Separate studies have shown that a variety of postrelease housing placements for returning prisoners can significantly influence recidivism. Research has also found that contextual factors such as economic disadvantage can also significantly predict recidivism. This study combines those lines of research by examining the effects of five categories of postrelease housing placements as well as contextual measures of economic disadvantage on recidivism for newly released Minnesota state prisoners. Using multilevel analysis techniques, this research found that with one exception, certain postrelease housing situations, along with several other individual-level control variables, were more robust predictors of recidivism than contextual measures of disadvantage and poverty. This study highlights the significant impact that postrelease housing placements can have on the reentry process.
AndersonA. L. (2002). Individual and contextual influences on delinquency: The role of the single-parent family. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 575-587.
2.
AndrewsD. A. (1982). The Level of Supervision Inventory (LSI): The first follow-up. Toronto, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Correctional Services.
3.
AndrewsD. A.BontaJ. (1995). LSI-R: The Level of Service Inventory–Revised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
4.
BaerD.BhatiA.BrooksL.CastroJ.LaVigneN.Mallik-KaneK.. . .WinterfieldL. (2006). Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry: Research findings from the Urban Institute’s Prisoner Reentry Portfolio. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
5.
BalesW. D.MearsD. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society: Does visitation reduce recidivism?Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 45(3), 287-321.
6.
BellN.BucklenK. B.NakamuraK.TomkielJ.SantoreA.RussellL.OrthR. (2013). Pennsylvania Department of Corrections recidivism report 2013. Mechanicsburg: Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
7.
BohmertM. N.DuweG. (2012). Minnesota’s affordable homes program: Evaluating the effect of a prison work program on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 23, 327-351.
8.
BontaJ.LawM.HansonK. (1998). The prediction of criminal and violent recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 123-142.
9.
CallanV.GardnerJ. (2005). Vocational education and training provision and recidivism in Queensland correctional institutions. Adelaide, South Australia, Australia: National Centre for Vocational Education Research.
10.
CarsonE. A.GolinelliD. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991-2012 bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
11.
ClearT. R. (2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
12.
DolnickS. (2013, March24). Pennsylvania study finds halfway houses don’t reduce recidivism. The New York Times. Available from http://www.nytimes.com
13.
DowdenC.BrownS. L. (2002). The role of substance abuse factors in predicting recidivism: A meta-analysis. Psychology, Crime & Law, 8, 243-264.
14.
DrakeE. (2007). Does participation in Washington’s work release facilities reduce recidivism?Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
15.
DuweG. (2010). Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: An outcome evaluation. The Journal of Experimental Criminology6, 57-81.
16.
DuweG. (2012a). The benefits of keeping idle hands busy: The impact of a prisoner reentry employment program on post-release employment and offender recidivism. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128711421653
17.
DuweG. (2012b). Evaluating the Minnesota comprehensive offender reentry plan (MCORP): Results from a randomized experiment. Justice Quarterly, 29, 347-383.
18.
DuweG. (2014). An outcome evaluation of a prison work release program estimating its effects on recidivism, employment, and cost avoidance. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0887403414524590
19.
DuweG.ClarkV. (2013). Blessed be the social tie that binds: The effects of prison visitation on offender recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(3), 271-296.
20.
DuweG.KingM. (2012). Can faith-based correctional programs work? An outcome evaluation of the InnerChange Freedom Initiative in Minnesota. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 813-841.
21.
FontaineJ.BiessJ. (2012). Housing as a platform for formerly incarcerated persons. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
22.
GellerA.CurtisM. A. (2011). A sort of homecoming: Incarceration and the housing security of urban men. Social Science Research, 40, 1196-1213.
23.
GrayM. K.FieldsM.MaxwellS. R. (2001). Examining probation violations: Who, what, and when. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 537-557.
24.
GreenbergG.RosenheckR. (2008). Homelessness in the state and federal prison population. Criminal Justice and Mental Health, 18, 88-103.
25.
JefferyR.WoolpertS. (1974). Work furlough as an alternative to incarceration: An assessment of its effects on recidivism and social cost. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65, 405-415.
26.
KirkD. S. (2012). Residential change as a turning point in the life course of crime: Desistance or temporary cessation. Criminology, 50, 329-358.
27.
KubrinC. E.StewartE. A. (2006). Predicting who reoffends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44, 165-197.
28.
KurlychekM.KempinenC. (2006). Beyond boot camp: The impact of aftercare on offender reentry. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 363-388.
29.
LambH. R.GoertzelV. (1974). Ellsworth house: A community alternative to jail. American Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 64-68.
30.
LatessaE.LovinsL. B.SmithP. (2010). Final report: Follow-up evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facility and halfway house programs—Outcome study (Unpublished technical report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
31.
LatessaE.TravisL. (1991). Halfway house or probation: A comparison of alternative dispositions. Journal of Crime & Justice, 14, 53-76.
32.
LaVigneN. G.KachnowskiV.TravisJ.NaserR.VisherC. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Maryland (Research report). Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
33.
LeClairD. P.Guarino-GhezziS. (1991). Does incapacitation guarantee public safety? Lessons from the Massachusetts furlough and prerelease programs. Justice Quarterly, 8, 9-36.
34.
LöselF.SchmuckerM. (2005). The effectiveness of treatment for sexual offenders: A comprehensive meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 117-146.
35.
LowenkampC. T.HubbardD.MakariosM. D.LatessaE. J. (2009). A quasi-experimental evaluation of thinking for a change: A “Real-World” application. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 36, 137-146.
36.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J. (2002). Evaluation of Ohio’s community based correctional facilities and halfway house programs (Technical report). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati.
37.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.HolsingerA. (2006). The risk principle in action: What we have learned from 13,676 offenders in 97 correctional programs. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 77-93.
