Advertisement

American Journal of Criminal Justice

, Volume 42, Issue 4, pp 759–767 | Cite as

Profile of Two Second Chance Act Offender Treatment Initiatives: A Research Note

  • J. Mitchell Miller
  • J. C. Barnes
  • Holly Ventura Miller
Article

Abstract

Federal funding efforts have increased the number of reentry programs over the past decade with corresponding evaluations of these initiatives. Reentry programming targets a wide range of offenders though most have focused on medium and high-risk individuals with substance abuse and/or mental health disorders. This research note provides a profile overview of two programs in central Ohio funded by the Second Chance Act and offers a summary of process and outcome evaluation findings from both initiatives. Results from a mixed methods research design suggested that the programs were largely successful in terms of reducing recidivism among participants, though issues related to programmatic fidelity were also identified. While these programs pre-date more current offender intervention efforts, such as the Justice Mental Health Collaboration Program, identified barriers to program success reaffirm the saliency of longstanding problems embedded in and challenged by correctional and police culture.

Keywords

Reentry Offender programming Second Chance Act 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project was sponsored by Grants Nos. 2011-RW-BX-0008 and 2011-RN-BX0004 awarded by the US Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the Delaware County (OH) Sheriff’s Office or the U.S. Department of Justice.

References

  1. Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009). Controlling violent offenders released to the community: An evaluation of the Boston reentry initiative. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 46(4), 411–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Colvin, M., Cullen, F. T., & Ven, T. V. (2002). Coercion, social support, and crime: An emerging theoretical consensus. Criminology, 40(1), 19–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2016). Correctional theory: Context and consequences. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  4. Gideon, L. (2010). Drug offenders’ perceptions of motivation: The role of motivation in rehabilitation and reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54(4), 597–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. (2009). Multi-site evaluation of SVORI: Summary and synthesis. Prepared for the National Institute of Justice. Available from: http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412075_evaluation_svori.pdf
  6. Little, G. L., & Robinson, K. D. (1988). Moral reconation therapy: A systematic step-by-step treatment system for treatment resistant clients. Psychological Reports, 62(1), 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 575–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Lynch, J. P., & Furstenau, C. M. (2008). The Auglaize County transition program. American Jails, 22(5), 1–4.Google Scholar
  9. McKnight, E. R., Bonny, A. E., Lange, H. L., Kline, D. M., Abdel-Rasoul, M., Gay, J. R., & Matson, S. C. (2017). Statewide opioid prescriptions and the prevalence of adolescent opioid misuse in Ohio. The American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 43(3), 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Miethe, T. D., & Lu, H. (2005). Punishment: A comparative historical perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Miller, J. M., Koons-Witt, B. A., & Ventura, H. E. (2004). Barriers to evaluating the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 75–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2010). Community in-reach through jail reentry: Findings from a quasi-experimental design. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 893–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Miller, J. M., & Miller, H. V. (2015). Rethinking program fidelity for criminal justice. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(2), 339–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Miller, J.M., Stogner, J.M., & Miller, B.L. (2017). Exploring synthetic heroin: Accounts of acetyl fentanyl use from a sample of dually-diagnosed drug offenders. Drug & Alcohol Review.  https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12502.
  15. Roozen, H. G., De Waart, R., & Van Der Kroft, P. (2010). Community reinforcement and family training: An effective option to engage treatment-resistant substance-abusing individuals in treatment. Addiction, 105(10), 1729–1738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Severson, M. E., Bruns, K., Veeh, C., & Lee, J. (2011). Prisoner reentry programming: Who recidivates and when? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 327–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Shover, N. (1979). A sociology of American corrections. Homewood: Dorsey Press.Google Scholar
  18. Stewart, L., & Picheca, J. C. (2001). Improving offender motivation for programming. Forum on Corrections Research,13(1), 18–20.Google Scholar
  19. Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2017). Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 136–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wilson, J. A., & Davis, R. C. (2006). Good intentions meet hard realities: An evaluation of the project greenlight reentry program. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 303–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Southern Criminal Justice Association 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Mitchell Miller
    • 1
  • J. C. Barnes
    • 2
  • Holly Ventura Miller
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North FloridaJacksonvilleUSA
  2. 2.University of CincinnatiCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations