2. 2
Abstract
Scholars have been working to move beyond studies of traditional reentry models, in
favor of those that take a more community oriented approach. While the potential benefits of
implementing such an approach have been widely discussed, there has yet to be a study which
definitively analyzes both the traditional and community oriented reentry model to determine
its effect on recidivismrates. Building off of prior research on parolee recidivism, a quasi-
experimental design is incorporated where similarly classified high risk offenders are paroled
under each of the two reentry models. As a result, the use of an ex post facto control group is
employed to establish a baseline condition from which a statistically significant reduction in
recidivism could be achieved. The implications of this study and tenants of the enhanced
community based model are further discussed.
Introduction
Over the past decade, there has been a preponderance of research conducted which
sheds light onto the potential benefits of taking a more community oriented reentry approach,
in stark contrast to the punitive traditional model, which had once been favored during the get
tough on drug and crime initiatives of the 1970’s and 1980’s (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). In
addition, the adoption of mandatory minimum sentence legislation has led to the mass
incarceration of individuals largely convicted of committing non-violent drug or substance
abuse related crimes (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). Recent statistics demonstrate that
mandatory minimum sentences have led to stark racial disparities in the rate of incarceration,
with 4,347 black and 678 white men imprisoned for every 100,000 in the population (Drake,
2013). As a result, research indicates that average parolee recidivism rates in Rhode Island are
3. 3
about double the national average of 17%, with 31% recidivating within one year of release and
42% within two years of release (Derrick & Barron, 2011).
Building upon these troubling statistics, researchers have found that the most effective
way to reduce parolee recidivism involves implementing an enhanced community based
reentry model which pairs case-specific offender needs that are narrowly tailored to address an
offender’s criminogenic risk factors prior to release (Belenko, 2006; Derrick & Barron, 2011;
Gilbert & Settles, 2007; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Sung et al. 2007). Currently, the Parole and
Probation Division of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections incorporates the Level of
Service Inventory (LSIR) to help predict an offender’s likelihood of recidivism. This 54-item
instrument is used to assess 10 critical areas of an offender’s life, including the individual’s
criminal record to, history of substance abuse and employment. However, the parole and
probation division lack the financial resources to fully incorporate well established evidence
based practices that have been proven to reduce recidivism. For instance, they were only
allocated $27,135,509 to monitor 27,474 offenders, in comparison to the entire operating
budget of $197,378,249 to incarcerate 3,200 inmates (Derrick & Barron, 2011). As a result,
when the above figures are computed, it costs just $987.67 to supervise the offender on parole.
In comparison, it costs $39,690 to house that same individual in the John J. Moran Medium
Security Facility (Weeden, 2013).
Recent research highlights that one of the three main criminogenic risk factors that
adversely impacts recidivism is finding stable housing, for many parolees either end up
homeless or living in areas plagued with high rates of crime and drug use, leading to the
4. 4
widespread breakdown of informal social controls and concentrated poverty (Gilbert & Settles,
2007; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Schram et al. 2007). Similar to Wilson and Kelling’s Broken
Window Theory which highlights that deteriorating social and environmental conditions cause
disorder in the form of gangs and other illegal drug activity to flourish, researchers assert that
high rates of unemployment directly influence the recidivism rate (Gilbert & Settles, 2007;
Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). Furthermore, recent studies indicate that implementing job
training and substance abuse programs while inmates are still incarcerated, then following up
with transitional and after care practices upon release, their likelihood for recidivating
substantially declines (Belenko, 2006; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Sung et al., 2011).
