Are Prisoner Reentry Programs Cost-Effective? Evidence from the

Are Prisoner Reentry Programs Cost-Effective? Evidence from the Evaluation of MD REP John Roman Aaron Chalfin Justice Policy Center The Urban Institute Presented at the: Prisoner Reentry Institute John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York, NY September 7, 2007 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to The Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Center Policy REP Evaluation Results Compares 229 REP clients to 370 prisoners released to non-REP neighborhoods in Baltimore (MD) over an average of 38 months. Reduced recidivism (72% compared to 77.6% committed at least one new crime in the study period); Significantly reduced the number of new arrests; No significant differences in time to re-arrest, likelihood of a new conviction, number of new convictions, or

time to a new conviction; Justice Policy Center REP participants committed a total of 68 fewer The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Other Key Findings Most of the programs benefit accrued to the citizens of Baltimore whose risk of victimization was reduced only a small and non-significant benefit to public agencies. Much of the cost-effectiveness is due to a difference in the incidence of the most serious crimes we observe 11 attempted murders and 2 homicides in the control group and none in the treatment group. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Why Study REP? REP was an early, organic initiative, developed by a private organization (the Enterprise Foundation); Business model included unique features: Strong corrections-community partnership; Included programming Inside, in Transition and Outside; REP program was service catalyst, not provider, CDCs responded to a solicitation and delivered services; and, Was intended to put itself out of business; URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center Provides a strong test of the community service The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. The Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) REP initiative targets individual, community, and systems-level factors related to re-integration. REP was designed to: o provides a continuous support structure of programs and services to assist returning prisoners in the reintegration process (individual); o includes the local community, strengthening the community through its active role in the process and building informal social control (community); and, o has a structure that is based on an interorganizational partnership between the Maryland Division of Corrections, the Enterprise Foundation, the Mayors Office on Criminal Justice, the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation, and local community organizations, among others (systems). The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) Services Case management services that begin during

incarceration and last until two years following release Substance abuse treatment Mental and physical health treatment Education programs Job readiness/employment Housing Family and community reunification The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The Project was Developed in Two Distinct Stages First Stage Began in 2001 Targeted prisoners returning to Baltimore, MD (Druid Heights, Harlem Park, Park Heights, East Baltimore, Sandtown-Winchester); Targeted male ex-prisoners (excluding sex offenders), one consecutive year in prison, 18-34 years - in practice, served everyone (older demographic) including walk-ins. Second Stage Re-oriented in 2003 for SVORI Expanded REP to two additional zip codes; Added exclusions for mental illness and detainers; Emphasized recruitment of prisoners with 1+ years in prison; and Limited to ages 24-34 years The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Communities Served by the REP Program Park Heights is a large community located in Northwest Baltimore: Population is 17,559 and 98.3% (17,264 residents) are African-American. 5,168 households, 47.6% are single-parent households; Median household income is $17,989; and 32.1% of the households receive public assistance. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center The REP Conceptual Framework Formal Social Control Informal Social Control The Division of Corrections In-Program Remediation Pre-Release Preparation

Labor Market Readiness Training Service Needs Assessment Education Health Improvement Drug Treatment Mental Health Treatment Health Care Personal Development Anger Management Parenting Life Skills Family Connection Faith-based programs Develop Case Plan Transitional housing Identification Health/medications Income Community Linkages Advocate Case Manager Parole Community organizations Family Connections Notification

The Community Immediate Post-Release Programming Parole Supervision Drug testing Referrals for service Community Service Provider Substance Abuse Job Training Mental Health Life Skills Community Integration Community Groups Connect to services Pro-social opportunities Families/Victims Opportunity for restoration Opportunity for restitution Employers Job opportunity Training opportunity Case Manager/Advocate Problem-solving Support/counseling Advocacy

Faith-based Groups Family strengthening Spiritual connections Access to services Family Assistance The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Research Design The evaluation is an observational study using a retrospective quasi-experimental design to compare prisoners released from MTC to REP-eligible (treatment) and non-REP zip codes (comparison) in Baltimore City; The comparison group was generated from a

cohort of all prisoners released to non-REP Baltimore zip codes in the same period; The comparison group was further restricted using propensity score matching to create balanced samples. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Sources of Administrative Data REP data identifying REP clients (no linking variables); Demographic and institutional data (current incarceration) from the DPSCS Offender-Based State Correctional Information System I (OBSCIS I); Criminal history (arrests and convictions) and recidivism data from the Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) maintained by the DPSCS Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS); and, Community-level demographics and economic indicators for Baltimore zip codes from 2000 US Census. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Sampling Framework Identified almost 300 REP clients released from MTC to

the City of Baltimore between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2004, and about 4,200 prisoners released from MTC during the same period (but not to REP zip codes). We were concerned that motivation of REP clients might bias study results: Used propensity scores to match REP clients based on observable characteristics predicting enrollment in REP. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Propensity Score Matching to Ensure Comparability Propensity score models are used to predict the probability that each individual in the sample receives treatment. Comparison offenders are then matched to treatment offenders in their probability of being selected for treatment. Comparison offenders were selected using a nearest neighbor matching procedure where the two nearest neighbors were selected. Diagnostics - the treatment group and matched comparison group do not differ significantly in their probability of having received treatment, and the mean estimated Y ~ distribution of MREP clients in the population, indicating a successful match. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center Propensity Score Matching Result The final sample includes 599 prisoners released from MTC to the City of Baltimore between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2004, including 229 REP clients and 370 non-clients released during this period. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Sample Characteristics Comparison of Characteristics of Sample Members Off ender Characteristics Sample REP Non-REP Percent Black Release Age Prior Arrests Prior Arrests - Property Prior Arrests - Person Offense

Prior Arrests - Drug Offense Prior Convictions Prior Convictions - Property Prior Convictions - Person Prior Convictions - Drug Parole Violation Mandatory Release Current offense is a felony Poor Performance Record in Escape Risk N 100.0% 36.6 12.09 3.08 2.19 4.71 5.87 1.46 0.82 2.72 6.3% 20.5% 60.1% 52.7% 12.6% 599 100.0% 37.0 12.24 3.17

2.17 4.79 5.82 1.50 0.77 2.73 6.5% 21.8% 61.5% 50.2% 13.5% 229 100.0% 36.3 12.00 3.03 2.20 4.65 5.90 1.44 0.85 2.71 6.2% 19.7% 59.1% 54.3% 12.1% 370 Note: Significance: *** = p < 0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1; a = p<0.15

Source: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Offender-Based State Correctional Information System I (OBSCIS I); Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Central Repository The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis Bi-variate Outcomes Comparison of Outcomes of Sample Members Off ender Characteristics Any Rearrest Number of Rearrests Number of Rearrests - Property Offense Number of Rearrests - Person Offense

Number of Rearrests - Drug Offense Any Reconviction Number of Reconvictions Number of Reconvictions - Property Number of Reconvictions - Person Number of Reconvictions - Drug Offense Number of days in study Number of days at risk Number of days until first rearrest Number of days until first reconviction Monetized Cost of Offending to Victims Monetized Cost of Offending to Prisons Monetized Cost of Offending to Probation Monetized Cost of Offending to Public Monetized Cost of Offending to Society N Note: Significance: * = p < 0.01; ** = p<0.05; Sample 75.4% 2.54 0.40 0.39 1.44 57.7% 1.19 0.16 0.00 0.83

1219.9 1171.9 316.3 526.8 $20,787 $37,715 $2,195 $42,459 $63,247 599 *** = p<0.1; REP a 72% 2.36 0.39 0.34 1.33 58.0% 1.14 0.17 0.00 0.77 1212.9 1171.9 321.9 505.9 $9,658 $38,147 $2,354

$42,864 $52,522 229 Non-REP 77.6% 2.66 0.41 0.42 1.51 57.5% 1.22 0.15 0.00 0.86 1224.3 1171.9 313.1 540.0 $27,675 $37,448 $2,097 $42,210 $69,884 370 a = p<0.15 Source: Maryland Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services Offender-Based State Correctional Information System I (OBSCIS I); Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) Central Repository The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis Bi-variate Outcomes Off ender Characteristics Sample REP Any Rearrest Number of Rearrests Any Reconviction Number of Reconvictions Number of days until first rearrest Monetized Cost of Offending to Victims 75.4% 2.54 57.7% 1.19 316.3 $20,787 72%a 2.36 58.0% 1.14 321.9 $9,658

