December 2009

Grant Results

SUMMARY

Each year, hundreds of thousands of people are released from prison, many with health, substance abuse, economic and family problems that need to be addressed in order for them to become productive, law-abiding members of society.

From 2001 to 2008, staff at the Urban Institute analyzed the characteristics and experiences of prisoners returning from prison to homes in Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and Houston. The study, Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, aimed to enhance understanding of former prisoners and improve policies promoting their successful reentry into society.

Key Findings

  • Two-thirds of prisoners reported more than weekly drug use or alcohol intoxication prior to incarceration.
  • Some 80 percent of men and 90 percent of women had chronic health conditions requiring treatment or management.
  • Many prisoners did not receive needed health services while incarcerated, and treatment rates were lower after release than before.
  • Most recently released prisoners (68 percent of men, 58 percent of women) lacked health insurance eight to 10 months after release.
  • Those with health problems of any kind were less likely to have made housing arrangements before release and reported more problems finding employment than those without such problems.
  • Family members provided much economic and emotional support, and were the primary source of post-release housing.
  • Eight to 10 months out, about one-third of former prisoners reported recent substance use, and by one year, one in five had been returned to prison.

Funding
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) provided a grant in the amount of $291,454 to the Urban Institute to partially support this project from August 2004 through December 2008.

 See Grant Detail & Contact Information
 Back to the Table of Contents


The Problem

Incarceration rates have grown four-fold from the 1970s to the 2000s, according to the Urban Institute, a Washington-based public policy institute. In 2002, more than one million people were serving time in state and federal prisons and some 600,000 were released.

"Most [individuals released from prison] will be rearrested and many will be returned to prison for new crimes or parole violations," according to an Urban Institute background paper. "And this cycle of removal and return of large numbers of individuals…is increasingly concentrated in a small number of communities that already encounter enormous social and economic disadvantages. The families in these neighborhoods are those most impacted."

In recent years, public and private organizations have taken steps to improve policies and programs for former prisoners, their families and their communities. For example:

  • In 2001, the Council of State Governments established a Reentry Policy Council to develop comprehensive, bipartisan recommendations regarding policies related to helping former prisoners. See Grant Results for more information on an RWJF grant to support this work.
  • In 2002, the federal Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative funded 69 state and local agencies to develop or expand programs offering re-entry services to juveniles and adults leaving correctional facilities.

Notwithstanding these efforts, little was known about former prisoners' expectations, their employability and employment status, their health and mental health needs, their family relationships or the services they utilized.

 Back to the Table of Contents


RWJF Strategy

RWJF has been interested in issues around prisoners re-entering society for more than a decade. Funded projects include:

  • From 1992 through mid-2002, the Hunter College Center on AIDS, Drugs and Community Health designed and ran Health Link, which provided in-jail and post-release services to women and adolescent inmates ages 16 to 18 at New York City's Rikers Island correctional complex. The center is now called the Hunter College Center for Urban and Community Health. Mathematica Policy Research conducted a formal, quantitative evaluation. See Grant Results.
  • Research conducted by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice created an electronic database of re-entry services available to prisoners returning from New York City's jails to communities in its five boroughs, and mapped these services to determine their accessibility to the returning inmates. A report of their findings, Mapping the Innovation in Correctional Health Care Service Delivery in New York City, was released in spring 2008. See Grant Results for more information.
  • Funded roundtables on re-entry issues include two conducted by the Urban Institute:
    • New Jersey Institute for Social Justice, in collaboration with the New Jersey Public Policy Research Institute, created the New Jersey Reentry Roundtable. It is an initiative to develop a comprehensive strategy to address the challenges released prisoners face as they re-enter society. See Grant Results for more information.
    • In March 2002, an Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable met to discuss research and policies regarding prisoner re-entry and the impact of re-entry on individuals, families and communities. See Grant Results for more information.
    • In December 2002, another Urban Institute Reentry Roundtable met to discuss public health implications of prisoner re-entry. See Grant Results for more information.
  • Starting in early 2006 and running through May 2011, RWJF has been supporting the Returning Home Initiative of the Corporation for Supportive Housing with two grants totaling $10 million to establish supportive housing as an essential component of reintegrating former prisoners into communities.

 Back to the Table of Contents


The Project

In October 2001, the Urban Institute launched Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, a multi-year, multi-state study of former prisoners, their families and their communities. Christy Visher, Ph.D., directed the study; she is now co-director of the Center for Drug and Alcohol Studies at the University of Delaware.

Returning Home's goal was "to produce concrete knowledge about prisoner re-entry and reintegration, and advance policies and innovations reflecting solid research that would inform a national dialogue to promote successful prisoner reintegration."

The project focused on cities that suffered from the highest rates of incarceration in their respective states. The states were selected to represent different inmate populations and correctional philosophies. It began with a pilot study in Baltimore, then expanded to three other cities:

  • Chicago
  • Cleveland
  • Houston

The study analyzed:

  • Characteristics of prisoners returning to the community
  • Former prisoners' relationships with family and peers
  • Strengths and weaknesses of the community to which the prisoners returned
  • Corrections programs, policies and the social and economic climate

Methodology

The Urban Institute subcontracted with survey research firms in each city to conduct surveys of reentering prisoners:

  • Chicago: Metro Chicago Information Center
  • Cleveland: Research Support Services (based in Chicago)
  • Houston: NuStats (based in Austin, Texas)

More than 1200 men about to be released from Illinois, Ohio and Texas state prisons completed a self-administered survey, as did more than 250 women in Texas.

The research firms also conducted up to three personal interviews within 15 months after each prisoner's release. The number and schedule of the interviews varied by city due to logistical and budgetary factors. In all, more than 2,600 surveys and interviews were completed, including more than 800 approximately a year post-release. The surveys and interviews explored the respondents':

  • Housing and employment
  • Criminal activity
  • Expectations for the future
  • Physical and mental health
  • Substance use and treatment episodes
  • Family and peer relationships
  • Use of community services

During their post-release interviews, respondents also completed screening instruments for depression and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Urban Institute researchers and the survey firms also:

  • Analyzed corrections data to identify incarceration and re-entry characteristics of offenders.
  • Reviewed state laws and policies regarding re-entry.
  • Linked interview data and corrections records to examine rates of recidivism.
  • Interviewed 660 family members—or another person close to the offender—in Chicago and Houston after the offender returned home. (About 50 family interviews were conducted as part of the pilot study in Baltimore; the project lacked sufficient funds to conduct family interviews in Cleveland.) These interviews covered topics such as:
    • Contacts with the prisoner during incarceration
    • Preparation for return
    • Willingness to provide support
    • The impact of the incarceration and return on the family
  • Gathered community and state data through personal interviews and focus groups with community representatives and reviews of census data and other administrative records. Researchers used this information to assess the role of community characteristics, organizations and resources on prisoner re-entry.

Data from the Baltimore pilot project was excluded from the analysis reported here.

Other Funding

Returning Home ran from 2001 through 2008 and cost $6.2 million. RWJF funds partially supported data collection in Texas and a cross-site analysis of the health concerns of former prisoners, their history of substance use and treatment, and their access to health care.

The complete study was supported by 14 other funders. See the Appendix for a complete list.

Communications

Visher and her colleagues communicated findings from the study in five journal articles and in some 20 policy reports and research briefs published by the Urban Institute. For example:

  • "Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons about Prisoner Reentry," an article published in the Federal Sentencing Reporter, described characteristics of former prisoners returning to Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland and Houston.
  • A report, Health and Prisoner Reentry: How Physical, Mental and Substance Abuse Conditions Shape the Process of Reintegration (available online ), examined health conditions of former prisoners in Cleveland and Houston and the relationship between those conditions and re-entry outcomes.
  • Policy and research briefs provided information regarding characteristics and experiences of former prisoners and their families in each city. Topics included:
    • Texas Prisoners' Reflections on Returning Home (Available online.)
    • Community Residents' Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry in Selected Cleveland Neighborhoods (Available online.)
    • Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry (Available online.)

See the Bibliography for a list of articles and papers, most of which are available online.

Project staff also presented findings from the study to Department of Justice and Congressional staff and at annual meetings of organizations such as the American Society of Criminology.

 Back to the Table of Contents


Findings

Project Director Christy Visher reported findings on the general characteristics of prisoners returning to the community in "Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons about Prisoner Reentry," an article published in the December 2007 Federal Sentencing Reporter:

  • The average age of those released was 33 years. Released prisoners in their 30s will have different needs than those in their 20s, Visher noted. For example, they are more likely to be parents or suffer from physical or mental health problems.
  • Two-thirds of prisoners reported more than weekly drug use or alcohol intoxication prior to incarceration. They also identified drug use as the primary cause of many of their problems.
  • Most prisoners (88 percent) said they had at least one close family member. Most lived with family members and/or an intimate partner immediately after release, although many of these living arrangements were temporary. Visher noted that recent research has shown that maintaining and strengthening family networks can improve the lives of prisoners returning to the community.
  • More than 75 percent of soon-to-be-released prisoners said getting a job would help keep them from returning to prison, but only 18 percent had a job lined up a month before their release. Only half had ever held a permanent job, and 31 percent were unemployed in the six months before their incarceration. Some 88 percent said they would need job training or more education to get a job.
  • Prisoners are more likely to suffer from health problems and mental illness than the general population. The most common problems reported included:
    • Depression
    • Asthma
    • Hepatitis
    • High blood pressure

Health Challenges and Reentry

Visher and Kamala Mallik-Kane reported the following findings, based on the Cleveland and Houston surveys, in a report, Health and Prisoner Reentry: How Physical, Mental and Substance Abuse Conditions Shape the Process of Reintegration:

  • Some 80 percent of men and 90 percent of women had chronic health conditions requiring treatment or management. In particular:
    • Half of men and two-thirds of women had chronic physical conditions such as asthma, diabetes, hepatitis or HIV/AIDS.
    • Some 15 percent of men and more than one-third of women reported having been diagnosed with depression or another mental illness. (The researchers believe the actual prevalence could be double the self-reported level.)
    • About two-thirds of prisoners reported active substance abuse in the six months prior to incarceration. About 10 percent of men and 25 percent of women reported both substance abuse and mental health conditions.
    • Once in the community, former prisoners often had multiple health problems, with about four in 10 men and six in 10 women reporting some combination of physical, mental health and substance abuse problems.
  • Many people did not receive needed health services while incarcerated, and treatment rates were lower after release than before. For example, two-thirds of men reported receiving some treatment for physical conditions while in prison. But only half reported treatment in the year after release. Declines were also reported for mental health and substance abuse treatment.
  • Most former prisoners (68 percent of men, 58 percent of women) lacked health insurance eight to ten months after release. Nonetheless, they were heavy users of health care services, including emergency room visits and hospitalizations. The rate of use declined with time, however, suggesting that immediate acute care was not matched by long-term care of continuing conditions.
  • Prisoners with mental health problems faced the most severe adjustment problems. Those with physical problems faced fewer challenges than those with mental health or substance abuse problems. These challenges included:
    • Housing
    • Employment
    • Lack of family support
    • Substance abuse
    • Criminal involvement
  • Those with health problems of any kind were less likely to have made housing arrangements before release than those without such problems. In particular, those with mental illness, and substance-abusing women, had difficulties with homelessness after release.
  • Those with health problems also reported more problems finding employment. Physical and mental health problems may have interfered with their ability to work. Those with substance abuse problems reported more criminal behavior and were more likely to be earning money through illegal activities.
  • Family members provided much economic and emotional support, and were the primary source of post-release housing. Those with mental illnesses received less family support than others.
  • Eight to ten months out, about a third of former prisoners reported recent substance use. Those with pre-incarceration histories of substance abuse were more likely to engage in substance use post-release.
  • One in five former prisoners was back in a state prison within a year of their release. Those with health conditions—and particularly substance users—were more likely to have engaged in criminal activity and faced a higher likelihood of incarceration.

