Who participates in reentry programming? An examination of women offenders in a midwestern state

The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic literature review

“…It is important to bear in mind, however, that clients of supported accommodation services are potentially more closely supervised than comparison groups, with parole violations and offending more likely to be detected. Further, eligibility for services is often limited to those who are at greater risk of re-offending which may skew outcomes towards higher rates of criminal behaviour due to the higher risk of participants at study outset [35,36,40,50,51,61]. Although a number of studies identified in our review employed propensity score matching for comparison groups, meaning that this increased risk is reflected in both study arms, criminal justice outcomes should be based on time-to-event analysis to determine the impact of service attendance and reflect this high likelihood of reincarceration.…”

“…In the context of such a broad range of known challenges experienced by people released from prison, which contribute to the risk of reoffending, and the wide range of factors targeted by supported accommodation services, detailed risk assessment which incorporates identification of client needs is important to ensure appropriate service delivery. While some of the included studies described program eligibility criteria which included risk assessments [35,40,50,51,58,59,61], most studies either had criteria that were not specific to the client risk level, or did not report eligibility criteria at all. Three studies described services which applied, to varying degrees, the risk-needs-responsivity model [40,53,56], which argues that interventions for people who experience incarceration should be tailored to a person's capacity and informed by their risk of reoffending specific and criminogenic need [27].…”

“…Most services were classified as fixed-site accommodation with on-site support, where clients lived in one central dwelling, and support services were provided onsite [34][35][36][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. This also included several services wherein primary support included on-site case management, complemented by additional on-site supports and/or referral to external community-based services for further support needs (n = 19 studies; n = 72 services; [34,36,37,41,44,45,[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55].…”

“They Still Know I’m Their Momma”: Incarcerated Mothers’ Perceptions of Reunification and Resuming a Caregiver Role

“…When programs do exist for incarcerated mothers, they are often limited in scope, implemented in varying ways, and fail to include incarcerated mothers' children or families (Brown & Bloom, 2009;Loper & Tuerk, 2006). While experts recommend that effective correctional programming begin behind bars and then support returning citizens during reentry (Mignon & Ransford, 2012;Vigesaa et al, 2016), mothers often participate in parenting programming only during incarceration (Loper & Tuerk, 2006) and have limited access to community-based parenting support during reentry. Incarcerated mothers have advocated for the importance of pre-release and reentry programming that addresses their specific needs (Cooper-Sadlo et al, 2019), and research suggests that such institutional support can influence mothers' successful reentry and her ability to reunite with her children (Arditti & Few, 2008;Mignon & Ransford, 2012;O'Brien & Bates, 2005).…”

INTUIT: A Career Decision-Making Intervention for Female Offenders in Reentry

“…The program showed success in that participants were more hopeful, had increased career search self-efficacy, and improved problem-solving relative to controls. However, the OPTIONS intervention was designed for male offenders and has not been adapted to meet the unique needs of female offenders (e.g., Vigesaa, Bergseth, & Jens, 2016). The OPTIONS program also was limited in scope and duration.…”