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. NonREP 77.6% 2.66 57.5% 1.22 313.1 $27,675 URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Hypotheses to be Tested by the Evaluation Tested five hypotheses about the impact of the REP program, that REP participants are: Less likely to be arrested for a new crime following their release from prison; Arrested fewer times for new crime(s); Less likely to be convicted of a new crime; Convicted fewer times for new crimes; and, REP participants had longer time to re-arrest. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Impact Analysis - Multivariate Models Three multivariate model specifications were used to test recidivism hypotheses. Logistic regression models test whether there was any difference in arrest and conviction prevalence e.g., the proportion of the sample with at least one arrest or at least one conviction; Negative binomial regression models test whether there was any difference in arrest and conviction incidencee.g., the number of new arrests or new convictions; Cox proportional hazard models test whether the two groups differed with respect to how fast a recidivism event occurred (i.e.., whether the impact of treatment on recidivism varied by group over time). The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis - Multivariate Models The general model framework used to estimate these models: Yi = i + 1REPi + 2TIME AT RISKi + K + i Yi is an indicator of recidivism (re-arrest or re-conviction); REPi is a dummy variable indicating REP participation; TIME AT RISKi is the number of days that an ex-prisoner is not incarcerated. K is a matrix of offender-level demographic variables, including;

Ex-prisoner characteristics. Age; Prior Criminality. Total prior arrests for person crimes, property crimes, and drug crimes, prior parole violations; Offense Characteristics. Felony (or not), mandatory release, poor performance while incarcerated, escape risk. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis Multivariate Results (Re-arrest) Outcome Analysis (Rearrest) Any Rearrest Independent Variable (1) (2) a 0.745 (.143) MREP Time at Risk Age at Release Prior Property Arrests Prior Person Arrests

Prior Drug Arrests Parole Violator Number of Rearrests Time to Rearrest (3) a 0.724 (0.157) a 0.722 (0.157) 1.000 (0.000) 0.923*** 0.924*** (0.011) (0.011) 1.110*** 1.108*** (0.380) (0.037) a a 1.078 1.082 (0.526) (0.053) 1.237*** 1.238*** (0.446) (0.044) 1.299

1.303 (0.635) (0.640) 5.265*** 5.395*** Mandatory Release Poor Prison Performance Escape Risk Alert Instant Offense is a Felony (1.942) 1.154 (0.264) 1.286 (0.466) 0.773 (0.181) (1.991) 1.128 (0.260) 1.284 (0.468) 0.802 (0.190) 599 0.1787 599 0.1811 Intercept

N Pseudo R2 Likelihood Ratio 599 0.0034 Note: Significance: *** = p < 0.01; All tests are two-tailed. (4) (5) (6) (7) -0.120 (0.087) -0.139* (0.081) -0.152* (0.079) 0.000*** (0.000) -0.037*** (0.004) 0.031*** (0.008) 0.066***

(0.016) 0.058*** (0.009) 0.165 (0.156) 0.867 (0.084) -0.038*** (0.004) 0.035*** (0.009) 0.056*** (0.017) 0.054*** (0.010) 0.170 (0.162) 0.169a 0.265*** (0.105) (0.102) 0.101 0.079 (0.085) (0.082) 0.060 0.073 (0.121) (0.117) -0.111 -0.003

(0.088) (0.087) 0.980*** 1.776*** 0.789*** (0.053) (0.190) (0.234) 599 599 599 0.0008 0.0384 0.0555 ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1; a (8) a a 0.863 (0.086) 0.961*** (0.005) 1.028*** (0.008) 1.041** (0.020)

1.072*** (0.012) 0.924 (0.179) 1.956*** (0.241) 1.099 (0.116) 0.994 (0.142) 0.972 (0.106) 595 595 2.14 115.35 = p<0.15 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis Multivariate Results (Re-arrest) Outcome Analysis (Rearrest)

Any Rearrest (1) MREP (2) a 0.745 (.143) Number of Rearrests (3) a 0.724 (0.157) (4) a 0.722 (0.157) (5) (6) Time to Rearrest (7) (8)

-0.120 -0.139* -0.152* 0.867a (0.087) (0.081) (0.079) (0.084) The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. a 0.863 (0.086) URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Results (Re-arrest) Interpretation of Covariates Independent Variable MREP Time at Risk Age at Release Prior Property Arrests Prior Person Arrests Prior Drug Arrests Parole Violator Mandatory Release Instant Offense is a Felony Any Rearrest

Number of Rearrests Time to Rearrest (3) (6) (8) 0.722a (0.157) 1.000 (0.000) 0.924*** (0.011) 1.108*** (0.037) a 1.082 (0.053) 1.238*** (0.044) 1.303 (0.640) 5.395*** (1.991) 0.802 (0.190) -0.152* (0.079)

0.000*** (0.000) -0.037*** (0.004) 0.031*** (0.008) 0.066*** (0.016) 0.058*** (0.009) 0.165 (0.156) 0.265*** (0.102) -0.003 (0.087) 0.863a (0.086) 0.961*** (0.005) 1.028*** (0.008) 1.041** (0.020) 1.072*** (0.012) 0.924 (0.179) 1.956*** (0.241) 0.972