In addition to the findings above, the researchers published findings relating to individual cities and/or issues in other publications. See the Bibliography for details.

Limitations

Visher reported the following limitations of the study in a personal interview:

  • Returning Home was a descriptive study and cannot definitively answer questions about the causes of outcomes.
  • The study includes only a small sample of women, all of them from Texas. Only Texas had enough women coming out of prison during the study period and funding there was sufficient to allow researchers to interview the women.
  • Data regarding substance use comes from self-reports of prisoners. Self-report data may not accurately reflect the level of drug use.

 Back to the Table of Contents


Recommendations

Visher and her colleagues made the following policy recommendations based on the findings above:

  • Health needs assessments should be part of each person's re-entry planning process. Prison medical records are not sufficient to gauge health needs, but pre-release assessments could be as simple as checklists completed by prisoners prior to release.
  • All men and women released from prison should receive a base level of housing and employment assistance. While nearly all returning prisoners with any health condition had housing and employment needs, the degree to which they experienced these needs differed by health condition and gender. Therefore, interventions should be targeted to individual conditions.
  • Discharge planners should consider the role of family members, including the risks posed by specific individuals. They should realistically assess the amount of support family members can provide by including them in the discharge planning process whenever possible.
  • Policy-makers and practitioners should develop individualized case management interventions. The most effective interventions appear to begin before release and continue after release.
  • Returning prisoners need intensive services and supports immediately upon their release, including intangible supports such as mentors or re-entry coaches. Returning Home participants expressed optimism about life after their release and most acknowledged that they needed to change their behavior. Most may be overly optimistic about their ability to succeed without help, however.
  • Family members and communities also need help. Returning prisoners rely on family members who in turn may need assistance to cope with the financial and emotional demands involved in taking in another person. In addition, most prisoners return to concentrated geographic areas, placing burdens on a relatively small number of communities.
  • Policy-makers should focus on comprehensive re-entry strategies rather than on individual programs. Developing strategies usually involves multiple levels of government, coordination across agencies and inclusion of entities such as businesses or community colleges not traditionally part of re-entry discussions.
  • State and local officials should develop coordinated, sustained responses. Some states have established state re-entry policy councils to develop policies, coordinate services and make recommendations for improvements. Coordinated state and local attention might lead to new legislative proposals. By reallocating resources and implementing policies that reduce incarceration, states may be able to reduce recidivism within existing budgets.

 Back to the Table of Contents


Lessons Learned

  1. Conduct pilot tests of study protocols. For example, the original research design called for interviews with family members while prisoners were still incarcerated. During the pilot test in Baltimore, respondents in the study would not give permission to have family members interviewed at that stage, as they wanted to re-establish family relationships before involving family members in a study. Researchers amended the research design to accommodate this preference. (Project Director)
  2. Include qualitative components and life histories when conducting longitudinal studies of prisoner re-entry. The study yielded extensive and systematic quantitative data, but it was not designed to include life stories of prisoners during their incarceration and during the year after release. These life stories would have added an important dimension to the quantitative findings. (Project Director)
  3. Employ private survey research firms rather than university research departments for survey work. University administrative procedures can impose delays, including lengthy vetting by institutional review boards. Private firms are more flexible and can produce more timely results. (Project Director)

 Back to the Table of Contents


After the Grant

The Returning Home study ended with the conclusion of this grant. Project Director Christy Visher and colleagues plan to release a report in 2009 analyzing the substance abuse issues faced by men and women returning to the community after incarceration.

According to Visher, the study helped to inform federal officials pursuing two initiatives:

  • The Second Chance Act of 2007 became law in April 2008. This Act provides funding for a variety of re-entry services including counseling, substance abuse treatment, employment and housing.
  • The Department of Justice funded the Multi-Site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative, which uses the Returning Home methodology. The Urban Institute and RTI International, a North Carolina-based research institute, are conducting this five-year, $12 million study. Results will be released in 2010.

