously growing prison population, that responsiveness is more essential than ever.

Braga, A.A. et al. (2008). Controlling violent offenders released to the community. Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston: Harvard Kennedy School.

James, N. (2011). Offender reentry: Correctional statistics, reintegration into the community and recidivism. CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Research Service.

Listwan, S.J. and Cullen, F.T. (2006). How to prevent prisoner re-entry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation.

O'Hear, M.M. (2007). The Second Chance Act and the future of the reentry reform movement. Research Paper #07-15. Marquette University Law School.

Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. Vol. 81, No. 3. The Prison Journal.

Prendergast, M.L. (2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing parolees. Vol. 5, No. 1. Addiction Science and Clinical Practice: BioMed Central.

Seiter, R.P. and Kadela, K.R. (2003). Prison reentry: What works, what does not and what is promising. Vol. 49, No. 3. Crime & Delinquency: Sage Publications.

Yahner, J. et al. (2008). Returning home on parole. Justice Policy Center: Urban Institute.