While the potential benefits of integrating a community-based reentry model will most
certainly be cost effective by reducing recidivism in the long term, the up-front costs require a
significant financial commitment from state of Rhode Island, not only in the initial
implementation but also in evolving and sustaining the program in the future. However, given
the staggering financial burden that it presently costs to house inmates and pay correctional
officer’s overtime at the Department of Corrections, research has indicated that the current
traditional reentry model prefaced on the notion of mass incarceration is no longer
economically viable. The community oriented reentry model is essential for it allocates much
needed financial resources to pair evidence based practices with case-specific offender
criminogenic needs, which in turn will not only reduces the recidivism rate but would also work
to rehabilitate and reintegrate the offender back as a productive member of society (Belenko,
2006; Derrick & Barron, 2011; Gilbert & Settles, 2007; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Sung et al.
2007).
5. 5
It is plausible that the offender’s outcomes are directly impacted based off the type of
reentry model which is being implemented. For instance, research highlights that under the
traditional reentry model; nearly five million adults in the United States are currently under
probation or parole supervision (Maguire, 2015). Similarly, research demonstrates that the
common practice of using intensive supervision has been found to increase recidivism rates for
parolees (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). As a result of this over supervision, it’s estimated that
nearly 80% of those released on parole from state and federal prisons nationwide will
recidivate within three years (Sung et al, 2011). This is largely due to the fact that numerous
studies have concluded that parolees have unmet substance abuse or illicit drug treatment
programming needs (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Sung et al, 2011). Further inhibiting
rehabilitation, research indicates that in comparison to those in the general population,
offenders have three times the rate of mental health disabilities (Maguire, 2015). As a result,
researchers support the use of a more rehabilitative/ community oriented approach for the
current model continues to exacerbate systemic issues that already plague correctional
agencies; such as large caseloads for parole officers, prison overcrowding, and a lack of
programs to facilitate successful community reintegration (Maguire, 2015; Mallicoat &
Gardiner, 2014; Sung et al, 2011).
Theoretical perspectives and prior research
Parolee recidivism is often influenced by an offender’s access to stable housing, job
training, and substance abuse programs prior to release (Belenko, 2006). Conventional
hallmarks of the traditional reentry model, such as Intensive Parole Supervision (ISP) of low-risk
offenders, have been well documented to increase the likelihood of recidivism (Maguire, 2015).
6. 6
The vast intricacies of factors that ultimately lead to recidivismsuggest that it varies largely
based upon whether an offender’s programming needs were met while they were still
incarcerated. This plays a crucial role in whether or not the offender is rehabilitated to the
point at which successful community reintegration for a term lasting three or more years can
take place. As a result, it’s important to understand the outside factors that directly impact an
offender’s risk of recidivism.
Methodology
To examine the impact of organizational, environmental, and individual variables on the
enhanced community based reentry model, existing data from the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections was analyzed in conjunction with relevant peer reviewed scholarly works from the
Journals of Criminal Justice Review & Crime & Delinquency, Similarly, the focus of this study will
be looking at how the community based reentry model is more effective in reducing parolee
recidivism than the punitive traditional reentry model currently in operation. Furthermore, this
community based reentry model uses evidence based practices that address the three main
criminogenic risk factors which most often lead to parolee recidivism, including the lack of
stable housing, lack of job training & substance abuse programs. As a result, utilizing secondary
data analysis was instrumental for it offers several advantages, such as incorporating outside
interaction effects (i.e. living in areas of concentrated poverty & lack of social mobility) and
providing a factual baseline condition by documenting the effectiveness of the traditional
reentry model. This is vital for we can then compare our research findings to demonstrate if
there will be a statistically significant reduction in recidivismrates.
7. 7
A quasi-experimental design will be implemented in conjunction with an ex post facto
comparison group, whereby a sample of 250 high risk offenders who were paroled under the
traditional justice model in 2011 will be compared to a similar sample of 250 high risk offenders
that were paroled under the community oriented reentry model. Similarly, ‘high risk’ is defined
using the Rhode Island Department of Correction’s validated risk/needs assessment tool called
the Level of Service Inventory (LSIR), whereby any score greater than 41 on a scale ranging from
0 (very low risk) to 54 (very high risk) indicates a moderate risk for recidivism (Derrick & Barron,
2011). In this study, recidivismis defined as any conviction that leads to incarceration post-
release within 36 months. This operational definition is borrowed from previous reentry
studies, including those conducted by researcher’s Bahr (2010) & Belenko (2006).