Impacts in Two States

Officials in Illinois and Ohio used Returning Home data and findings to shape policies and programs.

In Illinois

  • The state Department of Corrections designed a new prison, the Sheridan Correctional Center, based on Returning Home findings. The facility combines substance abuse treatment in prison with extensive re-entry support.
  • One Chicago neighborhood, East Garfield Park, is involved in a re-entry demonstration project called Safer Return: A Research-Based Community Reentry Initiative. The Urban Institute and the Safer Foundation are working with state and local officials, neighborhood residents and local service providers to guide the demonstration, evaluate it and assess its costs and benefits.

In Ohio
Marcia Egbert, senior program officer at the George Gund Foundation, one of Returning Home's funders, credits Returning Home with catalyzing a broad-based effort to address reentering prisoners' needs in Cleveland. "I can trace a path from Returning Home to our launching a multi-year, multi-faceted intervention," says Egbert. "This was a jackpot for us."

Egbert reports that officials in Cleveland used data from the study to promote a comprehensive community response to people returning from prison. Among the results:

  • City officials developed a City of Cleveland Reentry Strategic Plan.
  • Cuyahoga County established a new County Office of Reentry Services in 2008.
  • The county and the United Way also created the Greater Cleveland Reentry Project, which addresses health concerns of returning prisoners and their families.
  • MetroHealth, a public hospital, and the Legal Aid Society of Cleveland established the Community Advocacy Program in part to provide legal services to former prisoners returning to Cleveland neighborhoods. Under this program, Legal Aid attorneys are based at MetroHealth. Through Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Local Funding Partnerships, in 2006 RWJF provided $500,000 to MetroHealth for the project (ID# 058033). Dr. Visher was an early adviser to this project. See the Grantee Profile. Also, see Grant Results for more information on the program.

 Back to the Table of Contents


GRANT DETAILS & CONTACT INFORMATION

Project

Understanding the nexus among prisoner re-entry, public health, and substance abuse

Grantee

Urban Institute (Washington,  DC)

  • Amount: $ 291,454
    Dates: August 2004 to December 2008
    ID#:  051041

Contact

Christy Visher, Ph.D.
(302) 831-6921
Visher@UDel.Edu

 Back to the Table of Contents


APPENDICES


Appendix 1

(Current as of the time of the grant; provided by the grantee organization; not verified by RWJF.)

Returning Home funders

  • Abell Foundation ($50,000)
  • Annie E. Casey Foundation ($500,000)
  • Cleveland Foundation ($100,000)
  • George Gund Foundation ($275,000)
  • Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati ($300,000)
  • Houston Endowment ($300,000)
  • Illinois Criminal Justice Information Authority ($59,999)
  • JEHT Foundation ($1,000,000)
  • John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($1,000,000)
  • Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction ($50,000)
  • Open Society Institute, Baltimore ($80,000)
  • Rockefeller Foundation ($600,000)
  • Smith Richardson Foundation ($300,000)
  • Woods Fund of Chicago ($100,000)

 Back to the Table of Contents


BIBLIOGRAPHY

(Current as of date of this report; as provided by grantee organization; not verified by RWJF; items not available from RWJF.)

Book Chapters

Visher CA and Mallik-Kane K. "Reentry Experiences of Men with Health Problems." In Public Health Behind Bars: From Prisons to Communities. Greifinger R (ed), New York: Springer, 2007, pp. 434–460.

Visher CA and Kachnowski V. "Finding Work on the Outside: Results from the 'Returning Home' Project in Chicago." In Barriers to Reentry? The Labor Market for Released Prisoners in Postindustrial America. Bushway S, Stoll MA and Weiman DF (eds), New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2007, pp 80–113.

Visher CA, Naser RL and Courtney SME. "Incarcerated Fathers: Pathways from Prison to Home." In Incarcerated Parents, Their Children and Their Families. Gadsden V and Genty P (eds), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers, forthcoming 2010.

