Reentry Programs for Adult Male Offender Recidivism and Reintegration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18778448
• Author: Maria Berghuis
• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X18778448

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2018, Vol. 62(14) 4655 –4676

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X18778448

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Reentry Programs for Adult

Male Offender Recidivism and

Reintegration: A Systematic

Review and Meta-Analysis

Maria Berghuis1

Abstract

The aim of this review is to assess the effectiveness of reentry programs designed to

reduce recidivism and ensure successful reintegration among adult, male offenders.

Studies were included if they (a) evaluated a reentry program incorporating elements

dealing with the transition from prison to community for adult, male offenders; (b)

utilized a randomized controlled design; and (c) measured recidivism as a primary

outcome. In addition, secondary outcomes measures of reintegration were also

included. The systematic search of 8,179 titles revealed nine randomized controlled

evaluations that fulfilled eligibility criteria. The random-effects meta-analysis for

rearrest revealed a statistically nonsignificant effect favoring the intervention (odds

ratio [OR] = 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.74, 1.07]). Similar results were

found for reconviction (OR = 0.94, 95% CI [0.77, 1.12]) and reincarceration (OR =

0.90, 95% CI [0.78, 1.05]). Studies reported mixed results of secondary outcomes of

reintegration. The results of this review reflect the variability of findings on reducing

recidivism. The challenges faced in conducting this review highlight a need for further

research and theory development around reentry programs.

Keywords

interventions, meta-analysis, reentry, randomized controlled trial, recidivism,

systematic review

Introduction

In the United States, 93% of prisoners will at some point return to their communities.

Therefore, it is important to look at the process by which they readjust into life outside

1Leiden University, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author:

Maria Berghuis, Leiden University, Steenschuur 25, 2311 ES Leiden, The Netherlands.

Email: m.l.berghuis@law.leidenuniv.nl

778448IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X18778448International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyBerghuis

research-article2018

4656 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 62(14)

prison walls (Petersilia, 2003). In addition, issues such as the great number of released

prisoners, the high recidivism rates, and the economic burden of the prison system

warrant attention to the reentry process (Duwe, 2012). Furthermore, it has been evi-

dent that many inmates enter prison with major social and personal problems, ranging

from financial insecurity, unemployment, substance use, mental health, and poor

social relationships. Not only will they encounter the same problems when they leave,

but they also leave prison with new problems (loss of a house, job, and/or relationship)

(Maguire, 2007). This begs attention for reentry efforts in criminology and interven-

tion research.

Reentry interventions can be correctional-based, community-based, or both (Duwe,

2012; Seiter & Kadela, 2003). These programs can vary in terms of complexity: Some

are unimodal meaning they target one aspect of reentry (e.g., substance use), whereas

others are multimodal meaning they target several aspects of reentry (e.g., employ-

ment, housing, social support, and substance use). Although they can take many forms,

reentry programs should focus on the transition from prison to the community to maxi-

mize reintegration (Bouffard & Bergeron, 2007). Ideally, these programs would also

make this transition a gradual one (Petersilia, 2003). To do this, many reentry pro-

grams have several phases; firstly, within the walls of the prison, then into the com-

munity, and finally, integration where independence is encouraged (Day, Ward, &

Shirley, 2011; Taxman, Young, & Bryne, 2004). Reentry programs tend to be rela-

tively short because the risk of recidivism is highest during the first year after release

(Langan & Levin, 2002).

Many scholars have argued that one of the greatest weaknesses in reentry literature

is the lack of theory (Maloney, Bazemore, & Hudson, 2001; Maruna, Immarigeon, &

LeBel, 2004). Most reentry interventions have a “rather bizarre assumption that

supervision and some guidance can steer the offender straight” (Maloney et al., 2001,

p. 24). Moreover, most reentry interventions use a deficit-based approach, in which

programs aim to correct the deficits that offenders have in order to be successful

(Schlager, 2013). Indeed, most reentry interventions focus on human and social capi-

tal via helping with employment, housing, increasing social support, and lowering

dependency on drugs and alcohol. Although much of the literature and studies on

developed interventions do not clearly state a theory of change, many implicit theo-

ries can be found. Several criminological theories can be used to explain why

improvements in these areas may decrease the likelihood of recidivism. For example,

employment has been seen as a resiliency factor because it has economic and cogni-

tive benefits; it keeps people from perpetrating crimes (Krienert & Fleisher, 2004).

Considering social support, social bond theory argues that strong bonds to family and

friends will restrain people from becoming involved in illegal activities (Colvin,

Cullen, & Vander Ven, 2002). However, by focusing on the deficits of offenders, the

strengths, capabilities, and agency to engage in the reentry process have largely been

ignored. Reentry is a process and not a finite event. Therefore, Schlager (2013) argues

for a new narrative in reentry, namely, a strengths-based approach. This approach

focuses on the strengths of offenders and engages them in the process of reentry. In

this approach, three key principles for successful offender reentry are highlighted: