Figure 1 - uploaded by Jeff Mellow
Content may be subject to copyright.
Survival Rates Among the Rikers Island Discharge Enhancement (RIDE) and Matched Comparison Groups (COMP)
Source publication
Although prisoner reentry has taken center stage in correctional research and policy discussions, there has been little emphasis on reentry among jail populations. This paper examines a jail-based reentry program in New York City that begins while individuals are incarcerated and includes 90 days of postrelease services. This article explores these...
Context in source publication
Context 1
... Last, both groups recorded their first return to jail approximately 3 months following release, 96.0 days for the RIDE group and 103.1 days for the matched comparison group. Figure 1 shows the rates of return to jail among both groups, and the results from the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis confirm that the groups do not differ on this out- come measure (log rank = 1.62, p = .20) ...
Similar publications
A majority of the research on students receiving special education services in the United States have focused on school-aged outcomes. Comparatively less is known about how these students fare in adulthood. By utilizing a one-to-one propensity score matching technique, individuals who received special education services were compared with those who...
Citations
... U.S. jails typically provide scant reentry, employment, or behavioral health services (Freudenberg et al., 2005;Scheyett et al., 2009), and individuals with unmet health, mental health, and psychosocial needs repeatedly find themselves trapped in cycles with the criminal legal system (Fazel et al., 2016;Jones, 2020). Research has found that access to and utilization of community and social services (such as employment, education, and other programs) during reentry can reduce recidivism and provide a variety of prosocial supports to young adults (Mizel & Abrams, 2020;White et al., 2008). However, the COVID-19 pandemic and its associated lockdowns reduced the availability and accessibility of needed services, leaving young adults to manage their needs without adequate supports. ...
In this study, the authors explore how young adults navigated the dual challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic and jail reentry in a large urban environment. Fifteen young adults (aged 18-25) participated in up to nine monthly semi-structured interviews to discuss their experiences of reentry during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic (i.e., spring and summer 2020). Participants held mixed attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19. Several participants viewed the pandemic as a hoax, while others took the pandemic more seriously, particularly if their friends and family members had contracted the virus. Yet nearly all participants viewed the pandemic as having a relatively minimal impact on their lives compared to the weight of their reentry challenges and probation requirements. Young adults described COVID-19 stay-at-home orders as limiting their exposure to negative influences and facilitating compliance with probation requirements. However, resource closures due to COVID-19, including schools, employment programs, and social services presented barriers to reentry success. The authors draw upon these findings to pose implications for interventions supporting young adult reentry.
Supplementary information:
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12103-022-09683-8.
... crisis services, therapy, medication continuity, psychiatric care). In comparison to prisons, jail stays are often much shorter since individuals are held after an arrest for an arraignment, conviction, sentencing, or trial (James & Glaze, 2006;White et al. 2012). In the US, jail sentences typically do not exceed one year (Bureau of Justice Statistics) with the average stay in 2016 at 25 days (Zeng, 2018), compared to prison stays in which 97% exceed one year (Carson, 2018). ...
... Despite the emphasis on these components, little research has examined the relationship between jails and community agencies that provide MH services. Even for the limited number of jail reentry programs that exist, little research has examined their impact (Solomon et al. 2007;White et al. 2012). More research however has been conducted on prison reentry programs that coordinate MH care upon reentry. ...
Mental illness is experienced at a higher rate among incarcerated individuals than the general population. This study is one of the first assessing the association of a jail-based mental health (MH) transition planning program with continuity of care (CoC) (defined as no gap in treatment upon reentry), behavioral health treatment engagement, and rearrest. A one group pre-posttest design merged three data sources: program, community-based MH treatment, and jail data. Participants included 161 people from a Midwest metropolitan county jail. The utilization of MH treatment significantly increased after the program, particularly stabilizing services (i.e. case management). Individuals who engaged most in the program had greater odds of treatment engagement and increased odds of CoC. Time to first rearrest was delayed for those who received CoC. By providing transition planning services, jails and community-based services may increase treatment engagement and CoC, and reduce the risk and frequency of rearrest.
... In contrast, any arrest captures any reason that an individual may have returned to custody, including new offenses but also any new arrest warrant resulting from an extrajurisdictional arrest, failure to appear, or technical violation during pretrial release. We chose to examine 6month outcomes because studies conducted in local jail settings show there is a steep drop in survival rates in the first 6 months after release, a trend that tapers off in subsequent months (Jung et al., 2010;White et al., 2012). Additionally, the period immediately after release is often of most concern for local agencies due to public perceptions of early release strategies when individuals who are released commit new offenses in the community. ...