Articles

La Vigne NG, Naser RL, Brooks LE and Castro JL. "Examining the Effect of Incarceration and In-Prison Family Contact on Prisoners' Family Relationships." Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21(4): 314–335, 2005. Available online.

Naser RL and Visher CA. "Family Members' Experiences with Incarceration and Reentry." Western Criminology Review, 7(2): 20–31, 2006. Available online.

Visher CA, La Vigne NG and Castro JL. "Returning Home: Preliminary Findings From a Pilot Study of Soon-To-Be Released Prisoners in Maryland." Justice Research and Policy, 5(2): 55–74, 2003. Abstract available online. Full article available online for a fee.

Visher CA. "Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons About Prisoner Reentry." Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20(2): 93–102, 2007.

Winterfield L and Castro J. "Matching Drug Treatment to Those in Need: An Analysis of Correctional Service Delivery in Illinois and Ohio." Justice Research and Policy, 7(2): 29–56, 2005. Abstract available online. Full article available online for a fee.

Reports

Visher CA, Kachnowsk V, La Vigne N and Travis J. Baltimore Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, March 2004. Available online.

Brooks LE, Visher CA and Naser RL. Community Residents' Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry in Selected Cleveland Neighborhoods. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, March 2006. Available online.

Kachnowski V. Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Employment and Prisoner Reentry. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, August 2005. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Brooks LE and Shollenberger TL. Women on the Outside: Understanding the Experiences of Female Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, June 2009. Available online.

La Vigne NG and Kachnowski V. Texas Prisoners' Reflections on Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, October 2005. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Kachnowski V, Travis J, Naser R and Visher C. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, March 2003. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Mamalian CA, Travis J and Visher C. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, April 2003. Available online.

La Vigne NG and Parthasarathy B. Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Prisoner Reentry and Residential Mobility. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, August 2005. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Shollenberger TL and Debus SA. One Year Out: Tracking the Experiences of Male Prisoners Returning to Houston, Texas. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, June 2009. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Thomson GL, Visher C, Kachnowski V and Travis J. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, March 2003. Available online.

La Vigne NG, Visher C and Castro J. Chicago Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, December 2004. Available online.

Mallik-Kane K. Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Health and Prisoner Reentry. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, August 2005. Available online.

Mallik-Kane K and Visher CA. Health and Prisoner Reentry: How Physical, Mental and Substance Abuse Conditions Shape the Process of Reintegration. Washington: Urban Institute, February 2008. Available online.

Shollenberger TL. When Relatives Return: Interviews with Family Members of Returning Prisoners in Houston, Texas. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, May 2009. Available online.

Visher C, Baer D and Naser R. Ohio Prisoners' Reflections on Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, January 2005. Available online.

Visher CA and Courtney SME. Cleveland Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, September 2006. Available online.

Visher CA, Debus S and Yahner J. Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, October 2008. Available online.

Visher C and Farrell J. Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry. Washington: Urban Institute, September 2005. Available online.

Visher C, Kachnowski V, La Vigne N and Travis J. Baltimore Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, March 2004. Available online.

Visher CA, Knight C, Chalfin A and Roman J. The Impact of Marital and Relationship Status on Social Outcomes for Returning Prisoners. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, February 2009. Available online.

Visher C, La Vigne NG and Farrell J. Illinois Prisoners' Reflections on Returning Home. Washington: Urban Institute, September 2003. Available online.

Visher C, La Vigne N and Travis J. Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, January 2004. Available online.

Visher C, Naser RL, Baer D and Jannetta J. In Need of Help: Experiences of Seriously Ill Prisoners Returning to Cincinnati. Washington: Urban Institute, March 2005. Available online.

Watson J, Solomon AL, La Vigne NG, Travis J, Funches M and Parthasarathy B. A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, March 2004. Available online.

Winterfield L and Castro J. Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Treatment Matching. Washington: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center, August 2005. Available online.

 Back to the Table of Contents


Report prepared by: Mary Nakashian
Reviewed by: Robert Narus
Reviewed by: Molly McKaughan
Program Officer: Nancy L. Barrand
Former Program Officer: Floyd Morris