| How to Obtain
Documents |
| |
|
|
NCJ Number:
|
NCJ 203923
|
|
Title:
|
Applying Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Re-Entry: The Indianapolis Pilot Project, Final Report
|
|
Author(s):
|
Edmund F. McGarrell Ph.D. ; Natalie Hipple Ph.D. ; Duren Banks Ph.D.
|
|
Corporate Author:
|
Hudson Institute
United States
|
|
Date Published:
|
02/2003 |
|
Page Count:
|
66 |
|
Sponsoring Agency:
|
|
|
Grant Number:
|
2000-CE-VX-0002 |
|
Sale Source:
|
NCJRS Photocopy Services
Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
United States
Hudson Institute
5395 Emerson Way
Indianapolis, IN 46226
United States |
|
Document:
|
PDF |
|
Agency Summary:
|
Agency Summary |
|
Type:
|
Program/project description/evaluations |
|
Language:
|
English |
|
Country:
|
United States |
|
Annotation:
|
This report describes the implementation and evaluation of the
Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP), which used a
problem-solving approach to reduce recidivism among former
inmates. |
|
Abstract:
|
The project began with an analysis of the re-entry population,
which included a profile of prison releasees during 2000, a
survival analysis of a sample of inmates, and interviews and
focus groups with recently released inmates and service providers
who work with former inmates. The problem analysis found that 40
percent of former inmates were arrested within 1 year of release.
Younger inmates and those with more extensive criminal histories
were at greatest risk for recidivism, as were African-American
inmates. Barriers to successful re-entry identified by both
former inmates and service providers were housing, substance
abuse, negative peer influences, and anxiety regarding not
"making it." Based on these findings, the IVRP implemented a
pilot project that consisted of having recently released inmates
attend a neighborhood-based group meeting convened by criminal
justice officials and involving community representatives and
service providers. The meetings were designed to combine
deterrence and social support (linkage to services). In the
evaluation, the treatment group consisted of 93 former inmates
who attended 1 of 5 meetings. The comparison group was
composed of 107 former inmates released at the same time as the
treatment group but in a different neighborhood. The meetings
were rotated geographically throughout the city, so both
treatment and comparison groups were drawn from the three
targeted areas of the city. Approximately 40 percent of both
treatment and control groups were rearrested during the follow-up
period (10-24 months). The treatment group survived longer (an
average of 172 days) than did the comparison group (120 days)
before being rearrested; however, this difference was not
statistically significant in the survival analysis. Thus, there
is a possibility that the difference was produced by chance. A
program that begins in prison, attempts to build in family or
other social supports, and that includes strategies for follow-up
beyond the initial meeting with offenders may prove more
successful than the Indianapolis pilot project. 23 tables and 17
references |
|
Main Term(s):
|
Corrections effectiveness |
|
Index Term(s):
|
Recidivism ; Postrelease programs ; Aftercare decisionmaking ; Recidivism causes ; NIJ final report ; Indiana |
|
Note:
|
See NCJ-203922 for the Summary Report. |
| |
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=203923
|
* A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents
not available online, a link to the publisher's web site is provided.
|
|
Help | Contact Us | Home
