The Effect of Reentry Court Participation on Post-Release Supervision Outcomes and Re-Arrest

References

• Andersson, F., Holzer, H. J., & Lane, J. I. (2002). The interaction of workers and firms in the low-wage labor market. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Hoge, R. D. (1990). Classification for effective rehabilitation: Rediscovering psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 17, 19–52. doi:10.1177/0093854890017001004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayoub, L. H., & Pooler, T. (2015). Coming home to Harlem: A randomized controlled trial of the Harlem parole reentry court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Berghuis, M. (2018). Reentry programs for adult male offender recidivism and reintegration: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal Of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4655-4676. doi:10.1177/0306624X18778448
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berk, R., & MacDonald, J. M. (2008). Overdispersion and Poisson regression. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 24, 269–284. doi:10.1007/s10940-008-9048-4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bonta, J., & Andrews, D. A. (2007). Risk-need-responsivity model for offender assessment and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation, 6(1), 1–22.
   Google Scholar
• Bronson, J., & Carson, E. A. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Washington, DC, US: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Byrne, J. M. (2004). Introduction: Reentry – The emperor’s new clothes. Federal Probation, 68(2), 1–3.
   Google Scholar
• Carey, S. M., Rempel, M., Lindquist, C., Cissner, A., Ayoub, L. H., Kralstein, D., & Malsch, A. (2018). Reentry court research: Overview of findings from the national institute of justice’s evaluation of second chance act adult reentry courts. Washington, DC: Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, R. V., & Weisburd, D. (1994). Crime control benefits: Observations on the reverse of displacement. Crime Prevention Studies, 2, 165–183.
   Google Scholar
• Close, D. W., Alltucker, K., & Aubin, M. (2008). The district of Oregon reentry court: Evaluation, policy recommendations, and replication strategies. Retrieved from https://www.ussc.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/training/annual-national-training-seminar/2009/008c_Reentry_Court_Doc.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Concato, J., Peduzzi, P., Holford, T. R., & Feinstein, A. R. (1995). Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards analysis I. Background, goals, and general strategy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(12), 1495–1501.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators. (2000). CCJ resolution 22, COSCA resolution 4 in support of problem-solving courts. Adopted as Proposed by the Task Force on Therapeutic Justice of the Conference of Chief Justices in Rapid City, South Dakota at the 52nd Annual Meeting on August 3, 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Farole, D. J. (2003). The Harlem parole reentry court evaluation: Implementation and preliminary impacts. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Farrell, A., & Wunderlich, K. (2009). Evaluation of the court-assisted recovery effort (C.A.R.E.) program. United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do reentry courts reduce recidivism: Results from the Harlem parole reentry court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation.
   Google Scholar
• Hamilton, Z. (2011). Adapting to bad news: Lessons from the Harlem parole reentry court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50, 385–410. doi:10.1080/10509674.2011.579233
   Google Scholar
• Hammett, T. M., Roberts, C., & Kennedy, S. (2002). Health-related issues in prisoner reentry. Crime & Delinquency, 47, 390–409. doi:10.1177/0011128701047003006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harlow, C. W. (1998). Profile of jail inmates, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Harlow, C. W. (2003). Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Holzer, H., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2003). Employment barriers facing ex-offenders. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, J. L., Lowenkamp, C. T., VanBenschoten, S. W., & Robinson, C. R. (2011). The construction and validation of the federal post conviction risk assessment (PCRA). Federal Probation, 75, 16–29.
   Google Scholar
• La Vigne, N. G., Solomon, A. L., Beckman, K. A., & Dedel, K. (2006). Prisoner reentry and community policing: Strategies for enhancing public safety. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
   Google Scholar
• Langan, P. A, & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 15(1), 58-65. doi:10.1525/fsr.2002.15.1.58
   Google Scholar
• Levine, M., & Ensom, M. H. (2001). Post hoc power analysis: An idea whose time has passed? Pharmacotherapy: the Journal of Human Pharmacology and Drug Therapy, 21, 405–409. doi:10.1592/phco.21.5.405.34503
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., & Landenberger, N. A. (2005). Cognitive-behavioral interventions: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies. In B. C. Welsh & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Preventing crime: What works for children, offenders, victims, and places(pp. 57-71). Berlin Heidelberg, New York: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsey, M. W., Adams, J. L., Gottfredson, D. C., Pepper, J. V., & Weisburd, D. (Eds.). (2005). Improving evaluation of anticrime programs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Johnson, J. L., Holsinger, A. M., VanBenschoten, S. W., & Robinson, C. R. (2013). The federal post conviction risk assessment (PCRA): A construction and validation study. Psychological Services, 10, 87–96. doi:10.1037/a0030343
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lowenkamp, C. T., Latessa, E. J., & Holsinger, A. M. (2006). The risk principle in action: What have we learned from 13,676 offenders and 97 correctional programs?. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 77–93. doi:10.1177/0011128705281747
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mears, D. P. (2007). Towards rational and evidence-based crime policy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 667–682. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2007.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meierhoefer, B. (2011). Judge-involved supervision programs in the federal courts: Summary of findings from the survey of chief United States probation officers. Federal Probation, 75, 37–46.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, E. J. (2007). The therapeutic effects of managerial reentry courts. Federal Sentencing Register, 20, 127–135. doi:10.1525/fsr.2007.20.2.127
   Google Scholar
• Miller, H. V., Miller, J. M., & Barnes, J. C. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129–136. doi:10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2016.04.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller, M., & Ngugi, I. (2009). Impacts of housing supports: Persons with mental illness and ex-offenders. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Mumola, C. J. (1999). Substance abuse and treatment, state and federal prisoners, 1997. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
   Google Scholar
• Newton, D., Day, A., Giles, M., Wodak, J., Graffam, J., & Baldry, E. (2018). The impact of vocational education and training programs on recidivism: A systematic review of current empirical evidence. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62, 187–207. doi:10.1177/0306624X16645083
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Leech, N. L. (2004). Post hoc power: A concept whose time has come. Understanding Statistics, 3, 201–230. doi:10.1207/s15328031us0304_1
   Google Scholar
• Paparozzi, M., & Guy, R. (2014). Reentry: parole by any other name. In M. S.Crow & J. O.Smykla (Eds (Eds), Offender reentry: rethinking criminology and criminal justice (pp. pp. 7–22). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett.
   Google Scholar
• Parolee Reentry Court Program Evaluation: Report to the State Legislature. (2014). San Francisco: Judicial Council of California.
   Google Scholar
• Peduzzi, P., Concato, J., Feinstein, A. R., & Holford, T. R. (1995). Importance of events per independent variable in proportional hazards regression analysis II. Accuracy and precision of regression estimates. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 48(12), 1503–1510.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry-reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68(2), 4–11.
   Google Scholar
• Rauma, D. (2016). Evaluation of a federal reentry program model. Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center.
   Google Scholar
• Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49(3), 360–388. doi:10.1177/0011128703049003002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin and Company.
   Google Scholar
• Sherman, L. W. (2003). Misleading evidence and evidence-led policy: Making social science more experimental. Annals, 589, 6−19.
   Google Scholar
• Steurer, S., Smith, L., & Tracy, A. (2001). Three-state recidivism study. Lanham, MD: Correctional Educational Association.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. J. (2016). Program evaluation of the federal reentry court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, PA: La Salle University Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Travis, J., Solomon, A., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
   Google Scholar
• United States Sentencing Commission. (2016). Recidivism among federal offenders: A comprehensive overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission.
   Google Scholar
• Vance, S. E. (2017). Judge-involved supervision programs in the federal system: Background and research. Federal Probation, 81, 15–23.
   Google Scholar
• Visher, C. A., Winterfield, L., & Coggeshall, M. B. (2006). Systematic review of non-custodial employment programs: Impact on recidivism rates of ex-offenders. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 2(1), 1-28. https://campbellcollaboration.org/library/non-custodialemployment-programmes-ex-offenders-recidivism.html
   Google Scholar
• Vittinghoff, E., & McCulloch, C. E. (2007). Relaxing the rule of ten events per variable in logistic and Cox regression. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(6), 710–718. doi:10.1093/aje/kwk052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisburd, D. (2000). Randomized experiments in criminal justice policy: Prospects and problems. Crime & Delinquency, 46, 181–193. doi:10.1177/0011128700046002003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wolf, R. V. (2011). Reentry courts: Looking ahead. Bureau of Justice Assistance.Retrieved from https://www.bja.gov/Publications/CCI_ReentryCourts.pdf
   Google Scholar