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 assumptions through an evaluation of a jail-based reentry program in New York City that begins while individuals are incarcerated and includes 90 days of postrelease services. To determine program impact, the authors compare samples of participants with nonparticipants and program completers with noncompleters. The groups are matched using developmental trajectories derived from group-based trajectory modeling, in addition to propensity score matching. Findings show that participants perform no better than nonparticipants over a 1-year follow-up, but those who stay engaged for at least 90 days of postrelease services experience significantly fewer (and slower) returns to jail. The findings regarding program completion are tempered by several methodological concerns, however. The article concludes with a discussion of how the study may offer insights for program implementation and operation with this target population.
American Correctional Association. (2000). Reentry. Corrections Compendium, 32, 9-29.
2.
AndrewsD. A.DowdenC. (1999). A meta-analytic investigation into effective correctional intervention for female offenders. Forum on Corrections Research, 11, 18-21.
BloomD. (2008, March). Transitional jobs for ex-prisoners: Early impacts from a random assignment evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) prisoner reentry program. Paper presented at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
5.
City of New York. (2003). 2003 annual report on social indicators. New York: Author, Department of City Planning.
6.
The Council of State Governments. (2004). Report of the reentry policy council: Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community. New York: Author.
7.
CunniffM. A. (2002). Jail crowding: Understanding jail population dynamics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
8.
DehejiaR. H.WahbaS. (2002). Propensity score-matching methods for nonexperimental causal studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 151-161.
9.
DittonP. M.WilsonD. J. (1999). Truth in sentencing in state prisons (Bureau of Justice Statistics special report). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
10.
FreudenbergN.WiletsI.GreeneM. B.RichieB. E. (1998). Linking women in jail to community services: Factors associated with rearrest and retention of drug-using women following release from jail. Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 53, 89-93.
GendreauP. (1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23(1), 144-161.
13.
GilliardD. K.BeckA. J. (1997). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1996 (Report NCJ 162843). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
HavilandA.NaginD. (2007). Using group-based trajectory modeling in conjunction with propensity scores to improve balance. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 65-82.
16.
LanganP. A.LevinD. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
17.
LiptonD. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal justice supervision. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
18.
ListwanS. J.CullenF. T.LatessaE. J. (2006). How to prevent prisoner reentry programs from failing: Insights from evidence-based corrections. Federal Probation, 70, 3.
New York City Administrative Code. (2004). Local law no. 54: To amend the administrative code of the City of New York, in relation to discharge planning services. Retrieved October 13, 2008, from http://www.nyccouncil.info/pdf_files/bills/law04054.pdf
23.
New York City Department of Correction. (2005). Discharge planning update. New York: Author.
24.
PaigeH.BeckA. (2006). Prison and jail inmates at midyear, 2005 (Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin NCJ 213133). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
25.
PalmerT. (1995). Programmatic and programmatic aspects of successful intervention: new directions for research. Crime and Delinquency, 41, 100-131.
26.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
PetersiliaJ. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4-8.
28.
PetersiliaJ.TravisJ. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime and Delinquency, 47(3), 291-313.
29.
RomanJ.ChalfinA. (2006). Does it pay to invest in reentry programs for jail inmates?Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
30.
RosenbaumP.RubinD. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70, 41-55.
31.
SabolW. J.MintonT. D.HarrisonP. M. (2007). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 2006 (Pub. No. NCJ 217675). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
SolomonA. L.OsborneJ.LoBuglioS.MellowJ.MukamalD. (2007). Life after lockup: Improving reentry from jail to the community. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
34.
VisherC. (2006). Effective reentry programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 5(2), 299-302.
35.
VisherC.TravisJ. (2003). Transition from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. In CookK.HaganJ. (Eds.), Annual Review of Sociology (Vol. 29, pp. 89-113) Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
36.
WilsonJ. A. (2007). Habitation or harm: Project Greenlight and the potential consequences of correctional programming. NIJ Journal, 257, 2-7.
37.
WilsonJ. A.DavisR. C. (2006). Good intentions meet hard realities: An evaluation of the Project Greenlight reentry program. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 303-338.