38.
LowenkampC. T.LatessaE. J.SmithP. (2006). Does correctional program quality really matter? The impact of adhering to the principles of effective intervention. Criminology & Public Policy, 5, 575-594.
39.
LutzeF. E.RoskyJ. W.HamiltonZ. K. (2013). Homelessness and reentry: A multisite outcome evaluation of Washington state’s reentry housing program for high risk offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41, 471-491. doi:10.1177/0093854813510164
40.
LynchJ. P.SabolW. J. (2001, September). Prisoner reentry in perspective (Crime policy report, Vol. 3). Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
41.
MasseyD. S. (2001). The prodigal paradigm returns: Ecology comes back to sociology. In BoothA.CrouterA. (Eds.), Does it take a village? Community effects on children, adolescents, and families (pp. 41-48). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42.
MassogliaM.FirebaughG.WarnerC. (2013). Racial variation in the effect of incarceration on neighborhood attainment. American Sociological Review, 78, 142-165.
43.
MearsD. P.CochranJ. C.SiennickS. E.BalesW. D. (2012). Prison visitation and recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 29, 888-918.
44.
MearsD. P.XiaW.HayC.BalesW. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46, 301-340.
45.
MeredithT.SpeirJ.JohnsonS.HullH. (2003). Enhancing parole decision-making through the automation of risk assessment. Atlanta, GA: Applied Research Services.
46.
MetrauxS.CulhaneD. P. (2004). Homeless shelter use and reincarceration following prison release. Criminology & Public Policy, 3, 139-160.
47.
MetrauxS.CulhaneD. P. (2006). Recent incarceration history among a sheltered homeless population. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 504-517.
48.
MetrauxS.RomanC. G.ChoR. (2007). National symposium on homelessness research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
49.
MietheT. D.McDowallD. (1993). Contextual effects in models of criminal victimization. Social Forces, 71, 741-759.
MitchellO.WilsonD. B.MacKenzieD. L. (2007). Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the literature. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 3, 353-375.
54.
MorenoffJ.SampsonR. J.RaudenbushS. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy, and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39, 517-560.
55.
MorganK. D. (1994). Factors associated with probation outcome. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 341-353.
56.
NelsonM.DeessP.AllenC. (1999). The first month out: Post-incarceration experiences in New York City. New York, NY: Vera Institute of Justice.
57.
OberwittlerD. (2004). A multilevel analysis of neighborhood contextual effects on serious juvenile offending. European Journal of Criminology, 1, 201-235.
58.
OsgoodD. W.ChambersJ. M. (2000). Social disorganization outside the Metropolis: An analysis of rural youth violence. Criminology, 38, 81-116.
59.
PelissierB.WallaceS.O’NeilJ. A.GaesG. G.CampS.RhodesW.SaylorW. (2002). Federal prison residential drug treatment reduces substance use and arrests after release. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 27, 315-337.
60.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
61.
Pew Center on the States. (2012). Time served: The high cost, low return of longer prison terms. Washington, DC: Author.
62.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
63.
RomanC. G.TravisJ. (2004). Taking stock: Housing, homelessness, and prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
64.
RomanC. G.TravisJ. (2006). Where will I sleep tomorrow? Housing, homelessness, and the returning prisoner. Housing Policy Debate, 17, 389-418.
65.
RudoffA.EsselstynT. C. (1973). Evaluating work Furlough: A follow-up. Federal Probation, 37, 48-53.
66.
SampsonR. J.GrovesW. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
67.
SampsonR. J.LauritsenJ. L. (1990). Deviant lifestyles, proximity to crime, and the offender-victim link in personal violence. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 27, 110-139.
68.
SchlayA. B.RossiP. H. (1992). Social science research and contemporary studies of homelessness. Annual Review of Sociology, 18, 129-160.
69.
ShawC. R.McKayH. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
70.
ShawM. (2004). Housing and public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 25, 397-418.
71.
StahlerG. J.MennisJ.BelenkoS.WelshW. N.HillderM. L.ZajacG. (2013). Predicting recidivism for released state prison offenders: Examining the influence of individual and neighborhood characteristics and spatial contagion on the likelihood of reincarceration. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 40, 690-711.
72.
SteinerB.MakariosM. D.TravisL. F. (2011). Examining the effects of residential situations and residential mobility on offender recidivism. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128711399409
73.
TongL. J.FarringtonD. P. (2006). How effective is the “reasoning and rehabilitation” programme in reducing reoffending? A meta-analysis of evaluations in four countries. Psychology, Crime & Law, 12, 3-24.
74.
TravisJ.SolomonA. L.WaulM. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
75.
TurnerS. M.PetersiliaJ. (1996). Work release in Washington: Effects on recidivism and corrections costs. The Prison Journal, 76, 138-164.
76.
VisherC.LaVigneN.TravisJ. (2004). Returning home: Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry (Research report). Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
77.
VisherC. A. (2007). Returning home: Emerging findings and policy lessons about prisoner reentry. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 93-102.
78.
VisherC. A.CourtneyS. M. E. (2007). One year out: Experiences of prisoners returning to Cleveland—Returning home policy brief. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
79.
VisherC. A.FarrellJ. (2005). Chicago communities and prisoner reentry (Report). Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute.
80.
WaldoG. P.ChiricosT. G. (1977). Work release and recidivism: An empirical evaluation of a social policy. Evaluation Review, 1, 87-108.
81.
WaltersG. D. (2005). Recidivism in released lifestyle change program participants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 50-68.
82.
WillisonJ. B.RomanC. G.WolffA.CorreaV.KnightC. R. (2010). Evaluation of the ridge house residential program: Final report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