(0.106) The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Impact Analysis Multivariate Results (Re-conviction) Outcome Analysis (Reconviction) Any Reconviction (1) MREP (2) (3) Number of Reconvictions (4) (5) (6) Time Until Reconviction (7) (8)

1.025 1.025 1.024 -0.061 -0.075 -0.082 1.019 1.008 (0.186) (0.186) (0.188) (0.104) (0.101) (0.099) (0.113) (0.113) Note: Significance: *** = p < 0.01; ** = p<0.05; * = p<0.1; All tests are two-tailed. a = p<0.15 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Cost-Benefit Analysis The REP CBA compares new costs of

administering REP to program benefits. We use a economic cost model to estimate costs as the opportunity costs of the use of resources associated with the provision of services to REP clients. These costs include in-house program costs and costs to community partners. The benefits of REP take two forms: (1) averted costs to crime victims; and (2) reduced (prevented) costs for public agencies. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center How Were the Costs of REP Calculated? Cost data were collected via semi-structured interviews with REP staff and those staff employed by REP contractors. Cost data were collected using a bottom up approach whereby the cost of each program input was estimated by multiplying the price of the input (typically the wage of the service provider) by the quantity of the input received by the offender (hours of treatment). Overall, we found that the REP program cost about $1.2M to administer in FY2004. $190,000 in costs to the Enterprise administrators of REP $560,000 for subcontractors

$460,000 for project partners The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center How Were the Costs of REP Calculated? Cost for FY 2004 = $1.21 Million, no data are available for earlier years (with fewer participants); Prorating for the number of people entering each year, we estimate a cost of about $3.5 Million to operate the program between 2001 and 2004; REP served 326 participants in this period, for a cost per participant of about $10,600, and an average of $6,500 per participant per year. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Who May Benefit from REP? There are two potential beneficiaries of REP: private citizens whose harms are reduced as the number and/or severity of crimes are reduced,

and public agencies who spend less to investigate, arrest, and supervise participants who desist from expected offending The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Benefits of REP to Private Citizens Two types of benefits from REP due to a reduction in crime: 1. Reduces direct losses from crime, including lost productivity, hospital and rehabilitation costs. 2. Reduces intangible losses (fear, pain and suffering). Together these are the costs of crime to victims. Estimates of the cost of crime to victims are drawn from: McCollister (2002) Rajkumar and French (1997) Miller, Cohen and Rossman (1993) All costs are reported in 2006 dollars, adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI) The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Estimates of the Costs of Crime to

Victims Crime Name Murder/Homicide Attempted Murder Rape/Sexual Assault Sexual Abuse of Minor Aggravated Assault Child Abuse Robbery (Simple) Assault Arson Motor Vehicle Theft DUI/Drunk Driving Burglary Larceny/Theft Stolen Property Offenses Vandalism Forgery and Counterfeiting Embezzlement Fraud Drug Offenses Gambling/Prostitution Costs to Victims $1,139,922 388,257 196,601 129,419 109,881 78,436 41,292 19,478 8,260

3,577 3,530 1,239 292 107 97 92 92 89 4 0 The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Benefits of REP to Public Agencies Benefits of averted crimes accruing to three public agencies are considered. These agencies benefit from reduced crime since they do not need to investigate and prosecute new crimes, or supervise new convicted offenders: Police, Corrections, Probation and Parole Estimates of the benefits of averted crimes come from the extant literature or come from Urban Institute estimates: Cost of arrest: $1,000 Daily cost of probation: $7 Daily cost of prison: $77 Assumes that offenders serve 55% of their total sentence

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Estimation of Benefits Tobit regression is employed to estimate the marginal monetized benefits of REP. The to isolate the welfare impact of REP: SOCIAL COSTi = i + c1REPi + K + i SOCIAL COSTi is the total cost to public agencies and crime victims associated with each offender REPi is a binary treatment indicator equal to one if the offender is enrolled in REP and zero otherwise. K is a matrix of covariates that predicts reoffending. C1, the coefficient on REPi is the estimated average benefit of treatment the amount of money that society saves as a result of REP. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Estimation of Marginal Benefits Marginal Benefits (Tobit Regression) Independent Variable MREP Total

