Reentry Programs for Formerly Incarcerated Women. University of Southern California. Haluk Soydan University of Southern California

Transcription

1 Reentry Programs for Women 1 C2 Protocol Cover Sheet Title: Reentry Programs for Formerly Incarcerated Women Reviewers: Gretchen Heidemann University of Southern California Haluk Soydan University of Southern California Bin Xie University of Southern California Lead Reviewer: Gretchen Heidemann, MSW PhD Candidate University of Southern California School of Social Work Montgomery Ross Fisher Building 669 West 34 th St. Los Angeles, CA gheideman@usc.edu Supported by: No external funding Original Submission: April 22, 2008 Revised Submission: October 14, 2008

2 Reentry Programs for Women 2 I. Background and Rationale Women are the fastest growing prisoner population in the United States (Irwin, Schiraldi & Ziedenberg, 1999). Since 1980, the number of women incarcerated in U.S. state and federal prisons and local jails has increased by over 800%, and when all forms of correctional supervision probation, parole, jail, and state and federal prison are considered, more than one million women are currently under the control of the U.S. criminal justice system (Lapidus et al, 2005). The rapid expansion of incarcerated women is not unique to the United States. In many regions of the world, the number of women involved in the criminal justice system is on the rise (Zurhold & Haasen, 2005; Gelb, 2003; Sudbury, 2002; Parliament of New South Wales, 2001; Elkins, Gary & Rogers, 2001; Hannah-Moffatt & Shaw, 2000; Bacon & Pellimer, 2000; Morgan, 1999). The reasons for the rapid expansion in the number of incarcerated women are unknown. Feminist scholars point to gender inequality, women s economic marginalization, patriarchal criminal justice practices, racism, and violence against women as the forces that interact to entrap women in criminal justice systems across the global (Richie, 1996). Sudbury (2002) argues that three factors, or regimes of accumulation and discipline, combine to contribute to the explosion of women in prison around the world: (1) globalization, (2) the 'prison industrial complex,' and (3) the emergence of a US-led global war on drugs and its relationship to the transnational trade in illegal drugs. Gender differences in prison populations are well-documented in the literature, including differences in offense type, pathways to criminal activity, history of violence and abuse, parenting roles, and availability of correctional programming (Arditti, & McClintock, 2001; Chesney-Lind, 2002; Travis, et al, 2003; Mazza, 2004). Women prisoners are more likely than their male counterparts to have lived at or below the poverty level, to have been raised in a single-parent household, and to have a family member who has been incarcerated (Lewis, 2006). This growing body of literature suggests the need for gender-specific or gender-responsive strategies that promote socially just criminal justice policies and programs for women, their children and their families (Bloom, 2003). Since the vast majority (95%) of female prisoners will eventually be released (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002), the population of formerly incarcerated women is also growing rapidly. More than thirteen million people in the United States have criminal conviction records (Uggen, Manza & Thompson, 2000; Petersilia, 2005), and upwards of 800,000 people are added annually to this growing population of formerly incarcerated people (Reentry Policy Council, 2003; Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002). Hoping to build a new life for themselves and their children when they are released, formerly incarcerated women instead return to their communities to face a host of personal, programmatic, and policy barriers to successful reentry, including unmet chronic health and mental health care needs; barriers to employment, housing, education, civic participation, and income assistance; and difficulties in reuniting with their children and families (Arditti & Few, 2006; O Brien & Young, 2006; Petersilia, 2005; Travis, 2005; Little Hoover Commission, 2004; Petersilia, 2003; Legal Action Center, 2002; O Brien, 2001; Richie, 2001). These barriers contribute to a staggering rate of recidivism. In the United States, more than 67% of former prisoners will be rearrested within 3 years, and 52% will go back to prison (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002).

3 Reentry Programs for Women 3 In addition to the aforementioned barriers, factors such as history of physical and sexual abuse, mental illness, drug abuse history, and prior financial status have been cited as factors that differentially impact women in their reintegration process. Specifically, women have been found to suffer higher rates of physical and sexual abuse (40% in federal prison and 57% in state prison) compared to their male counterparts (7.2% in federal prison and 16% in state prison); and higher rates of mental illness (23.6% of women in state prison and 12.5% in federal prison) compared to men (15% and 7%, respectively) (O Brien & Harm, 1992), Women are also more likely to report having been under the influence of drugs when committing their crime (40% of females compared to 32% of males), less likely to have been employed prior to their incarceration (40% of women in state prison compared to 60% of men), and more likely to have been receiving welfare assistance prior to incarceration (30% of women inmates versus just 8% of men) (O Brien & Harm, 1992), Returning home with the untreated and unaddressed affects of a history of interpersonal violence, mental health concerns, financial dependence, and drug and alcohol addiction, coupled with the aforementioned policy barriers to reentry, women face a uniquely difficult battle to reintegrate. Fortunately, interventions designed to reduce barriers and promote the reintegration of formerly incarcerated women are beginning to find their way into both criminal justice and social service programs. Re-entry homes, drop-in centers, sober living facilities, and comprehensive services offered by parole and probation departments as well as community-based social service organizations can play a critical role during the most vulnerable period for a woman reentering the community after prison (Fretz, 2005; Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Osher et al, 2003; Richie et al, 2001). While no comprehensive model of intervention for women reentering the community from prison has yet been identified in the literature, several models have been proposed for specific sub-populations, such as for drug-using women leaving jail (Richie, et al, 2001); for jail inmates (both men and women) with co-occurring disorders (Osher, et al, 2003); as well as gender-neutral step-down programs (Fretz, 2005). Although these models show some promise for formerly incarcerated women, there is limited emphasis on some of the most critical needs of this population: employment, housing, chronic health conditions, mental illness, and family reunification issues. In addition to the dearth of model reentry programs and lack of attention to the gender-specific needs of formerly incarcerated women, little is known about the efficacy of those reentry programs for women that do exist. A handful of studies have examined the impact of reentry programs and interventions on subsequent outcomes such as recidivism and employment, but few have focused exclusively or women or have examined differential impacts for women versus men. Berk, Lenihan and Rossi (1980) examined the effects of providing unemployment benefits to 2,000 ex-offenders in Texas and Georgia on re-arrest for property and non-property crime and any resulting time spent in jail or prison. The article does not report the percentage of the 2,000 ex-offenders who were women, and while the authors found that the unemployment benefits provided had a direct and negative impact on re-arrests (in other words, ex-offenders who are unemployed are more likely to recidivate), these results are not analyzed separately by gender. Similarly, Mallar and Thornton (1978) examined the effectiveness of a transitional aid program for ex-prisoners in reducing theft crime. Although the results of the controlled experimental design with 432 ex-offenders showed that the group receiving financial aid had significantly fewer arrests for theft crimes than did the control group, only male ex-offenders participated in

