A Longitudinal Analysis: Exploring Reentry Outcomes of Community Reentry Initiative Participants Under Community Supervision

Background and Purpose: Nearly 3.75 million adults were estimated to be under community supervision within the United States in 2021. Research shows that a vast majority of individuals under supervision have limited support networks. These individuals are also more likely than the general public to struggle with mental health disorders, have lower levels of education, and lack the skills needed to be successful in the employment market. For these reasons, it is crucial to support individuals during reentry to ensure their successful outcomes. While some research has examined the multicomponent service approach, few studies have considered the relationship between variations in different types and amounts of services administered within the first year post-release and the likelihood of recidivism over time.

Methods: Data are presented from a five-year longitudinal analysis of Community Reentry Initiative (CRI) participants who received services during Round 6 of the CRI program (August 1, 2013- July 31, 2014). Our analysis looks at the likelihoods of recidivism for two groups, those on probation and those on parole, over two time points each: during the Round 6 program year (Time 1) and 5 years post-release (Time 2). Data to address the study aims comes from two sources: 1) a Midwestern State Department of Corrections “Probation and Parole” universe file from 2013 – 2018 and 2) the 2013-2014 CRI program data which tracks local agencies’ programmatic efforts to support individuals on probation or parole. This study included n=2,928 participants (n=1,407 on probation and n=1,521 on parole). Our first regression models examine the relationship between CRI participation and reoffence during Year 1. Our second set of models examine the association between CRI participation and the likelihood of any reoffence during the next four years.

Results: Individuals on parole who received medium or high levels of Education and Employment (EE) units were significantly less likely to reoffend during Year 1. Those who received medium or high amounts of essential (ESS) units were also significantly less likely to reoffend in Year 1. Only one intervention category was significantly associated with reoffence among individuals on probation during Year 1. Those on probation who received a medium number of ESS units were less likely to reoffend during Year 1. Significant associations emerged between those on parole who received high levels of Well-Being units and a lower likelihood of reoffence up to four years after Year 1. Receipt of medium and high levels of EE units was linked with a lower likelihood of future reoffence among those on probation.

Conclusion: State departments and partnering community agencies tasked with administering reentry services must consider which types and amounts of services are effective at reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Findings from this study indicate a need for tailored reentry services that respond to the unique needs of each population (e.g., probationers and parolees) under community supervision. Regular program evaluation and the adoption of evidence-based reentry programs is one way to ensure that reentry programs are achieving their intended outcomes.