Psychological Services
Manuscript version of
Reentry Interventions That Address Substance Use: A Systematic Review
Kelly E. Moore, Robyn L. Hacker, Lindsay Oberleitner, Sherry A. McKee
Funded by: • National Institute on Drug Abuse• State of Connecticut
© 2018, American Psychological Association. This manuscript is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please do not copy or cite without authors’ permission. The final version of record is available via its DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ser0000293
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 1
Reentry Interventions that Address Substance Use: A Systematic Review
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 2
Abstract
Justice-involved individuals with substance use problems have heightened risk of relapse
and recidivism after release from incarceration, making reentry a critical time to provide
evidence-based treatments (EBTs) for substance use; however, the extent to which reentry
interventions incorporate EBTs for substance use is unclear. This systematic review identified
studies of reentry interventions in the past 10 years that address substance use, assessed whether
EBTs were used, and explored which interventions were effective in reducing substance use and
recidivism post-release. Eligible studies included interventions that began during incarceration
and continued post-release or began within 3 months of release, and addressed substance use in
some capacity. 112 full text articles were reviewed and 38 met inclusion criteria, representing 34
unique interventions. Of the 34 interventions, 21 provided substance use treatment whereas 13
facilitated connections to treatment. Of the 21 interventions providing treatment, the primary
modalities were cognitive behavioral therapy (n = 6), motivational interviewing (n = 2),
medication assisted treatment (n = 2), therapeutic community (n = 2), psychoeducation/12-step
(n = 5), and 4 did not specify the modality. Of the 31 studies that assessed recidivism outcomes,
18 found reduced recidivism for the treatment group on at least one indicator (e.g., re-arrest, re-
incarceration). Of the 13 studies that assessed substance use outcomes, 7 found reduced
substance use for the treatment group on at least one indicator. Results were not consistent for
any particular treatment approach or modality and highlight the need for consistent integration of
EBTs for substance use into reentry interventions.
Keywords: reentry intervention; substance use; offenders; cognitive-behavioral therapy;
evidence-based treatment
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 3
Reentry Interventions that Address Substance Use: A Systematic Review
Over 12 million people enter the criminal justice system each year (Minton, 2013) and
95% of these individuals are released back into the community (Hughes & Wilson, 2004). The
period of reentering the community after incarceration (i.e., “reentry”) is fraught with challenges
such as finding housing and employment, obtaining documents (e.g., valid driver’s license),
connecting with mental health providers for counseling and medication, accessing food, clothing,
and money, and finding transportation to and from parole/probation meetings (Lattimore,
Steffey, & Visher, 2010; Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, & Bratton, 2011). In addition, many justice-
involved individuals have untreated health problems (Schnittker & John, 2007) and strained
relationships with family and children upon release (Gust, 2012). These challenges are
exacerbated by the stigma associated with a criminal record, which restricts eligibility for certain
types of housing, employment (Batastini, Bolanos, & Morgan, 2014; Pager, Western, & Sugie,
2009), and mental health services (Pogorzelski, Wolff, Pan, & Blitz, 2005) and may decrease
self-esteem and motivation to reenter the community (Moore, Tangney, & Stuewig, 2016).
Alongside the above-mentioned challenges, many justice-involved individuals reentering
the community are trying to maintain abstinence from alcohol and/or drugs, which is often a
condition of their community supervision. Between 58% and 68% of incarcerated individuals
have substance use disorders (Bronson, Stroop, Zimmer, & Berzofsky, 2017; D. J. James &
Glaze, 2005), between 63% and 83% test positive for alcohol or drugs upon arrest (Peters,
LeVasseur, & Chandler, 2004), and between 72% and 75% report having used drugs at least
once per week before their incarceration (Bronson et al., 2017). Although 63% of inmates
identify substance use treatment as a primary need upon reentry, significant barriers to accessing
and staying engaged in community treatments exist (Begun, Early, & Hodge, 2016). In the first
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 4
few months post-release, justice-involved individuals with substance use problems have
heightened risk of relapse (Kopak, Haugh, & Hoffmann, 2016), fatal and non-fatal overdose
(Kinner et al., 2012; Merrall et al., 2010), death (Kinner et al., 2015), and recidivism (i.e.,
technical violations, re-arrest, re-incarceration; Scott, Grella, Dennis, & Funk, 2014). Taken
together, reentry is a critical time to provide effective substance use treatment (Visher & Travis,
2011).
Broadly, reentry interventions aim to facilitate the transition from incarceration to the
community and reduce recidivism (Petersilia, 2004; Visher, Lattimore, Barrick, & Tueller,
2017). Reentry interventions often plan to accomplish these goals by using multifaceted
approaches that increase access to community resources (e.g., housing) and/or directly provide
treatment for areas of need (e.g., substance use). Within reentry interventions, there is substantial
variability between approach, content, and quality (Visher et al., 2017). Like many correctional
treatment services, reentry interventions are not always developed based on theories of behavior
change (Lipsey & Cullen, 2007), lack therapeutic integrity (i.e., well-trained, skilled staff; Smith,
Gendreau, & Swartz, 2009), do not use evidence-based treatments (EBTs; Belenko, Hiller, &
Hamilton, 2013), and struggle with effective implementation (Wilson & Davis, 2006). Indeed,
research on the effectiveness of reentry interventions has been mixed, with only some
interventions showing effective connections to treatment (Gill & Wilson, 2017), reduced
substance use (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2015), and reduced recidivism (James, Stams, Asscher, De
Roo, & der Laan, 2013; Mackenzie, Mitchell, & Wilson, 2011).
