Axis
Social Reintegration
Problems addressed
Recidivism

Effectiveness

Mixed Evidence

.

.

.

.

.

Mixed Evidence

¿Quieres saber más acerca de esta clasificación? Consulte nuestro manual metodológico.

Description

This category of programs includes a wide range of interventions that seek to maintain and promote the social integration of lawbreakers, both during the phase of compliance with judicial measures and after the sentence is completed, in the transition period between living in prison and in the community. This type of program includes:
1. Social rehabilitation programs, which include initiatives aimed at maintaining social and family ties through the promotion of visits to incarcerated people by their families, “transition houses” (which serve as a temporary residence for those released from the prison system during their return-to-community life), and post-custody community support programs, which aim to improve opportunities to access social services, education, and the job market.
2. So-called “reentry programs”, which involve the provision of treatment or services that are generally initiated while the individual is in custody and which have a follow-up component applied after the individual is released.

Country of application
  • Brazil
  • United States
  • United Kingdom
  • Sweden
Evidence

Adult rehabilitation programs are rated as promising by Crime Solutions. The platform relied on a meta-analysis that found evidence that programs that included group work, cognitive behavioral therapy, counseling, or models associated with specialized courts (e.g. drug courts) had a statistically significant impact in terms of reducing recidivism [1].
Transition houses are classified by Crime Solutions as a promising practice in that, according to a meta-analysis, they significantly reduce the likelihood of recidivism among former offenders (when compared to those who move directly from prison to the community through parole benefits) [2]. On the other hand, the so-called “daily notification centers” are classified as ineffective by this same platform based on another meta-analysis [3].
Promoting visits to prisons has been found to be associated with a 26% reduction in recidivism [4]. Family contact can significantly reduce an offender’s likelihood of recidivism, even when visits are conducted through video calls (although the evidence is mixed for recidivism in violent crimes, specifically) [5].
Regarding reentry programs, a meta-analysis evaluated by Crime Solutions found statistically significant reductions in recidivism for individuals (men and women) who participated in such programs, compared to individuals who did not (the treatment group had a recidivism rate of 47%, while the comparison group registered 53%) [6].

Bibliography

[1] Lipsey, M. W. (2019). Rehabilitation Programs for Adult Offenders: A Meta-Analysis in Support of Guidelines for Effective Practice. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/252504.pdf

[2] Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gushue, K., Lee, C. (2019). Halfway Out: An Examination of the Effects of Halfway Houses on Criminal Recidivism. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(7), 1018–1037. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X1881196

[3] Wong, J. S., Bouchard, J., Gushue, K., Lee, C. (2019). Examining the Effects of Reporting Centers on Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation 58(3):240–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2019.1583300

[4] Mitchell, M., McCullough, K., Jia, D., Zhang, Y. (2016). The effect of prison visitation on reentry success: A meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice. 47. 74–83, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.07.006

[5] Duwe, G., and McNeeley, S. (2021). Just as Good as the Real Thing? The Effects of Prison Video Visitation on Recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 67(4), 475–497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128720943168

[6] Ndrecka, M. (2014). The Impact of Reentry Programs on Recidivism: A Meta-Analysis. PhD thesis., University of Cincinnati, 2014. https://cech.uc.edu/content/dam/refresh/cech-62/school-of-criminal-just…

Information Source

Evaluated cases

Community-based Residential Programs (Ohio)

Axis: Social Reintegration
Type: Social Integration Promotion-Based Programs
Effectiveness:

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising
Problem type:
Recidivism
Country:
United States
Open

Back Door Electronic Monitoring (Sweden)

Axis: Social Reintegration
Type: Social Integration Promotion-Based Programs
Effectiveness:

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising
Problem type:
Recidivism
Country:
Sweden
Open

Functional Family Parole

Axis: Social Reintegration
Type: Social Integration Promotion-Based Programs
Effectiveness:

Promising

.

.

.

.

.

Promising
Problem type:
Recidivism, Juvenile delinquency, Socioeconomic vulnerability
Country:
United States
Open

Why might the cases evaluated have different levels of effectiveness in relation to their respective type of solution?
Click here to understand why.

Some cases were not included in the evidence bank due to deficiencies detected in the methodology of their impact evaluations.
Click here to see the list

 

flag

Send us your study!

Have you participated in impact evaluation studies of interventions to prevent crime, violence or disorder? Send us your study. It will be evaluated and may be included in the Evidence Bank!

Contact us