In 2009, Rhode Island’s recidivismrate was 49% within three years of release under the
traditional punitive reentry model (Barron, 2011). As a result, each of the three independent
variables can be analyzed to the point at which any reduction in recidivism of 3.72% or greater
(i.e. 0.76 of 49%) would demonstrate a statistically significant relationship in support of the
community based reentry model (Barron, 2011 ). Also, by computing an average in regards to
the reduction of recidivism in each of the three independent variables, the overall effectiveness
of implementing the enhanced reentry model could be determined based off of whether the
recidivism rate declined below 45.28%. This will serve as the baseline and any reduction in
recidivism that falls beneath that figure will result in the program being deemed successful.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable I will be studying is analyzing the level of reduction in
recidivism rates through the implementation of an enhanced community based reentry model
8. 8
which pairs case-specific offender needs that are narrowly tailored to address an offender’s
criminogenic risk factors prior to release. This model encompasses tenets from restorative
justice practices that have been well documented to reduce the likelihood of recidivism; such as
facilitating victim-offender dialogue and utilizing drug courts for non-violent offenses (Belenko,
2006; Maguire, 2015; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). Prior studies within the past decade have
demonstrated that incorporating a community/neighborhood level reentry model that allows
for correctional agencies to take a more rehabilitative approach towards successful
reintegration (Bahr et al., 2010; Belenko, 2006; Gilbert & Settles, 2007; Mallicoat & Gardiner,
2014; Schram, 2006; Sung et al., 2011). This is in stark contrast to the parole practices that have
been employed under the traditional model, which have systematically worked to re-
incarcerate more people than any other country in the world.
Independent Variables
This research examined three different variables associated with the enhanced
community based reentry model. Stable housing represents the level of access parolees have to
state and federal programs which provide adequate shelter prior to release. Studies
consistently highlight that it leads to a decreased likelihood in recidivismwhen parolees are
allowed to make housing arrangements through state run programs prior to release (Gilbert &
Settles, 2007; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). However, most other studies that included stable
housing were often vague in that they failed to incorporate the timing of implementation of
services, or “prior to release”. This operational definition represents an improvement over prior
research that failed to accurately depict the impact a correctional facility could have by playing
a more facilitative (instead of punitive) role in offering services prior to release. An exception
9. 9
was found in the work of Gilbert & Settles (2007) who noted the significance of employing a
neighborhood-based model pre-release for parolees often have a difficult time finding stable
housing and become susceptible to living in areas plagued with high rates of crime/poverty.
For this study, each of the independent variables including stable housing will be
operationalized by analyzing the offender’s level of access, implementing the use of a scale
ranging from 0-2 (where 0 indicates no access, 1 indicates limited access, & 2 indicates full
access). Furthermore, the level of access will be determined based off of current research
which indicates the number of available programs offered by the Rhode Island Department of
Corrections which directly relates to each of the independent variables highlighted in this study.
Similarly, ‘access’ is defined as the ability of the facility to either provide or not provide any
number of programs when the offender was released on parole. Furthermore, ‘no access’ is
defined as instances where the facility lacks access to at least one program at the time the
offender was released on parole. Also, ‘limited access’ is defined as instances where there is
access to one facilitating program within the institution within 90 days of parole; however the
inmate isn’t given adequate time/opportunity to use that resource. Similarly, ‘program’ and
‘resource’ are defined as particular systemof procedures implemented pre-release which
work to decrease the likelihood of recidivismupon release by directly addressing the offender’s
programming needs. This ultimately results in the offender’s programming needs not being met
prior to release. Also, ‘full access’ is defined as instances where there is access to two or more
facilitating program(s) within the institution within 90 days of parole; ultimately resulting in the
offender’s programming needs being met prior to release. It’s critical that these values are
10. 10
coded so that the findings can demonstrate the level of impact these variables have on the
resulting recidivism rate.