In the past decade, reentry interventions have moved toward becoming more evidence-
based (Drake, 2014; Wexler & Fletcher, 2007). Several effective strategies have been identified,
such as matching services to individuals’ risk level and needs (Andrews & Bonta, 2010; Smith et
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 5
al., 2009), delivering services in individual rather than group formats (James et al., 2013),
providing EBTs (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy) rather than generic services (e.g., life skills,
employment assistance; Smith et al., 2009; Visher et al., 2017), and extending services received
during incarceration post-release (Prendergast, 2009; Serin, Lloyd, & Hanby, 2010). Further,
research suggests the use of gender-specific reentry interventions (Spjeldnes & Goodkind, 2009;
Spjeldnes, Jung, & Yamatani, 2014) and interventions specifically tailored to jail (vs. prison)
reentry (Osher, Steadman, & Barr, 2003) to address the unique needs of specific populations.
Despite developments in best practices for reentry, the extent to which reentry
interventions use EBTs for substance use (e.g., cognitive behavioral therapy, therapeutic
communities, motivational interviewing, contingency management, medication assisted
treatment [Prendergast, 2009]) and evidence-based adjunct treatment strategies such as peer
mentoring (i.e., individuals with a history of addiction or incarceration act as mentors; Bassuk,
Hanson, Greene, Richard, & Laudet, 2016) is still unclear. Research among community
corrections populations (i.e., people on probation/parole, not necessarily reentering the
community) shows that the most commonly offered form of substance use treatment is
psychoeducation (Taxman, Perdoni, & Harrison, 2007), which has mixed effectiveness in
reducing substance use (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2015) and is typically recommended for low-risk
(not high-risk) offenders (Prendergast, 2009). Significant barriers to the adoption of EBTs for
substance use within the criminal justice system exist, including stigma toward addiction (i.e.,
addiction viewed as a choice rather than a disease) that makes staff reluctant to support treatment
efforts (Wakeman & Rich, 2018), lack of money and resources to pay for more
intensive/individualized treatments, and lack of collaboration between community and
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 6
correctional systems that is key for continuity of care (Belenko et al., 2013; Pelissier, Jones, &
Cadigan, 2007).
Present Study
The period after release from incarceration (i.e., reentry) is a critical time to effectively
provide treatment for substance use; however, the extent to which reentry interventions utilize
EBTs for substance use, and more broadly use evidence-based reentry practices, is unclear. The
purpose of this systematic review was to identify a comprehensive list of studies in the past 10
years that evaluate reentry interventions addressing substance use, determine the extent to which
these interventions include EBTs for substance use as well as other evidence-based reentry
practices (e.g., individualized treatment tailored to risk level, aftercare), and better understand
which reentry interventions that address substance use are most effective in reducing substance
use and recidivism post-release.
Method
Search Strategy and Inclusion Criteria
PsycInfo, PubMed, and MedLine databases were searched for the following combination
of search terms: reentry/post-release, treatment/intervention/program,
prison/jail/incarceration/offender, substance abuse/addiction/alcohol use/drug use (n = 1,079
records). In addition, crimesolutions.gov programs were filtered to identify “reentry/aftercare”
programs with a focus on “drug/substance use” (n = 38 records). Peer-reviewed articles and
published program evaluation reports to agencies that were written in English and published
between 2007 and July 2017 were eligible. The population of interest included participants who
were currently or recently incarcerated and received an intervention that addressed substance
use. Eligible interventions began during incarceration and continued post-release or began within
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 7
3 months of release, and addressed substance use in some capacity. Interventions that only
occurred during incarceration (and did not extend post-release) were not included, and reentry
interventions that did not identify substance use as a program target were not included. Eligible
studies were quantitative and included outcome data; no studies were excluded based on the type
of outcomes analyzed or the type of study design used in order to compile a comprehensive list
of reentry interventions being delivered in the field.
The PRISMA chart detailing search processes and study selection is shown in Figure 1.
In addition to the articles identified though database searching, 10 potential articles were
identified when reviewing full text articles for eligibility. A total of 112 full text articles were
reviewed and 74 studies were excluded (Figure 1). For articles analyzing multiple studies in
aggregate (i.e., systematic reviews, multi-site evaluations), individual study eligibility was
assessed when possible, and studies meeting eligibility criteria were included. A total of 38
studies met all eligibility criteria and were included in this review. Table 1 in the online
supplement contains details for the 38 studies.
Study Elements
This review documents key elements of reentry interventions that address substance use,
including the sample size and gender breakdown of participants who received the treatment (and
those in the comparison group, if applicable), eligibility criteria used to select inmates for
participation, type of institution the intervention was delivered in (i.e., jail vs. prison), and study
design (i.e., single group, quasi-experimental, or randomized controlled trial [RCT]). Elements
of the intervention structure were coded, including whether the intervention began during
incarceration and extended post-release (i.e., in-reach with aftercare) and length of the
intervention during the reentry period after release. We documented specific elements of the
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 8
intervention content including 1) the primary substance use treatment modality (e.g., cognitive
behavioral therapy [CBT], motivational interviewing [MI], therapeutic community [TC],
contingency management [CM], medication assisted treatment [MAT], self-help [e.g.,
Alcoholics Anonymous], psychoeducation, or not specified), 2) whether peer mentors were used,
3) the general intervention approach (i.e., categorized as outpatient individual/group counseling;
case management [i.e., referrals/facilitated connections to services], residential individual/group
counseling, or reentry court), 4) other areas addressed by the intervention in addition to
substance use (i.e., housing, employment/education, mental health, physical health/dental, basic
needs, finances, documents [e.g., driver’s license, social security card], transportation, family,
religion/spirituality, or antisocial attitudes/behaviors), and 5) results of outcomes analyzed.
