Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Identifying Collateral Effects of Offender Reentry Programming Through Evaluative Fieldwork

  • Published:
American Journal of Criminal Justice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The transfer of offender supervision from prisons to community corrections has prioritized the implementation of reentry programming and outcome evaluation oriented toward impact specification and evidence based practices discovery. Similar to rehabilitation research, generally, reentry scholarship tends toward the statistical documentation of recidivism and related public safety indicators while under-utilizing qualitative techniques. This study reports the qualitative methods and findings from a mixed methods evaluation of a national model county reentry program for offenders with co-occurring disorders. Observation of treatment services, in-depth interviews with jail administrators and services providers, and focus group interviews with a sample of treatment group participants evidenced collateral benefits of programming. Discussion centers on treatment program implications and the value of mixed methods for justice program evaluation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adams, K., Bennett, K. J., Flanagan, T. J., Marquart, J. W., Cuvelier, S. J., Fritsch, E., et al. (1994). A large-scale multi-dimensional test of the effect of prison education programs on offenders’ behavior. The Prison Journal, 74(4), 433–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews, D. A., Zinger, I., Hoge, R. D., Bonta, J., Gendreau, P., & Cullen, F. T. (1990). Does correctional treatment work? A clinically relevant and psychologically informed meta-analysis. Criminology, 28, 369–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A.J. (2006). The importance of successful reentry to jail population growth. Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable, Working Paper No. 9. Available Online: www.urban.org/projects/reentry-roundtable/roundtable9.cfm.

  • Benson, M. L. (1985). Denying the guilty mind: Accounting for involvement in white collar crime. Criminology, 23, 583–607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berg, M. T., & Huebner, B. M. (2011). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 28(2), 382–410.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berk, R. A., & Rossi, P. H. (1990). Thinking about program evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bouffard, J. A., & Bergeron, L. E. (2006). Reentry works: The implementation and effectiveness of a serious and violent offender reentry initiative. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke, M. L., & Van Hasselt, V. B. (2001). Social problem-solving skills training for incarcerated offenders: A treatment manual. Behavior Modification, 25(2), 163–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewster, D. R., & Sharp, S. F. (2002). Educational programs and recidivism in Oklahoma: Another look. The Prison Journal, 82(3), 314–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buckaloo, B. J., Krug, K. S., & Nelson, K. B. (2009). Exercise and the low-security inmate: Changes in depression, stress, and anxiety. The Prison Journal, 89(3), 328–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S., Stoll, M., & Weiman, D. F. (2007). Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America. New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Camp, S. D., Daggett, D. M., Kwon, O., & Klein-Saffran, J. (2008). The effect of faith program participation on prison misconduct: The life connections program. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 389–395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castellano, T. C., & Soderstrom, I. R. (1997). Self-esteem, depression, and anxiety evidenced by a prison inmate sample: Interrelationships and consequences for prison programming. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 259–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chambliss, W.J. (1964). A Sociological Analysis of the Law of Vagrancy. Social Problems, Summer, 67–77.

  • Copes, H., Hochstetler, A., & Williams, P. (2008). We weren’t like no regular dope fiends: Negotiating hustler and crackhead identities. Social Problems, 55, 254–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DeLisi, M., Trulson, C. R., Marquart, J. W., Drury, A. J., & Kosloski, A. E. (2011). Inside the prison black box: Toward a life course importation model of inmate behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(8), 1186–1207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dietz, E. F., O’Connell, D. J., & Scarpitti, F. R. (2003). Therapeutic communities and prison management: An examination of the effects of operating an in-prison therapeutic community on levels of institutional disorder. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 47(2), 210–223.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • French, S. A., & Gendreau, P. (2006). Reducing prison misconducts: What works! Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(2), 185–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furst, G. (2006). Prison-based animal programs: A national survey. The Prison Journal, 86(4), 407–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, M. L., & Hepburn, J. R. (2006). The effect of gang affiliation on violent misconduct among inmates during the early years of confinement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 419–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hiller, M. L., Knight, K., & Simpson, D. D. (1999). Prison-based substance abuse treatment, residential aftercare and recidivism. Addiction, 94(6), 833–842.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himelstein, S. (2011). Meditation research: The state of the art in correctional settings. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(4), 646–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howells, K., & Day, A. (2006). Affective determinants of treatment engagement in violent offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 50(2), 174–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellar, M., & Wang, H. (2005). Inmate assaults in Texas county jails. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 515–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knight, K., Simpson, D. D., Chatham, L. R., & Camacho, L. M. (1997). An assessment of prison-based drug treatment: Texas’ in-prison therapeutic community program. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 24(3/4), 75–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krienert, J. L., & Fleisher, M. S. (2001). Gang membership as a proxy for social deficiencies: A study of Nebraska inmates. Corrections Management Quarterly, 5(1), 47–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lahm, K. F. (2008). Inmate-on-inmate assault: A multilevel examination of prison violence. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(1), 120–137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lahm, K. F. (2009). Inmate assaults on prison staff: A multilevel examination of an overlooked form of prison violence. The Prison Journal, 89(2), 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, L. C., & Stohr, M. K. (2012). A critique and qualified defense of “correctional quackery”. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 28(1), 96–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective (Crime Policy Report, Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P. (2010). American criminal justice policy: An evaluation approach to increasing accountability and effectiveness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., & Buck, J. (2006). Faith-based efforts to improve reentry: Assessing the logic and evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 351–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mears, D. P., Scott, M. L., & Bhati, A. S. (2007). A process and outcome evaluation of an agricultural crime prevention initiative. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 18(1), 51–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower-class culture as a generating milieu of gang delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14(3), 5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M. (2011). Becoming an informant. Justice Quarterly, 28(2).