A second independent variable that will be examined is the lack of job training
programs; an immensely valuable resource which is missing from many prisons across this
country (Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014). Job training programs are defined as those offered within
a correctional intuition that gives inmates the opportunity to learn a trade (i.e. woodworking,
sewing, or carpentry). Previous studies have consistently found that by providing inmates with
a marketable skill set, it greatly increases their likelihood of employment post release thus
decreasing the likelihood of recidivism (Belenko, 2006; Mallicoat & Gardiner, 2014; Schram et
al., 2006). However, other studies fail to differentiate between learning an actual trade which
requires an advanced set of skills that demands a level of income that surpasses the most
recent federal poverty threshold of $11,770 per year for one individual; instead of the menial
unskilled labor that some inmates have via prison jobs (such as washing the floors and doing
laundry) where they are likely going to earn less than the crucial federal poverty line (U.S
Department of Health and Human Services: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and
Evaluation, 2015). This operational definition represents an improvement over prior research in
that it focuses on providing inmates with the skills necessary to be a productive working
member of society. An exception was found in the work of Schram et al. (2006), who
highlighted that educating inmates through job skills programming while incarcerated would
decrease the likelihood of recidivism.
11. 11
The final independent variable is to examine the lack of substance abuse programs
afforded to inmates during incarceration. Substance abuse programs are defined as those
administered by a correctional institution that gives inmates counseling and familial support
that work to address the underlying causes of addiction. Prior research found that often times
many parolees end up violating their parole (i.e. testing positive for drug use) because many
states fail to incorporate transitional and long-term programs post-release in conjunction with
the substance abuse programs while incarcerated (Belenko, 2006; Sung et al., 2011). However,
other studies fail to focus on the importance of including an offender’s family in the recovery
process (i.e. having family members attend cognitive behavioral therapy to build social support)
and how implementing substance abuse programs post-release effectively reduces recidivism
rates. An exception was found in the work of Bahr et al. (2010) who proclaimed found that its
ultimately through associations of family and close friends where the parolee receives either
positive or negative reinforcement, thus strong social support in tandem with transitional
programs post-release is a key factor in reducing recidivism.
12. 12
References
Drake, B. (2013, September 6). Incarceration gap widens between whites and blacks.
Retrieved from: http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-
tank/2013/09/06/incarceration-gap- between-whites-and-blacks-widens/
Belenko, S. (2006). Assessing released inmates for substance-abuse-related
service needs. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 95-102.
Derrick, B (2011). Level of service inventory-revised: A portrait of RIDOC offenders.
Rhode Island Department of Corrections Planning and Research Unit, 1-2.
Gilbert, M., & Settles, T. (2007). The next step: Indigenous development of
neighborhood-restorative community justice. Criminal Justice Review, 32(1), 5-
18.
Maguire, M., & Okada, D. (2015). Critical issues in crime and justice: Thought, policy,
and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Mallicoat, S., & Gardiner, C. (2014). Criminal Justice Policy. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Weeden, J. (2013, September, 6). John Moran Medium Security Facility.
Retrieved from: http://www.doc.ri.gov/institutions/facilities/moran.php.
13. 13
Schram, P., Witt-Koons, B., Williams III, F., & McShane, M. (2006). Supervision
strategies and approaches for female parolees: Examining the link between
unmet needs and parolee outcome. Crime & Delinquency, 52(3), 450-456.
U.S. department of health & human services: Office of the assistant secretary for
planning and evaluation. (2015, September 3). 2015 Poverty Guidelines.
Retrieved from http: //aspe.hhs.gov/2015-poverty-guidelines.
Sung, H., Mahoney, A., & Mellow, J. (2011). Substance abuse treatment gap among
adult parolees: Prevalence, correlates, and barriers. Criminal Justice Review,
36(1), 40-46.