Coding of study and intervention elements was based on information presented in the
article and elements that were unclear/difficult to code were discussed and resolved. When
studies used multiple analyses with varying quality (e.g., bivariate correlations and multivariate
analyses including control variables), the most rigorous analysis is reported. In addition, single
group pre- to post-test results are only reported when no other analysis was conducted. For
studies that used both official records and self-report methods to assess substance use or
recidivism, official records are reported.
Risk of Bias
This review is inclusive with regard to study design in order to generate a comprehensive
list of reentry interventions being implemented in the field, and therefore study quality varied
greatly. Intervention details documented in this review are based on information provided in the
study description, which varied across articles. For instance, although the inclusion of non-peer
reviewed studies (e.g., program evaluation reports to agencies) serves to reduce publication bias,
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 9
such studies varied in the degree of analysis details reported. Further, due to page limits, some
published articles may have included fewer details about specific intervention services offered
and thus may have been coded as not including certain intervention elements compared to studies
that provided extensive intervention details. These factors may have introduced reporting bias
into this review.
Results
Participant Characteristics and Study Design
The 38 studies reviewed here represent 7 program evaluation reports and 31 peer-
reviewed publications. Of the 38 studies, 35 are original studies evaluating intervention
outcomes and 3 are follow-ups on the same sample at a later point in time. Of the 35 original
studies, 24 were implemented with prison inmates/people exiting prisons, 9 were implemented
with jail inmates/people exiting jails, and 2 were implemented with combined jail/prison
samples. Twenty one of the 35 original studies used quasi-experimental study designs, 9 used
RCTs, and 5 used single group designs. Thirteen of the 35 studies delivered the intervention to
an all-male sample, 17 were provided to both men and women (though 6 of these studies had
treatment samples over 90% male), 4 were provided to only women, and 1 program evaluation
report did not specify the gender of participants. Nine of the 35 original studies excluded inmates
due to serious mental illness or the seriousness of their index offense (e.g., violent, sex, arson
offenses), whereas 10 studies only included inmates deemed to be at heightened risk (i.e., scored
high on violence risk assessment, had serious mental illness), and 16 studies did not mention
excluding/including inmates based on level of risk. Over half (n = 18) of the 35 studies reported
selecting inmates based on the presence of self-reported substance use problems or co-occurring
mental health and substance use disorders. Less than half (n = 13) of the 35 studies reported
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 10
selecting inmates based on the length of their sentence or amount of time remaining on their
sentence. Interventions generally described excluding individuals who would not be returning to
a particular geographic location post-release, and other common exclusion criteria included the
presence of pending charges (see supplemental Table 1).
Intervention Structure
Within the 35 original studies, 1 intervention (Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative [SVORI]) is represented twice (i.e., 34 unique interventions). The majority (n = 23) of
the 34 unique interventions used an in-reach approach, initiating some level of service prior to
release from jail or prison, while 11 interventions only offered services post-release. Of the 23
interventions utilizing in-reach, all included an assessment of reentry needs prior to release,
though the point at which this occurred varied from entry into the correctional facility to 1 month
prior to release. The length and characteristics of the intervention offered during incarceration
varied, ranging from one meeting with a case manager to determine reentry needs to 12 months
of group/individual counseling (see supplemental Table 1). The duration of intervention post-
release also varied; 4 studies did not specify the duration of post-release services, 3 studies
described that services were no longer provided upon connection with a community provider
post-release, and the other 27 studies had post-release services ranging from 1 month to 4 years.
Intervention Content
Almost all of the interventions included multiple treatment approaches to address the
many needs of offenders returning to the community after incarceration and were tailored in
some way to the individual offender. Thirteen of the 34 interventions described providing case
management only (rather than providing direct treatment services), in which a case manager or
team of people conducted needs assessments and provided referrals and/or facilitated connection
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 11
to substance use and other services in the correctional facility and/or community post-release.
Within these 13 interventions, some only provided referrals to treatment while others facilitated
connections with needed services by making appointments for inmates, providing transportation
to appointments or accompanying them to appointments, or providing vouchers or financial
assistance to pay for treatment (see supplemental Table 1). In contrast, 21 of the 34 interventions
described directly providing some form of treatment services and often also provided case
management. Within these 21 interventions, the primary overall therapeutic approaches
described were individual/group counseling during incarceration and/or on an outpatient basis
post-release (n = 16), post-release residential treatment programs involving a combination of
individual/group counseling (n = 3), and reentry courts which mandated individuals to needed
treatments and used court-imposed sanctions for non-engagement (n = 2).
There was variability in the use of EBTs for substance use within the 21 interventions
that provided direct treatment services and many used multiple substance use treatment
modalities. The primary substance use treatment modalities described in the 21 interventions
included MI around substance use (n = 2), MAT for opioid use (n = 2), cognitive-behavioral
therapy for substance use (e.g., n = 4; moral reconation therapy [MRT] n = 1; community
reinforcement and family treatment [CRAFT] n = 1), therapeutic communities (n = 2), and
psychoeducation (i.e., chemical dependency, overdose prevention, relapse prevention) and/or 12-
step (n = 5). Four interventions did not specify the substance use treatment modality used in
therapy. Within the two therapeutic communities, 1 described using a CBT and psychoeducation
curriculum (Sacks, Chaple, Sacks, McKendrick, & Cleland, 2012) and the other used “milieu
therapy” as is typical in TCs, but did not specify the modality of group counseling around
substance use (Robbins, Martin, & Surratt, 2009). No interventions reported using contingency
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 12
management explicitly, though one reentry court intervention (Hamilton, 2010) and one
individual/group counseling intervention (Friedmann et al., 2013) described using incentives or
contingent reinforcers to encourage positive behavior change. Only 9 interventions included a
peer mentorship component in which people with a history of addiction and/or incarceration
were available to provide informal support, case management, and mentoring to offenders.
