Absence of conflict of interest.
Citation
McDonald, D., & Arlinghaus, S. L. (2014). The role of intensive case management services in reentry: The northern Kentucky female offender reentry project. Women & Criminal Justice, 24(3), 229-251.
Highlights
- This study examined the impact of the Northern Kentucky Female Offender Reentry Project’s intensive case management (ICM) services on releasees’ education, employment, and recidivism outcomes.
- Using program data and administrative data from state and county judicial databases, the study compared outcomes of the treatment group, which received ICM services pre-release (in prison) and post-release (in the community), with outcomes of the comparison group, which only received ICM services pre-release (in prison).
- The study found mixed results for education, employment, and recidivism. The authors did not conduct statistical significance tests.
- The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to the Female Offender Reentry Project’s pre- and post- release ICM services; other factors are likely to have contributed.
Intervention Examined
Northern Kentucky Female Offender Reentry Project’s intensive case management (ICM) services
Features of the Intervention
The Northern Kentucky Female Offender Reentry Project took place at the Kentucky Correctional Institution for Women in Pewee Valley, Kentucky. The project offered prisoners approaching their release date the opportunity to participate in ICM services. The goals of the ICM services were to (1) increase participation in mental health or substance use treatment, (2) reduce recidivism, and (3) improve quality of life outcomes.
Through ICM, program staff helped participants create a plan for reentry into the community. In addition, program staff provided or referred participants to a number of services thought to be critical for successful reentry, such as substance use or mental health treatment, employment services, general educational development (GED) programs, housing assistance, legal services, and life and coping skills training.
The treatment and control groups received ICM in the prison before release, but the treatment group also received ICM after their release in the community.
Features of the Study
A total of 108 prisoners in the state prison participated in the study after being recruited through referrals and advertising in the prison. Prisoners were selected based on expected release dates, and the participating prisoners were released between August 2009 and December 2012.
The all-female sample was 97 percent white. The average age was 35 years old. Most participants were never married (50 percent) or divorced 25 (percent). Almost all had either a substance abuse diagnosis, a mental health diagnosis, or both. At intake, 38 percent did not have a high school diploma or GED, and 53 percent were able to work but unemployed. Almost all were incarcerated for drug or property crimes.
The authors compared the outcomes of the people who received ICM services both in prison and in the community settings upon their release (the treatment group) with the outcomes of those who received ICM services only while in prison (the comparison group). About 47 percent of the sample participated in services in prison and in the community, compared with 53 percent that participated just in prison. Using administrative data from county and state judicial databases and program data, the authors compared unadjusted means for both groups. The authors did not clarify the timing of follow-up in relation to participants’ release from prison.
Findings
Education
- The study found mixed results on education outcomes. At the time of follow-up, the treatment group was slightly more likely to have a GED, high school diploma, or associate degree, but the comparison group was slightly more likely to have some college or completed vocational training. The two groups had similar numbers of people with bachelor’s degrees. The authors did not conduct significance tests on these outcomes.
Employment
- The study found that at the time of follow-up, 12 percent of the treatment group were employed full-time compared with 13 percent of the comparison group. The treatment group was more likely to be employed part-time: 28 percent of the treatment group was employed part time compared with 17 percent of the comparison group. The authors did not test these outcomes using a statistical test of significance.
Recidivism
- The study found mixed results on two recidivism outcomes. In all, 22 percent of the treatment group had a new criminal conviction, compared with 30 percent of the comparison group. However, 47 percent of the treatment group committed a parole violation, compared with 37 percent of the comparison group. The authors did not conduct significance tests on these differences.
Considerations for Interpreting the Findings
The authors did not account for existing differences between the groups before program participation. These existing differences between the groups—and not the program— could explain the observed differences in outcomes.
For the recidivism outcomes, the follow-up period is ambiguous but appears to range from 5 to 46 months, depending on when the individual was released from prison. For all other outcomes, the authors do not provide information on the timing of the follow-up data collection.
Causal Evidence Rating
The quality of causal evidence presented in this report is low because the authors did not ensure that the groups being compared were similar before the intervention. This means we are not confident that the estimated effects are attributable to Female Offender Reentry Project ICM; other factors are likely to have contributed.