Measuring Gaps in Reentry Service Delivery through Program Director and Participant Reports

• Date: 01 June 2011
• Published date: 01 June 2011
• DOI: 10.3818/JRP.13.1.2011.77
• Author: Christy A. Visher,Pamela K. Lattimore,Danielle M. Steffey
• Subject Matter: Article



*



MeasuringGapsinReentryServiceDeliveryThrough

ProgramDirectorandParticipantReports

Pamela K. Lattimore

RTI International

Christy A. Visher

University of Delaware

Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies

Danielle M. Steffey

RTI International

* Abstract

Delivery of services and programs to individuals who are incarcerated and those who

have been released recently often falls short of expectations formed during the program

planning stage. When programs are partially implemented, program participants receive

less than what was prescribed—fewer services and lower dosages of provided services.

Partial implementation has the effect of diluting treatment effects and reducing the

power of outcome evaluations under an intent-to-treat analysis. This article uses data

collected from surveys of 12 reentry program directors and interviews with 863 adult

male prisoners participating in these 12 individually designed, comprehensive reentry

programs. The programs were implemented using federal funds obtained through

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) grants and were designed

to provide a variety of services. This article describes the prelease services program

directors identif‌ied as components of their local SVORI programs and compares

these site-level reports with the services participants reported receiving. The analyses

provide a “f‌irst-order” measure of implementation that assesses the extent to which

those providing services and those receiving services agreed in terms of the prevalence

of service receipt. The hypothesis is that agreement suggests that the program was at

minimum delivering the services planned. We then look in more detail at the variation

with respect to the delivery of 21 specif‌ic prerelease service items, individually and as

part of constructed “service bundles.” Results suggest considerable variability across

the sites and across service items and bundle scores in both levels of service reported

and the extent of agreement between program directors and participants.

The Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)

was supported by grant number 2004-RE-CX-002 from the National Institute of Justice

(U.S. Department of Justice). Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent those of the U.S. Department of Justice. The authors wish to thank the SVORI

program directors for their time in completing the survey and providing additional clarifying

information to the evaluation team, as well as to thank the program participants who

participated in the longitudinal study.

JUSTICE RESEARCH AND POLICY, Vol. 13, No. 1, 2011

© 2011 Justice Research and Statistics Association



Over the past decade we have experienced an unprecedented increase in the num-

ber of offenders leaving prison. More than 700,000 inmates were released from

prisons and more than 12 million inmates were released from jails in the United

States in 2009 alone, with similar numbers of releases projected over the next sev-

eral years (West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010; Beck, 2006; Minton, 2010). Against

the reality that as many as two thirds of released prisoners will be rearrested within

three years (Langan & Levin, 2002), policymakers and criminal justice practitioners

are searching for ways to help reintegrate offenders into the community and reduce

the likelihood that they will eventually return to criminal activity.

It is well known that individuals released from prisons and jails face myriad

obstacles to successful reentry, including limited occupational and educational ex-

perience and training to prepare them for employment, drug and alcohol addic-

tions, mental and physical health problems, strained family relations, and lim

ited

opportunities due to the stigma of a criminal record (Lattimore, Steffey, & Visher,

2010; Lindquist, Barrick, Lattimore, & Visher, 2009; Lattimore & Visher, 2009;

Petersilia, 2003; Travis & Visher, 2005; Solomon, Osborne, LoBuglio, Mellow, &

Mukamal, 2008). Not surprisingly, re

leased inmates express high levels of need

for a wide variety of services, particu

larly those

associated with basic transitional

needs, such as housing, transportation, and employment (Lattimore, Steffey, &

Visher, 2010; Lattimore, Visher, & Steffey, 2008; Petersilia, 2003; Solomon et al.,

2008). Reentry programming and services are designed to facilitate offenders’

transition from incarceration; to improve individual outcomes in areas such as

substance use, employment, and family/community reintegration; and, ultimate-

ly, to reduce recidivism. As such, these programs are de

signed to provide a variety

of services across multiple domains. The requirement to respond to multiple needs

with a variety of services beginning in prisons and continuing out in the commu-

nity following an individual’s release is a substantial challenge.

Research on what works in c

orrectional programming has led to the identif‌ica-

tion of several “principles of effective correctional intervention” (Andrews et al.,

1990; Gendreau, 1996; Andrews & Hoge, 1995; Cullen & Applegate, 1998; Cullen

& Gendreau, 2000; Andrews & Bonta, 2007). These principles can be categorized

into four general principles of risk, need, treatment, and f‌idelity. The risk principle

states that treatment should target the offenders with the highest probability of

recidivism—i.e., the highest risk offenders. The need principle states that programs

should target known criminogenic needs and risk factors. The f‌irst two principles

require the use of risk and needs assessments to identify the highest risk offenders

and their criminogenic needs. The treatment principle states that the most effec-

tive interventions are cognitive-behavioral in nature. Such programs are action ori-

ented, reinforce appropriate behavior, and provide structured social learning. The

f‌idelity principle states that evidence-based programs (EBPs) must be implemented

as designed. Correctional program effectiveness in terms of reducing recidivism is

directly related to program implementation and how well a program meets the prin-

ciples of effective intervention (Latessa & Holsinger, 1998; Lowenkamp, Latessa,