4 Reentry Programs for Women 4 the study. Whether this finding would hold true for female ex-offenders is unknown. Two relevant systematic reviews on the topic are also worthy of note. A Campbell review by Visher, Winterfield and Coggshall (2006) examines the impact of a non-custodial employment program on recidivism rates for ex-offenders. Based on an analysis of effect sizes for 10 studies on the topic, the authors found that, on average, the employment interventions examined did not reduce arrest among the treatment group subjects. Results are not reported separately for women and men. Finally, Seiter and Kadela (2003) conducted a meta-analysis to empirically evaluate components of effective reentry, such as drug treatment, education, vocational training, and prerelease programs, on outcomes such as recidivism and drug relapse. The meta-analysis pointed to a dearth of studies that utilized rigorous experimental conditions, such as random assignment to groups, or (alternatively) control or comparison groups. Only three studies on vocational programs met the criteria; ten studies on drug treatment programs met the criteria; and only two studies in the categories of educational programs, halfway houses, and pre-release programs met the criteria. Seiter and Kadela classified the programs in the evaluated studies, based on the criteria and whether results were significant, as working (i.e. they are effective), not working (i.e. they are not effective), promising (i.e. they may be effective, but more research is needed), or unknown (i.e. there is not enough evidence to determine whether the intervention is working, not working, or promising). The results of the meta-analysis demonstrated that vocational training and/or work release programs are effective in reducing recidivism and in improving job readiness; that drug rehabilitation programs are effective in reducing recidivism and relapse; that it is yet unknown whether education programs are effective at reducing recidivism; that halfway house programs are effective in reducing recidivism and promoting community adjustment; and that pre-release programs are also effective in reducing recidivism. Again, the meta-analysis did not evaluate effects by gender, and most studies included male-only or predominantly male samples. Thus, the extent to which these reentry components are working for women is yet unknown. This review is an attempt to fill this gender-gap in the literature. Given that the pathways to incarceration are different for women, and that the needs of this population in the transition from prison back to community are unique, an understanding of the effectiveness of existing reentry programs is critical to facilitating the successful transition of the growing number of formerly incarcerated women. II. Objectives This review will examine the effect of reentry services on the recidivism and reintegration of formerly incarcerated women. Although no consistent definition of prisoner reentry exists in the literature (Seiter & Kadela, 2003; Austin, 2001), for the purposes of this review, reentry program will encompass a broad range of interventions with or without a pre-release component, such as re-entry homes, programs offered prior to release from jail or prison, programs offered through probation/parole offices, or programs offered by social service organizations that prepare women for reintegration back to the community, and that incorporate a range of, or combination of services, including but not limited to: job training and preparation

5 Reentry Programs for Women 5 education case management housing (directly or through subsidies) assistance in acquiring documents provision of income supports or assistance in locating income supports mental health treatment or counseling family reunification services health care and/or health promotion drug/alcohol treatment and/or relapse prevention services The primary objective of the proposed review is to examine the evidence on the effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs on the recidivism and reintegration of previously incarcerated adult females. The specific aims of the proposed review are: 1. To assess the state of the literature on reentry interventions for formerly incarcerated women 2. To assess the overall impact (effectiveness) of reentry programs and services on the recidivism and reintegration of formerly incarcerated women In examining the effectiveness of such reentry programs/services, effectiveness will take on one of two definitions. First, in the case of recidivism, effectiveness will be defined as a reduction in the number re-arrests, re-convictions, probation violations, or crimes committed after receiving an intervention. In the case of reintegration, effectiveness will be defined as the degree to which reentry programs achieve their objectives. Given the large number of potential outcomes variables, such as housing status, employment status, reunification with children, substance abuse relapse, health and mental health indicators (see outcome measures below), effectiveness will be ascertained in light of the aims of the intervention. We expect that no randomized controlled studies will be found, and thus this review is expected to be "empty" in this specific sense. However, we do expect to find non-randomized studies of the effects of reentry interventions for females. We consider this potential outcome highly pertinent to policy decisions, especially in terms of generating motivation to study effects of reentry programs with high quality RCT designs, as well as informing primary research funders. III. Methodology Criteria for Inclusion and Exclusion of Studies in the Review Studies will be assessed and selected for inclusion in the review based on the following criteria. Publication. Eligible studies may be either published or unpublished. Country and language of origin. Studies may be conducted in any country and published in any language. Studies published in a language other than English will be translated with the use of a

6 Reentry Programs for Women 6 web-based translation service, or with the assistance of the Campbell and Cochrane Collaborations team of translators. In addition, the authors of this review and their associates are available to translate documents in the Scandanavian languages, French, and Turkish (Dr. Haluk Soydan), in Chinese (Dr. Bin Xie), as well as in Spanish (Mrs. Guzman-Soydan). Intervention. The intervention under investigation must be directed toward facilitating the reentry of formerly incarcerated women, broadly defined as any program, service, or intervention that aims to reduce a barrier to reentry or assists the formerly incarcerated woman in reintegrating back to the community. Examples include halfway houses (Dowell, Klein & Krichmar, 1985), residential substance abuse treatment (Prendergast, Wellisch & Wong, 1996), step-down programs (Fretz, 2005), programs aimed at reducing risky health-related behaviors, such as Health Link in New York (Richie, Freudenberg & Page, 2001), and programs designed specifically for those released inmates with co-occurring disorders, such as the APIC model (Osher, Steadman & Barr, 2003). Reentry programs also include those that are initiated in prison; such as those that prepare women for release and reintegration, or that provide after-care services. Thus, reentry is a broad category that can encompass a variety of transitional or rehabilitative interventions for women. In order to capture those studies that assess reentry as we have defined it here, but that do not specifically employ the term reentry, we will utilize a broad range of keywords in conducting our search (see search strategy p. 6). Participants. Participants will include formerly incarcerated women, defined as females age 18 years or older at the time of release who have ever served a custodial sentence as a result of a felony or misdemeanor conviction, or who have been held in detention under arrest. This includes women who have been sentenced to, detained in, or served time in prison, jail, an immigration detention facility, psychiatric detention, custodial drug treatment, or mother-child detention. Studies with both male and female participants will be included only if data are analyzed separately by gender. Outcome measures. Studies investigating any of the outcome measures of recidivism (re-arrest, re-conviction, probation violation), substance abuse relapse, drug/alcohol use, housing status, employment status, educational attainment, custody of children, indicators of health and mental health, global functioning, and subjective measures of adjustment and/or reintegration will be included. Research methods. We expect that no experimental studies conducted with randomized controlled research designs will be found on the effects of prisoner reentry interventions on the recidivism or reintegration of formerly incarcerated women. In order to summarize what (little) is known about the causal effects of reentry programs for women, relevant studies utilizing randomized experimental designs and non-randomized quasi-experimental designs with a comparison group (non-equivalent comparison group design) will be eligible for inclusion in the review. These two research designs will be synthesized via meta-analysis (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001) and will be analyzed separately. Studies that do not analyze results specifically for female participants, or that do not have as the primary focus at least one of the outcome variables listed above will be excluded from the review. Exclusively qualitative studies will also be excluded from the review.

7 Reentry Programs for Women 7 Relevance decisions for inclusion or exclusion will be based on a reading of the report or publication s abstract, and, if necessary, the publication s methods section, and will be made independently by the first two authors. The reliability of relevance decisions will be judged on the extent of agreement between the two reviewers, and any disagreement will be resolved via discussion and consensus. Search Strategy for Identification of Relevant Studies The search strategy will employ the following methods. Database searches. Electronic bibliography searches will be conducted. The search will cover studies reported during the period 1970 to the present as this timeframe encapsulates the dramatic rise in female incarceration as well as modern efforts to facilitate reentry. The keywords that will be used to guide the database search are presented in the following table. They include terms that describe the population of interest, types of interventions, and effectiveness research. All search terms will be truncated using the DIALOG Database conventions so that they will include variations in spelling and endings of the relevant words. Terms from the categories will be connected with or within each category but will be connected by and between each category. Two rounds of the search will be performed. The first round will include the first column with search terms that will yield studies with an exclusively female population. The second round will be conducted without the first column search terms. This will yield those studies that may or may not include female subjects, and that may or may not analyze results separately by gender. This second set will then be reviewed by the authors for a determination on inclusion, based on whether the study included females and analyzed results separately for females. Population Population Treatment Evaluation Woman? Offend? Ex-offend? Former offend? Program? Outcome? Female? Inmate? Ex-inmate? Former inmate? Treatment? Impact Criminal? Ex-criminal? Former criminal? Service? Evaluat? Incarcerat? Formerly incarcerate? Intervention? Effect? Prisoner? Ex-prisoner? Former prisoner? Project? Efficac? Convict? Ex-convict? Former convict? Transition? Recidiv? Felon? Ex-felon? Former felon? Reentry? Experiment? Release? Reintegrat? Control? Probation? Rehabilitat? Quasi(w)experiment? Parol? Recidiv? Assess? Perpetrator? Re-offend? Violator? Desist? Delinquen? Modif?

8 Reentry Programs for Women 8 Devian? Violen? Arrest? Offence? Offense? Reform? Resociali? Social? Train? Correct? Relaps? Learn? Manage? Assist? Reunif? Stepdown? Sober? Halfway? Aftercare? Community? Home? Hous? Employ? Electronic databases to be searched include: Social Sciences Citation Index Social Services Abstracts Expanded Academic ASAP Lexis-Nexis ProQuest JSTOR ERIC PAIS International Medline/OVID PsychInfo C2 SPECTR Google Scholar NCJRS Dissertation Abstracts Online Sociological Abstracts CINCH (Australian Criminology Database) Criminal Justice Abstracts ScienceDirect Wiley InterScience SpringerLink Networks and Contacts. Campbell Collaboration members will serve as a network to help locate

9 Reentry Programs for Women 9 eligible studies. Efforts will also be made to contact researchers and criminal justice personnel both in the United States and in other countries known for their efforts to reintegrate former prisoners and ask for their suggestions and help in locating eligible studies, particularly unpublished and fugitive literature. Specifically, we will contact researchers associated with the Jerry Lee Center for Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania, as well as Norwegian scholars who Dr. Robert Boruch will be able to put us in contact with, to explore names of prominent researchers and to locate studies that might not otherwise surface in the database search. Additionally, any prominent researchers whose names might surface more than once in the database search or other search methods will be contacted personally to identify unpublished or missing studies. Hand search. A search of relevant foreign criminal justice journals will be conducted using the same above search terms in order to ensure discovery of international studies. African Journal of Criminology and Justice Studies British Journal of Criminology Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice European Journal of Crime European Journal of Criminology International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology Journal of International Criminal Justice Prison Journal South African Journal of Criminal Justice Cross-referencing of bibliographies. The references of relevant review articles will be scanned for potentially new leads. Internet searches. Relevant government websites, such as NIJ, NIC and OJJDP, as well as foundation and policy research firm websites will be searched. Campbell Collaboration infrastructural support for search strategy design and database searches will be requested. Description of Methods Used in Primary Research Although few studies have yet been identified that examine the effectiveness of reentry interventions for women, those that do (Dowell, Klein & Krichmar, 1985; Prendergast, Wellisch & Wong, 1996) vary with respect to sampling procedures, design, measurement and outcomes. Neither of the two identified studies employs individual-level random assignment to treatment conditions, but rather a non-equivalent comparison group design. While Dowell, et al (1985) report outcomes as the mean number and severity of crimes committed, Prendergrast, et al (1996) report outcomes as the percentage of participants who self-report using drugs and the percentage who are discharged from parole vs. returned to custody. Both of the studies were conducted in community-based agencies (one residential treatment center and one halfway house) for women

10 Reentry Programs for Women 10 released from prison. In the case of the former, the women were recently released whereas in the latter they had been released at least one year prior to participation in the study. Based on these two studies alone, it is difficult to predict what percentage of eligible studies will employ random versus non-random assignment to treatment conditions, what the typical sample size might be (the above two studies utilized samples of 60 and 127, respectively), what the range of outcome measures will be, and what the typical timeframe for outcomes measurement might be. Criteria for Determination of Independent Findings This review will examine outcomes related to various aspects of reentry, specifically recidivism (i.e. re-arrest, re-conviction, subsequent offense, probation violation), and reintegration (parole discharge, substance abuse relapse, drug/alcohol use, housing status, employment status, educational attainment, reunification or custody of children, indicators of health and mental health, global functioning, and subjective measures of adjustment and reintegration ). We anticipate that few studies will report multiple outcome measures of reintegration, but to the extent that they do, results will be analyzed separately for all outcome measures in an effort to determine the effectiveness of various types of intervention on those aspects of reintegration measured. It is possible that some studies will report measures of reintegration for different time intervals; in these cases the measure with the timing closest to that most commonly used across all the studies will be chosen. Details of Study Coding Categories Coded variables. The following is a list of variables that will be coded as part of this review. The list may be expanded or refined as necessary during the early stages of coding. Bibliographic Information Type of publication: journal; chapter; technical report; thesis/dissertation Date of publication: (coded as continuous variable) Geographic region of origin: North America; Europe; Australia/New Zealand; Other Research Methods Design: random assignment; non-random assignment to conditions with individual level matching; non-random assignment to conditions with statistical controls; other non-random assignment to conditions Control condition: none; treatment as usual; other Sample size (treatment, control, combined) Participants in Treatment Samples Mean age Gender mix: all female; male and female Rate of female in male and female gender mix Ethnic mix: Predominant ethnicity (60% or more) African American; Latino;

