Treating Co-Occurring Disorders in Jails: Outcome Findings From a Second Chance Act Offender Reentry Program

Widespread implementation of offender reentry programming has increased justice program evaluations but few have featured research designs sufficiently rigorous to optimally inform policy. Program evaluations typically neglect program fidelity concerns to focus on outcome analysis that seldom feature optimal spuriousness reduction. The current study, the second component of a mixed-method design evidencing fidelity, presents the methods and outcome findings for the Delaware County Transition (DCT) Program, an Ohio jail-based crimesolutions.gov endorsed treatment intervention for dually diagnosed offenders. Review of the reentry and dual-diagnosis literature provides a background for description of the DCT program and methods employed to observe programming effects. Findings indicated DCT participation was associated with overall recidivism reductions and time to recidivism and orient discussion around related rehabilitative modalities.

Reentry in a Comparative Context: Exploring Past, Present, and Future Participation in Services Between Nonurban and Urban Inmates

Studies on offender reentry have consistently shown that lack of, or limited access to, needed postrelease resources and services adversely affects recidivism. Few studies have taken into consideration nonurban and urban contexts for reentry services and program participation. Toward this end, 130 currently incarcerated offenders were surveyed. The results of this study indicate that there were significant differences in employment and other services utilization observed between the two subsamples that varied depending on involvement prior to prison and during incarceration, and affecting the types of programs and services inmates would like to access postrelease.

Through the Looking Glass: Taking Stock of Offender Reentry

Offender reentry has been part of the fabric of the criminal justice system since the first prison opened its doors and people who went in the front door were, at some point, released. Traditionally, the research on offender reentry has either supported best practice by determining what specific individual-level programming “works” or “doesn’t work” or it has assessed the success of programs in terms of their ability to reduce recidivism. And while we may have moved the dial in the last 50 years with respect to what we know about individual-level offender reentry attributes, there is no effective overarching narrative to explain the offender reentry phenomenon. Overwhelmingly, practitioners and academics in the criminal justice system operate within a paradigm that assesses and evaluates everything using risk. Unfortunately, a risk- or deficit-focused approach to viewing offender reentry severely limits our ability to think differently about the problem. However, if we employ a paradigm for offender reentry that focuses less on problems and more on strengths, different outcomes are possible. Work done in social work that promotes “strengths-based, solution-focused, capacity building, asset creating, motivation enhancing” empowerment models that accentuate the positive serves as an exemplar for us to use in criminal justice when discussing offender reentry. The three strengths-based principles adapted to offender reentry and discussed here are as follows: Officer–offender relationships that emphasize collaboration will promote law-abiding, prosocial behavior; offenders who are empowered will be more likely to seek to change; and cooperation from the community is key to successful offender reentry. Fiscal, political, and common sense reasons for using a strengths-based approach to offender reentry are discussed.