Making the most of second chances: an evaluation of Minnesota's high-risk revocation reduction reentry program

Abstract

Objectives To assess whether a reentry program targeted towards high-risk offenders leaving Minnesota state prisons significantly reduced recidivism. Methods Adult male release violators serving incarceration periods of 2-6 months in two Minnesota state prisons were randomly assigned to either the control group (n=77) or the High-Risk Revocation Reduction (HRRR) program (n=162). The latter group was provided with supplemental case planning, housing, employment, mentoring, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transportation assistance services, while the former group was given standard case management services. After 1-2 years of postrelease follow-up time, event history analysis was used to predict the following four measures of recidivism: supervised release revocation, rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarceration. Results The Cox regression analyses revealed that participation in HRRR significantly lowered the risk of supervised release revocations and reconvictions by 28 and 43 %, respectively. Regardless of treatment or control group membership, receiving more reentry assistance significantly reduced supervision revocation and rearrest. Analyses also revealed that employment assistance, including subsidized employment, was especially effective at reducing recidivism. Conclusions Targeting resources towards this previously under-served population may be useful for lowering overall rates of recidivism. However, a later follow-up analysis is needed to ensure that these results remain over time.

Reentry Programs for Adult Male Offender Recidivism and Reintegration: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of the eligible studies. The nine studies were conducted over a span of 30 years, with the first study being conducted in 1977 ( Waldo & Chiricos, 1977 ) and the most recent in 2015 ( Clark, 2015 ). Six of the nine studies were published in academic journals, two were government reports, and one was a PhD dissertation.…”

“…The bulk of the trials of reentry programs utilize a quasi-experimental design. Recently, however, some high-quality RCTs have been conducted ( Clark, 2015 ; Duwe, 2014 ; Grommon, Davidson, & Bynum, 2013 ; Jacobs, 2012 ). Such trials have yet to be systematically reviewed.…”

Experimental criminal law: a survey of contributions from law, economics, and criminology

“…In the UK, cognitive-behavioral treatment only reduced recidivism for moderate and high risk offenders (McGuire, Bilby et al 2008). A program in Minnesota targeting high risk offenders with supplemental case planning, housing, employment, mentoring, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transportation assistance services reduced the risk of revocation by 28%, and the risk of reconviction by 43% (Clark 2015); (also see the meta-studies Landenberger and Lipsey 2005, Visher, Winterfield et al 2005, Koehler, Lösel et al 2013. Special, intense treatment for drug offenders ("drug courts") had a significant reducing effect on recidivism in Baltimore (Gottfredson, Najaka et al 2006) and in Birmingham, Alabama, Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington (Walters 2016), but not in Wilmington, Delaware (Marlowe, Festinger et al 2014) and in Pennsylvania (Welsh, Zajac et al 2014); (also see the meta-analyses on measures specifically targeting sexual offenders by Schmucker 2005, Schmucker andLösel 2015).…”

The Santa Clara County Reentry Resource Center

“…Furthermore, they are responsible for keeping track of clients' participation in reentry activities (e.g. meeting with supervision agents, and program completion) (Clark, 2014). Clark (2014) conducted an evaluation of the High-Risk Revocation Reduction Program (HRRR)-a program that utilizes reentry coordinators.…”

“…meeting with supervision agents, and program completion) (Clark, 2014). Clark (2014) conducted an evaluation of the High-Risk Revocation Reduction Program (HRRR)-a program that utilizes reentry coordinators. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether the program reduced recidivism.…”