ABSTRACT
The Cross-Site Evaluation of the Bureau of Justice Assistance FY 2011 Second Chance Act Adult Offender Reentry Demonstration Projects (AORDP) documented the effectiveness of seven AORDP projects. The evaluation included a process evaluation, cost study, and multicomponent outcome study that assessed the extent to which recidivism reductions were achieved in each site and program participation was associated with increased access to services and improvements in self-reported outcomes in several reentry domains across sites.
This chapter focuses on the findings and implications of the prospective outcome study, which included longitudinal interviews with a cohort of 516 AORDP program participants and comparison subjects (selected based on site-specific designs that included experimental and matched comparison group designs) who were interviewed one month prior to release and 6 and 12 months post-release; the interview data were supplemented with oral swab drug tests and administrative criminal justice data. Site-specific recidivism analyses were also conducted using a larger sample (all individuals enrolled in the AORDP programs and a matched comparison group in each site, for a total n of 3,500).
The findings generally suggested null impacts of AORDP enrollment. The cross-site prospective study showed that AORDP enrollment clearly increased access to services (i.e., treatment group members were more likely to self-report receiving more services than were comparison group members), with the greatest impact found for pre-release services. However, the treatment group did not appear to have better rearrest or other, self-reported reentry outcomes than the comparison group. The site-specific recidivism analyses generally found null treatment effects for rearrest and reincarceration in each site.
The findings suggest that program developers should look for opportunities to provide long-term, post-release supports that are informed by reassessment results, as most grantees had relatively short post-release service periods and few participants received post-release services. In addition, policymakers must promote realistic expectations for incremental improvements among individuals reentering from jail and prison.
Several considerations for future reentry research and evaluation efforts are also suggested from this study. Researchers should engage with program staff to maximize the program’s "evaluation readiness" prior to execution of the evaluation to ensure high-quality evaluation. In addition, a stronger exploration of service dosage (i.e., intensity of services delivered) in addition to service profiles (i.e., whether individuals received a particular type of service) is important to arrive at a better understanding of how the duration, intensity, sequencing and combination of services and programming contributes to reentry outcomes.
