This is one in a series of 15 two-page, evidence-based framing memos on pressing education and social issues prepared by MDRC for the incoming Obama Administration and the new Congress.

Bottom Line

There is broad agreement on the need to reduce recidivism among the 700,000 people who are released from prison each year, and many local, state, and federal agencies have mounted ambitious reentry initiatives. Unfortunately, there is almost no hard evidence about which reentry approaches, if any, are effective. Without a body of reliable research showing that the new strategies are making a difference, public support for reentry programming may dissipate. While a handful of rigorous studies are underway — and some promising results are starting to emerge — a much larger, more systematic series of evaluations is needed.

What Do We Know?

A surge in incarceration. The per capita rate of incarceration in the U.S. has increased four-fold since the 1970s. Today, more than 2 million people are in prison and jail. Corrections costs exceed $65 billion per year, with most of the total borne by state and local governments. The surge in incarceration has disproportionately affected African-American men.

With state budgets in crisis, there is general support for strategies that can reduce the prison population without hindering public safety. Since tougher sentencing laws were the single biggest factor driving the increase in the prison population, a strong argument can be made for changing mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders and “three strikes” policies, promoting more alternatives to incarceration, and other similar measures. But these changes would be controversial; some argue that increased incarceration has reduced crime — though the evidence on this point is mixed.

A focus on reentry. Sentencing changes are important, but they do not address the more than 700,000 people who are released from prison each year and face daunting obstacles to successful reentry. Ex-prisoners have difficulty finding jobs, housing, and mental health services — and, in some states, are barred from voting, receiving certain forms of public assistance, and working in specific occupations. Not surprisingly, the most recent national data show that two-thirds of ex-prisoners are rearrested, and half are reincarcerated within three years. A large proportion are incarcerated for technical violations of parole conditions, rather than for new crimes. Strategies to promote successful reentry generally receive broad support, and reducing recidivism is critical to reducing the prison population and saving money. Thus, many states and localities have established multi-agency reentry initiatives, which often begin with pre-release services and extend into the community. Some states are also considering changes in parole practices to support the goal of successful reentry.

Limited evidence. At this point, there is very little evidence on the effectiveness of the new wave of reentry programming. A handful of rigorous studies — including the evaluation of New York City’s Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) and the four-state Transitional Jobs Reentry Demonstration — are underway and are starting to produce some findings. For example, CEO’s transitional jobs model has generated modest decreases in recidivism — and even small changes can have major implications for state budgets and public safety — but only short-term increases in employment. But these careful studies are the exception rather than the rule. The Second Chance Act, passed by Congress with bipartisan support in 2008, contains strong language calling for more rigorous evaluations of reentry models — and specifically for studies using random assignment designs — but the Act includes very little funding to support such research.

What Next?

Lessons from welfare reform. In the 1980s and 1990s, an unusual series of rigorous evaluations — sponsored by states, private foundations, and the federal government — produced a rich body of evidence on the effectiveness and costs of various welfare-to-work strategies. The studies built upon one another, first documenting the effectiveness of simple programs, then moving on to test more complex strategies and compare the effectiveness of different models side-by-side. Largely as a result of these studies, today there is virtually unanimous agreement that mandatory employment services for welfare recipients are a good use of public funds, and there is also broad agreement on the elements of effective programs.

Building a body of evidence on reentry. Without a similar systematic program of evaluation, there is a risk that public support for reentry programming will dissipate over time. There is underlying public skepticism about the potential for “rehabilitation,” and, in tight budgetary times, reentry programs that cannot produce hard evidence of effectiveness — and cost savings — are less likely to receive continued support. Because most experts agree that personal motivation is perhaps the single biggest factor in explaining why some people make successful transitions and others do not, there is a particular need to conduct random assignment evaluations, which ensure that both the program and control groups have equal numbers of highly motivated and less highly motivated people. Studies that simply compare outcomes for people who seek out reentry programs with outcomes for those who don’t are bound to yield misleading results.

Most reentry initiatives are led by state or local government agencies, but these agencies may be unlikely to undertake rigorous evaluations on their own. However, with federal and/or private support for the research — or, even better, a combination of research funding and requirements to conduct research as a condition of receiving special programmatic funding — they may be much more responsive. Rigorous studies could test a variety of reentry approaches, including prison-based vocational training and discharge planning, changes in parole practices, different employment strategies, substance and mental health treatment models, financial incentives, and others.

Key References

Bloom, Dan, Cindy Redcross, Janine Zweig, and Gilda Azurdia. 2007. Transitional Jobs for Ex-Prisoners: Early Impacts from a Random Assignment Evaluation of the Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) Prisoner Reentry Program. New York: MDRC.

Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Travis, Jeremy. 2005. But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.