The Impact of Prison Reentry Services on Short-Term Outcomes: Evidence From a Multisite Evaluation
Abstract
Background: Renewed interest in prisoner rehabilitation to improve postrelease outcomes occurred in the 1990s, as policy makers reacted to burgeoning prison populations with calls to facilitate community reintegration and reduce recidivism. In 2003, the Federal government funded grants to implement locally designed reentry programs. Adult programs in 12 states were studied to determine the effects of the reentry programs on multiple outcomes. Research design: A two-stage matching procedure was used to examine the effectiveness of 12 reentry programs for adult males. In the first stage, “intact group matching” was used to identify comparison populations that were similar to program participants. In the second stage, propensity score matching was used to adjust for remaining differences between groups. Propensity score weighted logistic regression was used to examine the impact of reentry program participation on multiple outcomes measured 3 months after release. Subjects and data: The study population was 1,697 adult males released from prisons in 2004–2005. Data consisted of interview data gathered 30 days prior to release and approximately 3 months following release, supplemented by administrative data from state departments of correction and the National Crime Information Center. Results and conclusions: Results suggest programs increased in-prison service receipt and produced modest positive outcomes across multiple domains (employment, housing, and substance use) 3 months after release. Although program participants reported fewer crimes, differences in postrelease arrest and reincarceration were not statistically significant. Incomplete implementation and service receipt by comparison group members may have resulted in insufficient statistical power to identify stronger treatment effects.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
One study synthesizing results from multiple additional SVORI programs found only a small drop in future criminal legal system involvement.
“However, one study synthesizing results from multiple additional SVORI programs found only a small drop in future criminal legal system involvement.65”
From Community investment interventions as a means for decarceration: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [65]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 50 · Cited by 48
- Authors
- Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A.
- Affiliations
- RTI International (US)
- University of Delaware (US)
- ORCID
- Lattimore, Pamela K.
- Venue
- Evaluation Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2013-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 274-313
- ISSN
- 0145-4692 (ISSN-L)
- 0193-841X
- 1552-3926
- OpenAlex
- W2170515127
- Cited by
- 48
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 8.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Evaluation Review (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Justice
- 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 programs, prisoner rehabilitation, post-release outcomes, recidivism, reincarceration, employment, housing, substance use, community reintegration, program effectiveness
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Crime, Humans, Male, Prisons, United States, Program Evaluation, Criminals
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