All but 1 of the 34 reentry interventions described addressing other problem areas (either
by referral or direct access to treatment) in addition to substance use, depending on individual
needs. The issues most often reported to be addressed were employment and/or education (n =
28), housing (n = 25), and mental health (n = 21). Less often addressed areas included instruction
in finances (n = 12), family or parenting services (n = 10), and social support (n = 11).
Interventions rarely reported addressing transportation (n = 9), physical health (n = 8), basic
needs such as food or clothing (n = 7), documentation such as driver’s license or social security
card (n = 6), antisocial behavior/attitudes (n = 5), and religion/spiritual needs (n = 5). Only 2
interventions reported addressing sexual health/HIV risk. It is important to note that some
articles may not have provided a comprehensive list of all services offered in the intervention.
Outcomes
Recidivism. The primary outcome analyzed across the 38 studies included in this review
was recidivism (i.e., re-arrest, re-conviction, re-incarceration, technical violations/revocation of
probation or parole; n = 33). Excluding the 5 single group studies, out of the 31 quasi-
experimental or RCT studies analyzing recidivism, 11 found no differences in recidivism
indicators between the treatment and control/comparison groups, and 18 found that at least one
indicator of recidivism decreased more for intervention participants compared to the
control/comparison group, though 5 of these 18 studies also found no differences between
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 13
treatment and control/comparison groups on additional indicators of recidivism (see
supplemental Table 1). The length of follow up for recidivism outcomes varied widely from 3
months to 4 years. In addition, the type of recidivism assessed (arrest vs. conviction vs.
incarceration vs. probation violation vs. number of arrests vs. time to arrest) varied between
studies, as did the use of control variables (e.g., initial risk level, criminal history) in analyses.
Two studies found that the treatment group had more recidivism than the
comparison/control group; Hamilton (2010) found no differences in rearrest rates between
reentry court participants and the comparison group, but reentry court participants had lower re-
conviction rates and higher rates of reincarceration, technical violations, and revocations at 1, 2,
and 3 years post-release. Another study (Severson, Bruns, Veeh, & Lee, 2011) found that the
SVORI intervention participants had a greater risk of returning to prison than the comparison
group, but they were less likely to get new convictions.
Substance use and substance use treatment. Excluding the single group studies (n = 5),
13 quasi-experimental or RCT studies analyzed substance use outcomes and 5 of these found that
substance use was lower for intervention participants compared to the control/comparison group,
5 found no differences in substance use between groups, 2 found that some indicators of
substance use were lower for treatment participants whereas there were no differences on other
indicators of substance use, and 1 (Grommon, Davidson, & Bynum, 2013) found treatment
participants had higher substance use compared to the control group. Of note, some studies
utilized urinalysis to detect substance use and others used self-report. Eight studies examined
engagement in community-based substance use treatment as an outcome; 5 studies found
intervention participants were more likely to engage in substance use treatment and 3 found no
differences in engagement between treatment and control/comparison groups.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 14
Discussion
The purpose of this systematic review was to identify studies of reentry interventions in
the past 10 years that address substance use, determine the extent to which these interventions
use EBTs for substance use, and describe the effectiveness of these interventions in reducing
substance use and recidivism post-release. We included both peer-reviewed publications as well
as program evaluation reports to identify a comprehensive list of interventions being
implemented in the field. The 38 studies reviewed here represent a wide variety of reentry
interventions that address substance use, ranging in length, approach, treatment modality, and
effectiveness.
Out of the 34 unique reentry interventions reviewed herein, 21 provided some degree of
treatment within the community agency itself, whereas 13 utilized case managers to facilitate
connections to outside agencies. The use of a case management approach to reentry for
substance-using offenders has been somewhat debated over the past decade (Prendergast, 2009).
Meta-analyses have shown case management to be ineffective for reducing substance use and
recidivism among offenders with substance use problems (Aos, Miller, & Drake, 2007);
however, the type of case management strategy utilized may matter. The 13 interventions that
primarily utilized case management approaches reviewed here often described offering more
intensive or personalized case management than is typical for offenders reentering the
community. For example, several programs reported that their case managers had reduced
caseloads (e.g., 20 offenders per case manager as opposed to 80), provided transportation or
vouchers that facilitated access to treatment, or emphasized participant preference for service
type/location (Ray, Grommon, Buchanan, Brown, & Watson, 2017). Difficulties with case
management approaches typically involved lack of follow up on referrals; some studies that used
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 15
a case management approach note that less than half of participants received services they were
referred to (Severson et al., 2011). In addition, the disconnect between community-based
substance use treatment systems and correctional systems is longstanding (Prendergast, 2009),
and in addition to strained communication between systems, providers may also be less
comfortable interacting with clients referred from the criminal justice system (Skeem & Louden,
2006), leading to less effective treatment.