Victim Cost -$23,813 ($18,513) Total Total Prison Probation Supervisi Cost to Cost Cost on Cost Society a -$3 $486 $95 -$31,824 ($8,345) ($754) ($8,664) ($19,122) The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Estimation of Marginal Benefits The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center The Effect of Homicide on CBA Estimates We observe: 11 attempted homicides in the comparison group (average harm of $388,257); 2 completed homicides (average harm of $1.1Million); 0 attempts and 0 completed homicides in the REP treatment group. Should we treat these events as outliers? The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center There were 135 homicides or attempted The Effect of Homicide on CBA homicides in the full comparison sample Estimates

of 4,105 (1 in 30). If those events are evenly distributed across all MTC releasees, we would see one homicide (or attempt) for every 30 exprisoners. In the REP comparison sample, we observe one homicide (or attempt) in every 28 comparisons. Claim: this justifies inclusion of the attempted murder and murders in the The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Presentation Overview Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; Describe the research design; Discuss quasi-experimental results; Discuss cost-benefit results; and, Implications and next steps. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Limitations of this Study

Many of the results reported here are not significant at conventional levels, suggesting a problem with statistical power. A post-hoc power analysis confirms that had we observed 100 additional treatment group participants with the same distribution of outcomes, those outcomes that are significant at p<0.15 would have been significant at p<0.05. We cannot rule out the possibility that some unobserved factor was related to both treatment enrollment and outcomes. The impact of rare events such as homicide on cost-benefit analysis of criminal justice programs is an important issue. Excluding homicide from the analysis renders all costbenefit results insignificant. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Implications If prisoner reentry programs such as REP are successful in marginal improving self-control, or informal self-control, and the most serious crimes (homicide and attempted homicide) are crimes that can be deterred by those mechanisms, than it is reasonable to believe that these programs can substantially reduce crime and save private citizens the cost associated with substantial harms. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center Contact Information Email: [email protected] The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • Bell Ringer  Do you believe torture is a

    Bell Ringer Do you believe torture is a

    Council of Trent. 1545 to 1563, 25 sessions, 40 clergymen. Emphasis on reforms and clarification . Transubstantiation . Indulgences. Scripture. Marriage . Gregorian ...
  • Grade 12 Parent information night - Holy Trinity Catholic ...

    Grade 12 Parent information night - Holy Trinity Catholic ...

    HT's deadline for OUAC - Prior to Christmas Holidays. January 15th - DEADLINE to apply to OUAC. Feb, April, July - marks to Universities . www.electronicinfo.ca. Campus visits. We believe a campus visit is essential when deciding which post-secondary institution...
  • The Teaching/Training Cycle - anqdevelopment1-linux.co.uk

    The Teaching/Training Cycle - anqdevelopment1-linux.co.uk

    C&G 7303 - Preparing to Teach in the Lifelong Learning Sector The Teaching/Training Cycle The Teaching/Training Cycle Identify Needs Identify Needs Plan & Design Identify Needs Plan & Design Deliver Identify Needs Plan & Design Deliver Assess Identify Needs Plan...
  • National Institutes of Health (NIH) SBIR/STTR Programs ...

    National Institutes of Health (NIH) SBIR/STTR Programs ...

    National Institutes of Health (NIH) SBIR/STTR ProgramsNational Heart ... It also supports research on the clinical use of blood and all aspects of the management and safety of blood resources. ... However, NIH has received a waiver to exceed this...
  • Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Kernel Changes

    Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 Kernel Changes

    Microsoft, Windows, Windows Vista and other product names are or may be registered trademarks and/or trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries. ... Loader refers to schema for DLL loads that are pathless to find mapping.
  • Writing for the 2014 GED® Workshop - nebula.wsimg.com

    Writing for the 2014 GED® Workshop - nebula.wsimg.com

    This is your Let's Eat Grandpa! Versus Lets eat, Grandpa! Trait! Wordiness. Run-ons and comma splices. Faulty Parallelism. Misplaced modifiers. Using the wrong verb form. ... Let's talk about how you can get your students as close to 12 points...
  • Trial Procedure - University of Washington School of Law

    Trial Procedure - University of Washington School of Law

    2nd - Put those steps in order [3 minutes] Dude, Where's My Car? The Facts: Joe Harper went to the grocery store, parked his 1990 blue mini-van, and left his key in the ignition. When he came back an hour...
  • Developing Competitive Youth Soccer in Eastern Ontario

    Developing Competitive Youth Soccer in Eastern Ontario

    Any ERSL Regional (formerly known as L3) are not permitted to play in the SOSA League. Rule Clarification - Calling Up. ... Final Standings - Tie Breakers. If two or more teams in an Age Group are tied in points...