  • Miller, J. M., Koons-Witt, B., & Ventura, H. E. (2004). Barriers to evaluating the effectiveness of drug treatment behind bars. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32(1), 75–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. M., & Selva, L. H. (1994). Drug enforcement’s double-edged sword: An assessment of asset forfeiture programs. Justice Quarterly, 11, 313–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. V., Tillyer, R., & Miller, J. M. (2012). Recognizing the need for prisoner input in correctional research: Observations from the Texas in-prison DWI reduction program. The Prison Journal, 92(2).

  • Osher, F.C. (2007). Short-term strategies to improve reentry of jail populations. American Jails, Jan./Feb. 2007, 9–18.

  • Osher, F. C., Steadman, H. J., & Barr, H. (2002). A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: The APIC model. Delmar, New York: The National GAINS Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. R. (1999). Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. In M. Tonry & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Prisons (pp. 479–529). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petersilia, J. R. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry?: Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocque, M., Biere, D. M., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2011). Social bonds and change during incarceration: Testing a missing link in the reentry research. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(5), 816–838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., Correa, V., & Buck, J. (2007). Assessing intermediate outcomes of a faith-based residential prisoner reentry program. Research on Social Work Practice, 17(2), 199–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross, M. W. (2011). Pedagogy for prisoners: An approach to peer health education for inmates. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 17(1), 6–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 360–388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shover, N. (1972). Structures and careers in burglary. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 63, 540–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shover, N. (1979). A sociology of American corrections. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soloman, A. L., Osborne, J. W. L., LoBuglio, S. F., Mellow, J., & Mukamal, D. A. (2008). Life after lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community. Washington, DC: Urban Insitute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steadman, H. J., & Veysey, B. M. (1997). Providing services for jail inmates with mental disorders. In National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. NCJ 162207.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steiner, B., & Wooldredge, J. (2008). Inmate versus environmental effects on prison rule violations. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(4), 438–456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, J., & Zaitzow, B. H. (2006). Conning or conversion? The role of religion in prison coping. The Prison Journal, 86(2), 242–259.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Travis, J., & Waul, M. (2004). Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tunnell, K.D. (1992). Choosing crime: The criminal calculus of property offenders. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

  • Visher, C. A. (2006). Effective reentry programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 299–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, M., McBride, R. E., & Crouse, S. F. (1999). The effects of weight-training exercise on aggression variables in adult male inmates. The Prison Journal, 79(1), 72–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (1999). Short-term outcome of inmates participating in the lifestyle change program. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26(3), 322–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Welsh, W. N., McGrain, P., Salamatin, N., & Zajac, G. (2007). Effects of prison drug treatment on inmate misconduct: A repeated measures analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(5), 600–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M. D., Saunders, J., Fisher, C., & Mellow, J. (2012). Exploring inmate reentry in a local jail setting: Implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 124–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagan, T. J., & Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(7), 879–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worrall, J. L., & Morris, R. G. (2011). Inmate custody levels and prison rules violations. The Prison Journal, 9(2), 131–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, USA

    J. Mitchell Miller

Authors
  1. J. Mitchell Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Mitchell Miller.

Appendices

Appendix A: ACT Provider Interview Schedule

Administrators :

  • Ideological agreement with the program and its objectives

  • Purpose of treatment program

  • Specific goals for the program

  • Commitment of the ACSO to achieve these goals

  • Prioritization of the program within the facility

  • Implementation of program – continuity across staff, effectiveness for residents

  • Training of staff

  • Barriers to delivery of services

  • Modifications needed

Staff :

  • Training history

  • Credentials and past experience with treatment delivery

  • Intake/Initial assessments of inmates

  • Resources Availability

  • Barriers to effective implementation of the program

  • Development of rapport with inmates

  • Utility of the curriculum

  • Rule violations and repercussions

  • Perceptions of effectiveness

  • Recommendations for change in program

Qualitative Interview Schedule: Program Participants

Topic Area

Specific Items

Transfer/Placement

• Facility orientation – information

• Program orientation – information

• Transfer status – information; selection process

• Appropriateness of placement (self and others)

Needs Assessment

• Treatment Plans

• Timeline for conducting this assessment and developing a plan

• Meeting with a counselor

Program Components

• Counseling

 ○ Individual

 ○ Group

• Curriculum assessment

• Specific topics/skills

 ○ Consequences of drinking

 ○ Identification and elimination of triggering mechanisms

 ○ Explore feelings or emotions

 ○ Identification of thinking errors

• Program length of time

Counselors

• Effectiveness

• Knowledge

• Attitude

Environment

• Safety

• Services

 ○ Medical services

 ○ Availability and quality of food

 ○ Availability of supplies

• Guards

• Privileges

 ○ Access to books, TV, educational videos, etc.

 ○ Recreation time

 ○ Commissary visits and supplies

 ○ Phone access/visitation

Overall

• Attitude toward rehabilitation

• Confidence in ability to not re-offend

• Strengths of program

• Weaknesses of program

Appendix B: ACT Participant Schedule

Needs Assessment

  • Understanding of Treatment Plans

  • Timeline for conducting this assessment and developing a plan

  • Meeting with a counselor

Program Components

  • Counseling

  •  ○ Individual

  •  ○ Group

  • Curriculum assessment

  • Specific topics/skills

  • Program length of time

Counselor Performance

  • Effectiveness

  • Knowledge

  • Attitude

Participant Attitude

  • Attitude toward rehabilitation

  • Confidence in ability to not re-offend

  • Strengths of program

  • Weaknesses of program

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Miller, J.M. Identifying Collateral Effects of Offender Reentry Programming Through Evaluative Fieldwork. Am J Crim Just 39, 41–58 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9206-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-013-9206-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation