The DOI matches its Crossref record; its reference list is not available.
Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a Randomized Experiment
Open accessAbstract
Using a randomized experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP), an offender reentry pilot project implemented in 2008. In an effort to reduce recidivism, MCORP attempted to increase offender access to community services and programming by producing greater case management collaboration between caseworkers in prison and supervision agents in the community. The results showed that MCORP significantly improved employment rates, decreased homelessness, broadened offenders’ systems of social support, and increased the extent to which offenders participated in community support programming (mentoring, restorative justice services, and faith‐based programming). The findings further revealed that MCORP significantly reduced all three types of reoffending (rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarcerations) but did not have a significant impact on supervision revocations for technical violations. The evidence suggests that MCORP was effective in decreasing reoffending largely because it increased the extent to which offenders were employed, involved in community support programming, and able to develop systems of social support.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Three additional studies evaluating SVORI-funded programs providing broad case management services were shown to be effective.
“Three additional studies, all evaluating SVORI-funded programs which provided broad case management services, were shown to be effective.57,58,66”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [57]
The Introduction says MCORP received $1.9 million in Minnesota state funds, distinguishing it from the earlier federally funded SVORI projects. The paper does support the other elements: it evaluates a case-management reentry program and reports reduced reoffending. But it contradicts the claim that this particular program was SVORI-funded. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredNavigation programs including case management services and peer support during incarceration and bridging to the community have been shown to reduce rates of return to jail.
“Navigation programs which include case management services and peer support during incarceration and bridging to the community have also been shown to reduce rates of return to jail.55,57,58,66”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [57]
The Introduction describes MCORP as case management spanning incarceration and community reentry, and the Conclusion links community mentoring and support programming with reduced reoffending. But the Results find a significant reduction in reincarceration for new offenses, not in any return to prison; they do not establish a reduction in returns to jail generally or describe peer support during incarceration as a tested component. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredImportant intervention components across all navigation studies included a low caseload for caseworkers (20-30 clients per 1.0 FTE), services starting in prison and bridged to the community, and a target population of individuals who had committed violent crimes.
“Important intervention components across all studies included a low caseload for caseworkers (20-30 clients per 1.0 FTE), services starting in prison and bridged to the community, and a target population of individuals who had committed violent crimes.57,58,66,67”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [57]
The Introduction describes MCORP services beginning during incarceration and continuing into the community, and says supervision agents had reduced caseloads. But it gives those caseloads as approximately 35–40 offenders, not 20–30; institutional caseworkers remained at 80–90. Its offense categories include property, drug, and DWI offenses, so it does not support describing people who committed violent crimes as the target population of this study. The paper also cannot establish what was true across all the cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 35 · Cited by 84
Research works printed but not linked: 38
- 10.1177/0022427808317574 · DOI
- 10.1177/0022427809341935 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.4324/9780203166697_chapter_6 · DOI
- Derzken, D. , Gobeil, R. , and Gileno, J. , 2009. Visitation and post‐release outcome among federally‐sentenced offenders . Ottawa: Correctional Service of Canada; 2009.
- 10.1007/s11292-010-9090-8 · DOI
- 10.1177/0093854810364106 · DOI
- 10.1177/0011128707301628 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1745-9125.1996.tb01220.x · DOI · Paper page
- Grattet, R. , Petersilia, J. , and Lin, J. , 2008. Parole violations and revocations in California . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; 2008.
- Harer, M. D. , 1995. Prison education program participation and recidivism: A test of the normalization hypothesis . Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons; 1995.
- Holl, D. B. , Kolovich, L. , Grady, M. , and Coffey, A. C. , 2009. Evaluation of the prisoner re‐entry initiative: Final report . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor; 2009.
- 10.1177/0011128703258874 · DOI
- Knollenberg, L. , and Martin, V. A. , 2008. Community reentry following prison: A process evaluation of the Accelerated Community Entry Program , Federal Probation 72 (2008), p. 2.
- 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2006.00046.x · DOI
- 10.1525/fsr.2002.15.1.58 · DOI · Paper page
- LaVigne, N. , Lawrence, S. , Kachnowski, V. , Naser, R. , and Schaffer, M. , 2002. Process evaluation of the Pennsylvania Community Orientation and Reintegration (COR) program . Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2002.
- Lutze, F. E. , Bouffard, J. , and Falconer, S. , 2009. Washington State’s reentry housing pilot program evaluation: Year 1 report . Pullman, WA: Washington State University; 2009.
- Lynch, J. P. , and Sabol, W. J. , 2001. Prisoner reentry in perspective . Washington, DC: Urban Institute; 2001.
- 10.1017/CBO9780511499470 · DOI
- McDonald, D. , Dyous, C. , and Carlson, K. , 2008. The effectiveness of prisoner reentry services as crime control: The fortune society . Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates; 2008.
- McGarrell, E. F. , Hipple, N. , and Banks, D. , 2003. Applying problem solving approaches to issues of inmate re‐entry: The Indianapolis pilot project . Indianapolis, IN: Hudson Institute; 2003.
- 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2008.00111.x · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2004.tb00031.x · DOI
- Minnesota Department of Corrections, 2006. Final report on the Serious Offender Accountability Restoration (SOAR) Project . St. Paul, MN: Author; 2006.
- 10.1007/s11292-007-9040-2 · DOI
- Nuttall, J. , Hollmen, L. , and Staley, E. , 2003. The effect of earning a GED on recidivism rates , Journal of Correctional Education 54 (2003), pp. 90–94.
- Petersilia, J. , 2003. When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry . New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
- 10.1086/449215 · DOI
- Sample, L.L. , and Spohn, C. , 2008. Final report for the evaluation of Nebraska’s serious and violent offender reentry program . Omaha, NE: School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska at Omaha; 2008.
- Saylor, W. G. , and Gaes, G. G. , 1997. Training inmates through industrial work participation and vocational apprenticeship instruction , Corrections Management Quarterly 1 (1997), pp. 32–43.
- Smith, L. G. , and Suttle, D. R. , 2008. Final report: An outcome evaluation of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections’ Community Orientation and Reintegration Program . Columbus, OH: International Association of Reentry; 2008.
- 10.1037/e720022011-001 · DOI
- 10.1037/e720322011-001 · DOI
- 10.1177/1079063209347724 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00380.x · DOI
- 10.1177/0022427800037004001 · DOI · Paper page
- Winterfield, L. , Lattimore, P. K. , Steffey, D. M. , Brumbaugh, S. , and Lindquist, C. , 2006. The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: Measuring the effects of service delivery , Western Criminology Review 7 (2006), pp. 3–19.
- 10.1177/0011128705282594 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Duwe, G.
- Corresponding author
- Duwe, Grant
- ORCID
- Duwe, Grant
- Venue
- Justice Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2011-03-09
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 347-383
- ISSN
- 0741-8825 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-9109
- OpenAlex
- W2080596376
- Cited by
- 84
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 24.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Justice Quarterly (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Crime Patterns and Interventions
- Keywords
- prisoner reentry, recidivism, case management, community supervision, employment, homelessness, social support, restorative justice, mentoring, rearrest, reconviction, reincarceration, technical violations
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