The modality of substance use treatment was rarely described in the 13 interventions that
referred offenders to outside agencies for treatment, and thus we focused on the 21 interventions
that directly provided treatment when examining the extent to which EBTs for substance use
were utilized. Of the 21 interventions that provided treatment, 12 explicitly described using
EBTs for substance use (i.e., CBT, therapeutic community, MI, MAT). The most common EBT
was CBT (n = 6) provided in an individual or group format, though the specific type of CBT
protocol was only mentioned in 2 of the 6 studies (i.e., CRAFT and MRT). CBT is an effective
treatment for substance use among offenders that also reduces recidivism (Landenberger &
Lipsey, 2005) and thus its inclusion in reentry interventions is encouraging. Six interventions
reported using psychoeducational groups or self-help; however, these are not EBTs for substance
use and are recommended only for low-risk offenders (Prendergast, 2009). Four interventions
reported non-descript counseling (i.e., no treatment modality mentioned), which is problematic
because that may indicate that the reentry intervention lacks theoretical or research foundations
(Lipsey & Cullen, 2007).
Almost all studies assessed recidivism outcomes; however, despite all interventions
noting substance use as a primary concern for reentering offenders, very few (13 out of 31)
assessed substance use outcomes. Over half of the studies comparing substance use (7 out of 13
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 16
studies) and recidivism (18 out of 31 studies) between reentry intervention participants and
controls found positive effects for intervention participants. Follow-up timepoints varied widely
across interventions, and there was evidence that intervention effects may not persist over time.
Zortman et al. (2016) found that participants in the Pennsylvania Reentry Program had lower re-
incarceration rates (19% vs. 28%) 1 year post-release, but this difference was not significant 3
years post-release (Zortman, Powers, Hiester, Klunk, & Antonio, 2016). In their study of MAT
provided at release from jail, Kinlock and colleagues (2008, 2009) found participants were less
likely to report engaging in crime at 3 and 6 months post-release, but there were no differences in
re-arrest 12 months post-release (Kinlock, Gordon, Schwartz, Fitzgerald, & O’Grady, 2009;
Kinlock, Gordon, Schwartz, & O’Grady, 2008). In addition, a few studies found a negative effect
of the reentry intervention on recidivism or substance use, which was attributed to increased
oversight and monitoring that detected misbehavior more readily in intervention participants
compared to controls (Hamilton, 2010; Severson et al., 2011).
Research on reentry best practices for offenders with substance use problems suggests
matching services to risk level, with the highest risk offenders getting more intensive services
such as individual CBT (Prendergast, 2009). Almost half of the studies reviewed selected
inmates based on some categorization of risk level and only some interventions selected
offenders based on the presence of problematic substance use. Because justice-involved
individuals reentering the community have so many potential challenges, interventions were
often broadly offered to offenders and intended to tackle several areas of need; however, this
may lead to a dilution of treatment for those at the highest risk. In addition, although most
reentry interventions reviewed here were multifaceted, very few addressed antisocial
attitudes/behaviors; this is concerning given that solely treating mental health or substance use
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 17
alone, without addressing other criminogenic needs contributing to recidivism risk, is unlikely to
reduce recidivism.
Limitations
The methodological quality of studies varied, and many studies did not specify the
treatment modality used, impacting our ability to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of
strategies across studies. In addition, factors that may have a significant impact on the
effectiveness of reentry intervention, such as therapist level of training, adherence to the
intervention protocol, or therapeutic alliance with clients, were not assessed or reported and thus
could not be commented on in relation to intervention effectiveness. The operationalization of
recidivism (e.g., technical violations vs. rearrest vs. reincarceration) and methods used to assess
recidivism (official records vs. self-report) varied greatly, which may have contributed to the
mixed findings. Further, only some analyses controlled for sociodemographic variables, leading
to different levels of confidence in the results. Finally, substance use was rarely tracked as an
outcome in reentry intervention studies and when it was, biochemical confirmation was often not
used, which is problematic given that reentering offenders under community supervision may not
be forthcoming about relapse and substance use.
Conclusions
Only a subset of reentry interventions that address substance use currently utilize EBTs
and reentry best practices. Reentry interventions for substance-using offenders should utilize best
practice approaches which involve matching the intervention to the client risk level and needs,
utilizing evidence-based approaches to treat substance use including effective therapeutic
structure (i.e., individualized), modality (i.e., CBT, MAT, TC, CM, MI), and dose, treat
additional areas of need that impact reintegration (e.g., physical health, mental health, antisocial
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 18
behaviors), and use wrap-around approaches that foster continuity of care between treatments
delivered during incarceration and services received post-release. Further, reentry interventions
(and correctional interventions, broadly) should continue striving to be methodologically
rigorous, including the use of appropriate study designs (i.e., RCTs or quasi-experimental
designs), high-quality assessment techniques (e.g., biochemical confirmation of substance use,
official records of arrest), and comprehensive assessment of key impact and process outcomes of
interventions. Further, cost-effectiveness analyses are critically important, as they often indicate
the benefit of providing high-quality treatment services and can be used to tackle system-level
barriers to implementing EBTs in correctional systems.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 19
References
Andrews, D. a., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362
Aos, S.; Miller, M.; Drake, E. (2007). Evidence-based public policy options to reduce future
prison construction, criminal justice costs, and crime rates. Federal Sentencing Reporter,
19, 275–290. https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-004-015-0003-8
Bassuk, E. L., Hanson, J., Greene, R. N., Richard, M., & Laudet, A. (2016). Peer-delivered
recovery support services for addictions in the United States: A systematic review. Journal
of Substance Abuse Treatment, 63(2016), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2016.01.003
Batastini, A. B., Bolanos, A. D., & Morgan, R. D. (2014). Attitudes toward hiring applicants
with mental illness and criminal justice involvement: The impact of education and
experience. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(5), 524–533.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.025
Begun, A. L., Early, T. J., & Hodge, A. (2016). Mental health and substance abuse service
engagement by men and women during community reentry following incarceration.
Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(2),
207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0632-2
Belenko, S., Hiller, M., & Hamilton, L. (2013). Treating substance use disorders in the criminal
justice system. Current Psychiatry Reports, 15(11), 414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-
013-0414-z
Braga, A. A., Piehl, A. M., & Hureau, D. (2009). Controlling violent offenders released to the
community: An evaluation of the boston reentry initiative. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 46(4), 411–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427809341935
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 20
Bronson, J., Stroop, J., Zimmer, S., & Berzofsky, M. (2017). Drug use, dependence, and abuse
among state prisoners and jail inmates, 2007-2009. US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, (June), 1–27. Retrieved from
www.ojp.usdoj.gov
Clark, V. A. (2015). Making the most of second chances: an evaluation of Minnesota’s high-risk
revocation reduction reentry program. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(2), 193–
215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9216-5
Drake, E. K. (2014). Inventory of Evidence-based and research-based programs for adult
corrections, (Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy), 1–20.
https://doi.org/13-12-1901
Duwe, G. (2012). Evaluating the minnesota comprehensive offender reentry plan (MCORP):
Results from a randomized experiment. Justice Quarterly, 29(3), 347–383.
https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2011.555414
Duwe, G., & King, M. (2013). Can faith-based correctional programs work? an outcome
evaluation of the innerchange freedom initiative in minnesota. International Journal of
Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57(7), 813–841.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X12439397
Friedmann, P. D., Green, T. C., Taxman, F. S., Harrington, M., Anne, G., Katz, E., … Fletcher,
B. W. (2013). Collaborative behavioral management among parolees: drug use, crime & re-
arrest in the step’n out randomized trial. Addiction, 107(6), 1099–1108.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03769.x.
Gill, C., & Wilson, D. B. (2017). Improving the success of reentry programs: Identifying the
impact of service–need fit on recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(3), 336–359.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 21
https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816682048
Goldstein, E. H., Warner-robbins, C., Mcclean, C., Macatula, L., & Conklin, R. (2009). A peer-
driven mentoring case management community reentry model. Family and Community
Health, 32(4), 309–313.
Gordon, M. S., Kinlock, T. W., Schwartz, R. P., & O’Grady, K. E. (2008). A randomized clinical
trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: Findings at 6 months post-release. Addiction,
103(8), 1333–1342. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.002238.x
Grommon, E., Davidson, W. S., & Bynum, T. S. (2013). A randomized trial of a multimodal
community-based prisoner reentry program emphasizing substance abuse treatment.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52(4), 287–309.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.782775
Gust, L. V. (2012). Can policy reduce the collateral damage caused by the criminal justice
system? Strengthening social capital in families and communities. American Journal of
Orthopsychiatry, 82(2), 174–180. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-0025.2012.01156.x
Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do reentry courts reduce recidivism? Results from the harlem parole
reentry court. Center for Court Innovation.
Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2004). Reentry trends in the United States: Inmates returning to the
community after serving time in prison. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/
Jacobs, E., & Western, B. (2007). Report on the evaluation of the comalert prisoner reentry
program.
James, C., Stams, G. J. J. M., Asscher, J. J., De Roo, A. K., & van der Laan, P. H. (2013).
Aftercare programs for reducing recidivism among juvenile and young adult offenders: A
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 22
meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 33(2), 263–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.10.013
James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2005). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates. Bureau of
Justice Statistics Special Report, 12. Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mhppji.pdf
Jarrett, M., Thornicroft, G., Forrester, A., Harty, M., Senior, J., King, C., … Shaw, J. (2012).
Continuity of care for recently released prisoners with mental illness: A pilot randomised
controlled trial testing the feasibility of a Critical Time Intervention. Epidemiology and
Psychiatric Sciences, 21(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796011000783
Kesten, K. L., Leavitt-Smith, E., Rau, D. R., Shelton, D., Zhang, W., Wagner, J., & Trestman, R.
L. (2012). Recidivism rates among mentally ill inmates: Impact of the connecticut offender
reentry program. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 18(1), 20–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1078345811421117
Kinlock, T. W., Gordon, M. S., Schwartz, R. P., Fitzgerald, T. T., & O’Grady, K. E. (2009). A
randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: Results at 12 months
postrelease. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 37(3), 277–285.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2009.03.002
Kinlock, T. W., Gordon, M. S., Schwartz, R. P., & O’Grady, K. E. (2008). A study of methadone
maintenance for male prisoners: 3-Month postrelease outcomes. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 35(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854807309111
Kinlock, T. W., Gordon, M. S., Schwartz, R. P., O’Grady, K., Fitzgerald, T. T., & Wilson, M.
(2007). A randomized clinical trial of methadone maintenance for prisoners: Results at 1-
month post-release. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 91(2–3), 220–227.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 23
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2007.05.022
Kinner, S. A., Degenhardt, L., Coffey, C., Hearps, S., Spittal, M., Sawyer, S. M., & Patton, G. C.
(2015). Substance use and risk of death in young offenders: A prospective data linkage
study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 34(1), 46–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.12179
Kinner, S. A., Milloy, M. J., Wood, E., Qi, J., Zhang, R., & Kerr, T. (2012). Incidence and risk
factors for non-fatal overdose among a cohort of recently incarcerated illicit drug users.
Addictive Behaviors, 37(6), 691–696. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.addbeh.2012.01.019
Kopak, A. M., Haugh, S., & Hoffmann, N. G. (2016). The entanglement between relapse and
posttreatment criminal justice involvement. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse,
42(5), 606–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/00952990.2016.1198798
Kouyoumdjian, F. G., McIsaac, K. E., Liauw, J., Green, S., Karachiwalla, F., Siu, W., … Hwang,
S. W. (2015). A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to
improve the health of persons during imprisonment and in the year after release. American
Journal of Public Health, 105(4), e13–e33. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2014.302498
Landenberger, N. a, & Lipsey, M. W. (2005). The positive effects of cognitive-behavioural
programs for offenders: A meta-analysis of factors associated with effective treatment.
Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-005-
3541-7
Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., & Visher, C. A. (2010). Prisoner reentry in the first decade of
the twenty-first century. Victims and Offenders, 5(3), 253–267.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2010.485907
Lattimore, P. K., & Visher, C. A. (2014). The impact of prison reentry services on short-term
outcomes: Evidence from a multisite evaluation. Evaluation Review, 37(3–4), 274–313.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 24
https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X13519105
Lee, J. D., Grossman, E., Truncali, A., Rotrosen, J., Rosenblum, A., Magura, S., & Gourevitch,
M. N. (2012). Buprenorphine-naloxone maintenance following release from jail. Substance
Abuse, 33(1), 40–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/08897077.2011.620475
Lipsey, M. W., & Cullen, F. T. (2007). The effectiveness of correctional rehabilitation: A review
of systematic reviews. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 3(1), 297–320.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.3.081806.112833
Lurigio, A. J., Miller, J. M., Miller, H. V., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Outcome evaluation of a
family-based jail reentry program for substance abusing offenders. The Prison Journal,
96(1), 53–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885515605482
Mackenzie, D. L., Mitchell, O., & Wilson, D. B. (2011). The Impact ofDrug Treatment Provided
in Correctional Facilities. In Handbook of Evidence-Based Substance Abuse Treatment in
Criminal Justice Settings, pp. 183-203. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-9470-7
Mann, B. B., Bond, D., & Powitzky, R. J. (2012). Collaborating for success in inter- correctional
meragency correctional mental health reentry. Corrections Today, 30–34.
Mckenna, B., Skipworth, J., Tapsell, R., Madell, D., Pillai, K., Simpson, A., Cavney, J., &
Rouse, P. (2014). A prison mental health in-reach model informed by assertive community
treatment principles: evaluation of its impact on planning during the pre-release period,
community mental health service engagement and reoffending. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 25(5), 429–439. https://doi.org/10.1002/cbm
Merrall, E. L. C., Kariminia, A., Binswanger, I. A., Hobbs, M. S., Farrell, M., Marsden, J., …
Bird, S. M. (2010). Meta-analysis of drug-related deaths soon after release from prison.
Addiction, 105(9), 1545–1554. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.02990.x
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 25
Miller, H. V., & Miller, J. M. (2015). A promising jail reentry program revisited: results from a
quasi-experimental design. Criminal Justice Studies, 28(2), 211–225.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2014.1000489
Minton, T. D. (2013). Jail Inmates at Midyear 2012 - Statistical Tables. Bureau of Justice
Statistics, (May). https://doi.org/NCJ 233431
Moore, K. E., Tangney, J. P., & Stuewig, J. B. (2016). The Self-Stigma Process in Criminal
Offenders. Stigma Health, 1(3), 206–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.1474.Replication
Morani, N.M., Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D.M., Bratton, S. (2011). A description of the self-identified
needs, service expenditures, and social outcomes of participants of a prisoner-reentry
program. The Prison Journal, 91, 347–365. https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-004-015-0003-8
Morgan, R. D., Mitchell, S. M., Thoen, M. A., Campion, K., Bolaños, A. D., Sustaíta, M. A., &
Henderson, S. (2016). Specialty courts: Who’s in and are they working? Psychological
Services, 13(3), 246–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000085
Mulmat, D. H., Doroski, E., Howard, L., Correia, D., Keaton, S., Rohanna, K., & Burke, C.
(2010). Improving reentry for ex-offenders in san diego county: SB 618 Third annual
evaluation report. San Diego Association of Governments, (619). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1350148238?accountid=13042
Olson, D. E., Rozhon, J., & Powers, M. (2009). Enhancing prisoner reentry through access to
prison-based and post-incarceration aftercare treatment: Experiences from the Illinois
Sheridan Correctional Center therapeutic community. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 5(3), 299–321. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-009-9080-x
Osher, F., Steadman, H. J., & Barr, H. (2003). A best practice approach to community reentry
from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: The APIC model. Crime and
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 26
Delinquency, 49(1), 79–96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128702239237
Ostermann, M. (2009). An analysis of New Jersey’s day reporting center and halfway back
programs: Embracing the rehabilitative ideal through evidence based practices. Journal of
Offender Rehabilitation, 48(2), 139–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802640958
Pager, D., Western, B., & Sugie, N. (2009). Sequencing disadvantage: Barriers to employment
facing young black and white men with criminal records. Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 623(1), 195–213.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716208330793
Pelissier, B., Jones, N., & Cadigan, T. (2007). Drug treatment aftercare in the criminal justice
system: A systematic review. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 311–320.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.09.007
Peters, R. H., LeVasseur, M. E., & Chandler, R. K. (2004). Correctional treatment for co-
occurring disorders: Results of a national survey. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 22(4),
563–584. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.607
Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questionning the evidence.
