Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a Randomized Experiment

Using a randomized experimental design, this study evaluated the effectiveness of the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP), an offender reentry pilot project implemented in 2008. In an effort to reduce recidivism, MCORP attempted to increase offender access to community services and programming by producing greater case management collaboration between caseworkers in prison and supervision agents in the community. The results showed that MCORP significantly improved employment rates, decreased homelessness, broadened offenders’ systems of social support, and increased the extent to which offenders participated in community support programming (mentoring, restorative justice services, and faith‐based programming). The findings further revealed that MCORP significantly reduced all three types of reoffending (rearrest, reconviction, and new offense reincarcerations) but did not have a significant impact on supervision revocations for technical violations. The evidence suggests that MCORP was effective in decreasing reoffending largely because it increased the extent to which offenders were employed, involved in community support programming, and able to develop systems of social support.

[1]  D. Pager.  The Mark of a Criminal Record1 , 2003, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  William D. Bales,et al.  SOCIAL ECOLOGY AND RECIDIVISM: IMPLICATIONS FOR PRISONER REENTRY* , 2008 .

[3]  J. Lynch.  Prisoner Reentry in Perspective , 2001 .

[4]  G. Duwe.  Prison-based chemical dependency treatment in Minnesota: An outcome evaluation , 2010 .

[5]  G. Duwe,et al.  Removing a Nail From the Boot Camp Coffin , 2008 .

[6]  J. Petersilia,et al.  When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry , 2009 .

[7]  G. Duwe,et al.  The Effects of Failure to Register on Sex Offender Recidivism , 2010 .

[8]  Sheldon X. Zhang,et al.  Preventing Parolees From Returning to Prison Through Community-Based Reintegration , 2006 .

[9]  Robert C. Davis,et al.  GOOD INTENTIONS MEET HARD REALITIES: AN EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT GREENLIGHT REENTRY PROGRAM , 2006 .

[10]  James A. Inciardi,et al.  Five-Year Outcomes of Therapeutic Community Treatment of Drug-Involved Offenders after Release from Prison , 2004 .

[11]  William D. Bales,et al.  Inmate Social Ties and the Transition to Society , 2008 .

[12]  Christy A. Visher,et al.  Baltimore Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home , 2004 .

[13]  John Nuttall,et al.  The Effect of Earning a GED on Recidivism Rates. , 2003 .

[14]  William G. Saylor,et al.  PREP: Training Inmates through Industrial Work Participation, and Vocational and Apprenticeship Instruction , 1997 .

[15]  B. Western,et al.  Report on the Evaluation of the ComALERT Prisoner Reentry Program , 2007 .

[16]  Kenneth E. Carlson,et al.  Document Title: The Effectiveness of Prisoner Reentry Services as Crime Control: The Fortune Society , 2008 .

[17]  Jeanne Bellotti,et al.  Evaluation of the Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative , 2009 .

[18]  Nancy G. La Vigne.  Process Evaluation of the Pennsylvania Community Orientation and Reintegration (COR) Program , 2002 .

[19]  David B. Wilson,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders , 2000 .

[20]  C. Lindquist,et al.  The serious and violent offender reentry initiative: measuring the effects on service delivery , 2006 .

[21]  P. Gendreau,et al.  A META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!* , 1996 .

[22]  P. Langan,et al.  Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994 , 2002 .

[23]  Christy A. Visher.  Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry , 2005 .

[24]  David B. Wilson,et al.  Does incarceration-based drug treatment reduce recidivism? A meta-analytic synthesis of the research , 2007 .

[25]  S. Metraux,et al.  Homeless Shelter Use and Reincarceration Following Prison Release: Assessing the Risk , 2004 .

[26]  David M. Hureau,et al.  Controlling Violent Offenders Released to the Community: An Evaluation of the Boston Reentry Initiative , 2009 .

[27]  Joan Petersilia,et al.  Intensive Probation and Parole , 1993, Crime and Justice.

[28]  Z. Ismailova.  Prison Education Program Participation and Recidivism , 2007 .

[29]  Jeffrey Lin,et al.  Document Title: Parole Violations and Revocations in California , 2008 .

[30]  Eric A. Stewart,et al.  Predicting Who Reoffends: The Neglected Role of Neighborhood Context in Recidivism Studies , 2006 .

[31]  D. Mackenzie.  What Works in Corrections: Reducing the Criminal Activities of Offenders and Deliquents , 2006 .

[32]  Edmund F. McGarrell,et al.  Document Title: Applying Problem Solving Approaches to Issues of Inmate Re-Entry: The Indianapolis Pilot Project, Summary Report , 2004 .

[33]  Robin J. Wilson,et al.  Circles of Support & Accountability: A Canadian National Replication of Outcome Findings , 2009, Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment.