Prisoner Reentry Research From 2000 to 2010

• Author: Benjamin J. Wright,Sheldon X. Zhang,Rick Braatz,David Farabee
• Published date: 01 March 2014
• Date: 01 March 2014
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0734016813501192
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Prisoner Reentry Research

From 2000 to 2010: Results

of a Narrative Review

Benjamin J. Wright

1

, Sheldon X. Zhang

1

,

David Farabee

2

, and Rick Braatz

1

Abstract

This article presents a comprehensive analysis of 35 evaluations on community-based prisoner

reentry programs that have been published in the past decade, between 2000 and 2010, evaluating

29 different programs. We were surprised by the small number of studies available in the literature

considering the magnitude of the problem and its implications for correctional budgets, commu-

nity safety, and prisoner rehabilitation. The most commonly found reentry program features were

life skills and substance abuse treatment. Programs with aftercare and housing assistance were

most likely to produce favorable outcomes. Most studies located in this narrative analysis used

quasi-experimental designs; few employed random assignment. Th e vast majority of stu dies found

in peer-reviewed journals reported favorable outcomes. Quasi-experimental studies were also far

more likely to find positive outcomes than studies using random assignment. We conclude by

offering some suggestions for future research.

Keywords

prisoner reentry, recidivism, program evaluation, community corrections, publication bias

Introduction

A continual challenge in prisoner reentry efforts is to create programs that actually ‘‘work,’’ which is

to say programs that make a significant, positive impact on the lives of participants. As of 2009,

more than 1.5 million people were incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States, more

than 760,000 were incarcerated at the local level, and more than 7.2 million people were under some

form of correctional authority supervision (Glaze, 2010). According to the Pew Center on the States

(2009), as of 2007, 1 in every 31 adults in the United States (3.2%of the adult population) was under

some form of criminal justice supervision, with the size of this population tripling over the course of

1

Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, USA

2

Integrated Substance Abuse Programs, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, University of California,

Los Angeles, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Benjamin J. Wright, Department of Sociology, San Diego State University, 5500 Campanile Drive, San Diego, CA 92182, USA.

Email: bjwright@kent.edu

Criminal Justice Review

2014, Vol. 39(1) 37-57

ª2013 Georgia State University

Reprints and permission:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0734016813501192

cjr.sagepub.com

25 years, between 1982 and 2007 (Pew Center on the States, 2009). There are many explanations for

the growth of this population, many of which center on changes in sentencing guidelines and the war

on drugs.

The 1970s saw a reversal of the prisoner rights movement of the 1960s in the United States and

many areas began passing tougher sentencing guidelines, such as three strike laws, and decreasing

rehabilitation services, in addition to giving increased attention to drug-related offenses (Cullen &

Gendreau, 2000; Haney & Zimbardo, 1998; Petersilia, 2003/2009; Travis & Petersilia, 2001). This

tough on crime sentiment continued throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, resembling, as Haney

and Zimbardo (1998, p. 712) write, ‘‘nothing so much as a runaway punishment train, driven by

political steam and fueled by media-induced fears of crime.’’ But in the drive to deliver tougher

sanctions, many factors have been overlooked—overcrowding, lack of accessibility to rehabilitation

programs, and particularly the fact that the vast majority of prisoners will eventually be released.

As Petersilia (2003/2009, p. 3) explains, despite the attention given to high-profile death penalty

and life-without-parole sentences, these account for only 7%of all offenders, and only about 3,000

people per year die in prison, while 93%will be eventually released. Although significant amounts

of money have been invested into prisoner reentry programs, several key questions remain: How

successful are the reentry programs currently in operation? What types of programs deliver the most

promising results? And how can programs best be designed to minimize relapse and recidivism?

Every year, approximately 650,000 people are released from state and federal prisons in the

United States, according to the U.S. Department of Justice (2011). And according to a Bureau of

Justice Statistics report, based on a study of individuals released from custody in 15 states in

1994, more than two thirds (67.5%) of those released were rearrested within 3 years following their

release, and slightly more than half (51.8%) returned to prison within that same time frame (Langan

& Levin, 2002). The question then is what, if anything, can be done to help those who are released

from prison readjust to life on the outside? Research has documented the many challenges faced by

ex-offenders when they reenter the community, including lack of access to medical treatment and

medication, drug treatment, housing, and employment (Travis, 2005; Visher, Kachnowski, Vigne,

& Travis, 2004). Are the reentry programs in operation meeting these needs and are there any

programs that are more successful than others in helping prisoners reenter society and reducing reci-

divism? What types of program features are common to such interventions? Throughout the course

of this study, we systematically searched and acquired published journal articles and agency reports

to assess the impact of programs designed to assist in the prisoner reentry process. We also assessed

the methodological quality of the evaluations themselves, using a slightly modified coding instru-

ment that was developed by Mitchell, Wilson, and Mackenzie (2006).

Ever since Martinson (1974), there has been a growing demand for rigorous research in the field

of corrections. While the study by Lipton, Martinson, and Wilks (1975), which was previewed in

Martinson’s 1974 article, led many to pessimistically conclude that ‘‘nothing works’’ in prisoner

reentry programs, others, including Martinson and colleagues felt that programs that may not seem

to be working could be the result of poor methodology or poor program implementation. All sides of

the issue called for more ‘‘evidence-based’’ research to determine what programs were successful in

making lasting changes in the lives of their participants. While the concept of what exactly qualifies

as evidence-based research is a bit ambiguous, several attempts have been made to develop a clearer

understanding of what quality evidence-based research should entail (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000;

MacKenzie, 2000; Sherman et al., 1997). More than a decade ago, a few prominent researchers

appealed to policy makers and funding agencies advocating rigorous evaluation using true experi-

mental design (i.e., randomized clinical trial) to evaluate correctional interventions (Sherman,

2000; Weisburd, 2000, 2003). Generally, these benchmarks include, notably, the application of a

quasi-experimental or (preferably) experimental design, control of outside variables, and establish-

ment of a methodology capable of detecting program effects, among other more minor factors.

38 Criminal Justice Review 39(1)