Federal Probation, 68, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3868/s050-004-015-0003-8
Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K. Y., & Blitz, C. L. (2005). Behavioral health problems, ex-
offender reentry policies, and in “Second Chance Act.” American Journal of Public Health,
95(10), 1718–1724. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2005.065805
Prendergast, M. L. (2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing
parolees. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 5(1), 4–13.
https://doi.org/10.1151/ascp09514
Ray, B., Grommon, E., Buchanan, V., Brown, B., & Watson, D. P. (2017). Access to recovery
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 27
and recidivism among former prison inmates. International Journal of Offender Therapy
and Comparative Criminology, 61(8), 874–893.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X15606688
Robbins, C. A., Martin, S. S., & Surratt, H. L. (2009). Substance abuse treatment, anticipated
maternal roles, and reentry success of drug-involved women prisoners. Crime and
Delinquency, 55(3), 388–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707306688
Roman, J., Brooks, L., Lagerson, E., Chalfin, A., & Tereshchenko, B. (2007). Impact and cost-
benefit analysis of the maryland reentry partnership initiative, 1–31.
Sacks, S., Chaple, M., Sacks, J. A. Y., McKendrick, K., & Cleland, C. M. (2012). Randomized
trial of a reentry modified therapeutic community for offenders with co-occurring disorders:
Crime outcomes. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 42(3), 247–259.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2011.07.011
Schnittker, J., & John, A. (2007). Enduring Stigma: The long-term effects of incarceration on
health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(2), 115–130.
Scott, C. K., & Dennis, M. L. (2012). The first 90 days following release from jail: Findings
from the recovery management checkups for women offenders (RMCWO) experiment.
Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 125(1–2), 110–118.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.03.025
Scott, C. K., Grella, C. E., Dennis, M. L., & Funk, R. R. (2014). Predictors of recidivism over 3
years among substance-using women released from jail. Criminal Justice and Behavior,
41(11), 1257–1289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814546894
Serin, R,C., Lloyd, C, D., Hanby, l, J. (2010). Enhancing offender Reentry: An integrated model
for enhancing offender re-enrty. European Journal of Probation, 2(2), 53–75.
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 28
Severson, M. E., Bruns, K., Veeh, C., & Lee, J. (2011). Prisoner reentry programming: Who
recidivates and when? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(6), 327–348.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2011.582931
Skeem, J. L., & Louden, J. E. (2006). Toward evidence-based practice for probationers and
parolees mandated to mental health treatment. Psychiatric Services, 57(3), 333–342.
https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.57.3.333
Smith, P., Gendreau, P., & Swartz, K. (2009). Validating the principles of effective intervention:
A systematic review of the contributions of meta-analysis in the field of corrections. Victims
and Offenders, 4(2), 148–169. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564880802612581
Spjeldnes, S., & Goodkind, S. (2009). Gender differences and offender reentry: A review of the
literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48(4), 314–335.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670902850812
Spjeldnes, S., Jung, H., & Yamatani, H. (2014). Gender differences in jail populations: Factors to
consider in reentry strategies. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 53(2), 75–94.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2013.868387
Stein, M.D., Caviness, C. M., Anderson, B.J., Hebert, M., Clarke, J. (2010). A brief alcohol
intervention for hazardously-drinking incarcerated women. Addiction, 105(3), 466–475.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2009.02813.x.A
Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., & Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult
offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 32(3), 239–254.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2006.12.019
Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2017). Evaluating the long-term
effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 29
Quarterly, 34(1), 136–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539
Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. (2011). Life on the Outside: Returning home after incarceration.
Prison Journal, 91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885511415228
Wakeman, S. E., & Rich, J. D. (2018). Barriers to Medications for Addiction Treatment: How
Stigma Kills. Substance Use and Misuse, 53(2), 330–333.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10826084.2017.1363238
Wexler, H. K., & Fletcher, B. W. (2007). National criminal justice drug abuse treatment studies
(CJ-DATS) overview. The Prison Journal, 87(1), 9–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885506299036
White, M. D., Saunders, J., Fisher, C., & Mellow, J. (2012). Exploring inmate reentry in a local
jail setting: Implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime and Delinquency,
58(1), 124–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128708327033
Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry
program for prisoners released witout supervision: Social Work Research, 36, 289–300.
Willison, J. B., Roman, C. G., Ph, D., Wolff, A., Correa, V., Carly, R., … Knight, C. R. (2010).
Evaluation of the Ridge House Residential Program: Final Report. National Institute of
Justice.
Wilson, J. A., & Davis, R. C. (2006). Good intentions meet hard realities: Evaluation of the
project greenlight reentry program. Criminology, 5(2), 303–338.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2006.00380.x
Woods, L. N., Lanza, A. S., Dyson, W., & Gordon, D. M. (2013). The role of prevention in
promoting continuity of health care in prisoner reentry initiatives. American Journal of
Public Health, 103(5), 830–838. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.300961
SUBSTANCE USE REENTRY INTERVENTIONS 30
Yamatani, H. (2008). Overview report of allegheny county jail collaborative evaluation findings,
1–18.
Zortman, J. S., Powers, T., Hiester, M., Klunk, F. R., & Antonio, M. E. (2016). Evaluating
reentry programming in Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation & Parole: An assessment of
offenders’ perceptions and recidivism outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(6),
419–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2016.1194945