Despite growing evidence on the harmful effects of pretrial detention on individuals’ criminal case processing and community integration, there has been limited empirical investigation of strategies to facilitate early release from detention. We conducted a retrospective cohort study to examine the effects of risk assessment-informed early release decisions on case processing and recidivism outcomes. Participants were 1,327 individuals who were booked into a U.S. midwestern jail and assessed using a proxy risk assessment over a 1-year period. Multivariable logistic regression models examined the effects of early release on any criminal charge, any plea, any guilty disposition as well as any new or any arrest at 6- and 12-month postrelease. Results showed approximately 46.9% of the sample received early release an average of 3.5 hr after booking. Proxy assessments were moderate predictors of any arrest and any new arrest at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Proxy risk levels were moderately associated with early release decisions overall. Early release from detention did not predict likelihood of being charged, accepting a plea, or having a guilty disposition. However, defendants with lower risk scores who received early release were more likely to plead guilty relative to those who did not receive early release. Overall, early release was associated with a lower likelihood of any rearrest at 6- and 12-month follow-up. Our findings suggest brief screening strategies implemented at jail intake produce accurate assessments of risk and may serve as a mechanism to decrease exposure to the jail environment.
... They found that support was pertinent for the effectiveness of aftercare programs for offenders newly released from prison as they were 52% less likely to return to prison when compared with those not receiving aftercare programming; however, for effectiveness, the continuum of care from prison to the community can be substantial (i.e., 2-3 years) and requires substantial time and organizational and political commitment. White et al. (2012) examined a jail-based reentry program in New York City that included prerelease and 90 days of postrelease services by comparing samples of participants with nonparticipants and program completers with noncompleters. Findings demonstrated that program participants performed no better than nonparticipants over a 1-year follow-up; but those who remained engaged for at least 90 days in the postrelease services experienced significantly fewer and slower returns to jail. ...
In this article, we explore the impact of a reentry and aftercare service program on the likelihood of returning to prison by ex-offenders. Using administrative data within a difference-in-differences design, we find that this social program is associated with a reduction in recidivism rates. Benchmark estimates show that the program was associated with estimated reductions in the probability of recidivating of 6.0 to 8.7 percentage points. The estimate appears to be economically significant as it implies an estimated treated effect in the 15.8% to 19.2% range. We consider the heterogeneous effects of the program on reducing recidivism according to race, age group, and program type. The program helped to reduce recidivism among Whites but not Blacks; older participants were the main beneficiaries while the effectiveness of the program was observed among older participants. Back-of-the-envelope cost-savings analysis is incorporated to estimate the potential savings to the state arising from the reduction in recidivism rates likely attributable to the program. The findings are robust to sample selection bias, alternative specifications, and estimation techniques. Our results offer some implications for the role of faith-based social programs within the context of criminal justice reform to combat reentry of former inmates. They also provide a cautionary tale about the need to evaluate programs not just based on their overall effect.
... Over 600,000 criminal justice involved individuals are released from state and federal prisons each year (Bronson & Carson, 2019), and close to 5,000,000 former offenders are placed under some form of community-based supervision (Kaeble, 2018). While approximately 95% of all state prisoners will be released at some point, close to 80% will be released under parole supervision (Hughes & Wilson, 2019), and access to services that may facilitate the reentry process are relatively low (Belenko & Peugh, 1999White et al., 2012). More often than not, returning citizens have significant and wide-ranging needs left unaddressed that require a comprehensive approach. ...
... The detention period in a jail setting is usually much shorter than that for prison, making the setting significantly more transitional in nature. Jail reentry programs face the challenge of having only a small window to assess and prepare individuals for their return to the community, which in most cases is tied to a host of community supervision (e.g., probation) requirements (White et al., 2012). An added complication is the lack of continuation with respect to the services offered in jail and those in the community. ...
... Recognizing that unique barriers to successful reintegration specific to the individuals' underlying needs exist, individuals in these different housing units receive services identified as most pressing and important for their reentry. However, having a reentry program in a jail is still a relatively new concept, as it poses a more challenging environment, due to typically short jail stays and the overall transient nature of the institution (Spjeldnes et al., 2014;White et al., 2012). ...
Over 600,000 criminal justice involved individuals are released from state and federal prisons each year, and close to 5,000,000 former offenders are placed under some form of community-based supervision. Access to services that may facilitate the reentry process is complicated and more often than not, returning citizens have significant and wide-ranging needs left unaddressed that require a comprehensive approach. In the current paper, we discuss the adoption and implementation processes of technological innovations noted in the criminal justice and correctional literature, as well as other disciplines, while using examples and lessons learned from a pilot project evaluating a new technology known as Pokket, which is a cloud-based service aimed at improving the re-entry process for returning citizens, service providers, and criminal justice agencies.
... As such, additional measures should be put in place to not only identify these issues, but programs should be funded to help these individuals deal with their issues. A host of programs exist to assist inmates in this endeavor and many can be delivered after the inmate has been released (Braga, Piehl, and Hureau 2009;Miller 2010, 2015;White et al. 2012;Wikoff, Linhorst, and Morani 2012). Pretrial diversion programs and specialty courts are excellent options if we hope to address these issues. ...
Individuals incarcerated in America’s jails face a number of barriers (substance and alcohol abuse, mental health issues, physical ailments, homelessness). The nature of jail stays makes it difficult to treat or support individuals plagued by these issues. As such, correctional officers are charged with managing these individuals. By conducting in-depth interviews with correctional officers, this study answers the question of how these individuals manage an ever-changing population with a host of problems by interviewing correctional officers. Results suggest that interpersonal communication skills are the primary way officers obtain compliance from incarcerated individuals. By treating the rabble class with dignity and respect, officers not only avoid physical confrontations but can also provide support for these individuals. Policy implications are also discussed.
... Hall & Carter, 2013;MacKenzie, 2006;Mears, 2010;White et al., 2012). Studies also suggest that less severe sanctions are more likely to reduce recidivism (Cochran et al., 2014). ...
A wide variety of medications and neuromodulation techniques are being investigated to manage risk factors for deviant behavior. If certain neurointerventions can restore impaired moral decision-making and behavior in offenders, should the criminal justice system be permitted to use such neurointerventions and, if so, under which conditions? In this chapter, the authors argue that it can be ethical to offer neurointerventions to offenders as a condition of probation, parole, or sentence reduction, provided that the fulfillment of five minimal ethical conditions is verified on a case-by-case basis. The authors further argue that forcing neurointerventions as part of an offender’s sentence or as a postprison requirement is both ethically and practically problematic, with the possible exception of benign neurointerventions without side effects.
... For example, drug-treatment courts in North Carolina reduced rearrest rates (Gifford et al., 2014) and in Iowa the completion of treatment regimens-a series of programs that take place both while the offender is incarcerated and on parole-also decreased rearrests (Peters et al., 2015). In contrast, a 90-day postrelease service program in New york City found no differences in recidivism among participants (White, Saunders, Fisher, & Mellow, 2012). Other research done in Kentucky suggests that drug offenders on parole are substantially more likely than those without supervision to be reincarcerated (Vito et al., 2017). ...
Although research recognizes gender differences in offending and interactions with the criminal justice system, few studies have explored the role of gender in the relationship between postrelease supervision and recidivism. Building on feminist criminological research, this study uses a feminist pathways theoretical framework to investigate the overall and gendered effects of postrelease supervision on multiple measures of recidivism. Using a large sample of offenders released from prisons in Florida (N = 141,338) and propensity score matching techniques, this study uncovers that postrelease supervision is associated with a very small (4% to 4.5%) reduction in recidivism. Moreover, the effect sizes from the analyses also indicate that postrelease supervision plays a greater role in reducing recidivism among men, but the effects for women are much smaller. Based on this study's findings, policymakers should consider the importance of gender in designing appropriate programming in prison and developing postrelease techniques in reducing recidivism.
... Other large-scale reentry evaluation initiatives have also produced mixed results. New York's Project Greenlight observed a treatment group that demonstrated worse recidivism rates than controls (Wilson & Davis, 2006), the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative similarly fell short in reducing reoffending (Roman et al., 2007), and a series of reentry initiatives at Rikers Island in New York City have realized varying levels of success (Freudenberg, Wilets, Greene, & Richie, 1998;Glowa-Kollisch et al., 2014;White, Saunders, Fisher, & Mellow, 2012). ...
Widespread implementation of offender reentry programming has increased justice program evaluations but few have featured research designs sufficiently rigorous to optimally inform policy. Program evaluations typically neglect program fidelity concerns to focus on outcome analysis that seldom feature optimal spuriousness reduction. The current study, the second component of a mixed-method design evidencing fidelity, presents the methods and outcome findings for the Delaware County Transition (DCT) Program, an Ohio jail-based crimesolutions.gov endorsed treatment intervention for dually diagnosed offenders. Review of the reentry and dual-diagnosis literature provides a background for description of the DCT program and methods employed to observe programming effects. Findings indicated DCT participation was associated with overall recidivism reductions and time to recidivism and orient discussion around related rehabilitative modalities.
... Because this study focuses on those released from state prisons and does not include individuals sentenced to county jails, the findings are not directly applicable to those experiencing jail reentry. Given a number of differences between jails and state prisons, including availability of reentry programming and proximity to family and local services and jobs (White, Saunders, Fisher, & Mellow, 2012;Willison, Bieler, & Kim, 2014), 16 future research examining differences in mortality risk between those sentenced to country jails and state prisons would be valuable. Finally, the current data is limited as it only captures mortality in the state of Pennsylvania and therefore omits any deaths from prisoners who moved and died outside the state following release from prison. ...
Former prisoners have a higher than expected risk of death following release from incarceration. However, little is known about the specific risk factors for post-release mortality among former prisoners. The current study uses a unique set of measures obtained from administrative records from Pennsylvania to examine demographic, custodial, behavioral, and criminal history factors that impact mortality risk following release from incarceration. Moreover, this study is the first to assess whether risk factors for post-release mortality are consistent or variable across race and ethnicity. Using data from the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and mortality records from the Pennsylvania Department of Health we find several demographic, custodial, behavioral, and criminal history measures are related to post-release mortality risk. Moreover, while most risk factors for mortality are generally consistent across race and ethnicity, we find evidence that some custodial and criminal history factors vary by race and ethnicity.