11 Reentry Programs for Women 11 White/Caucasian; mixed; other; cannot tell Treatment Program Information Type: halfway house; step-down program; residential substance abuse treatment; health program; mental health program; employment program; combined services; other (specify) Setting: Residential/inpatient; Non-residential/outpatient/walk-in; Other (specify) Duration: (coded as continuous variable) Program sponsorship: Government agency; Non-profit: Community based agency/private: Faith-based; Partnership/service integration; Other; Cannot tell Outcomes Recidivism: Re-arrest; Re-conviction; Subsequent offense; Parole violation; Other Reintegration: Parole discharge; Housing status; Employment status; Educational attainment; Custody of children; Indicators of health status; Indicators of mental health status; Global functioning; Subjective measures of adjustment or reintegration Relapse: Substance use indicators Effect size Method of ES calculation: direct; from t, F, Chi-square, etc. values; from p values Sample size specific to the effect size Months post-release when measured: (coded as continuous variable) Difference: Raw difference; Adjusted for baseline difference Moderators Number of previous convictions: (coded as continuous variable) Previous conviction(s) (severity): Misdemeanor; Felony; Both; Unknown Previous conviction(s) (type): Property; Drug-related; Violent, Non-violent; Combination; Other; Unknown Current conviction (severity): Misdemeanor; Felony; Unknown Current conviction (type): Property; Drug-related; Violent, Non-violent; Other; Unknown Type of punishment: Jail; State prison; Federal prison; Parole; Probation; Other; Unknown Receiving welfare prior to incarceration: Yes; No; Unknown Employed prior to incarceration: Yes; No; Unknown Educational attainment: Less than high school; High school graduate: Unknown Motherhood: Yes; No; Unknown Outcomes excluded. This review examines outcomes related to reentry and reintegration for women. Studies may report additional outcomes not included in the list above, but these are not within the scope of the proposed review and will not be coded. Coding reliability. All studies will be coded by two coders. Reliability will be based on the consistency of coding in the entire sample of studies. If specific coding items are found to be unreliable, they will be reviewed and recoded based on the determination arrived at through consensus. Statistical Procedures and Conventions

12 Reentry Programs for Women 12 As previously mentioned, we anticipate that no randomized controlled studies will be found. However, we do expect to find a number of non-randomized studies of the effects of reentry interventions for females. Those eligible studies are likely to assess many different outcome variables, given our search criteria. It is unknown whether the number of identified studies will be sufficient to perform meta-analysis for any of the outcome variables. The following statistical procedures assume a sufficient number of studies (i.e. a minimum of 2) will be located. 1 To the extent that there are a sufficient number of studies, separate analyses will be conducted for each outcome variable. To the extent that there are an insufficient number of studies (i.e. less than 2) for any or all of the outcome variables, and meta-analysis cannot be conducted, results will be reported descriptively. Of the two eligible studies we have collected thus far, outcomes are either reported as simple proportions of participants who self-report using drugs and who are discharged from parole (versus returned to custody) (Prendergast et al, 1996), or as the mean number and severity of crimes committed (Dowell et al, 1985). In the case of the first (and similarly for any other eligible studies which report proportions on outcome variables) the reported proportions can conveniently be coded into odds ratios representing the odds of recidivating (for example) among the treatment group relative to the odds among the control group. The odds ratio provides an effect size statistic for meta-analysis that has favorable statistical properties and yields readily interpretable results (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). For study reports that do not report proportions (such as in the case of the second study identified above), we will estimate the odds ratio if possible using whatever statistical information is reported for the intervention vs. control difference. For means of continuous variables we will compute the standardized mean difference, which can be directly used for meta-analysis. Moreover, we may also consider converting it to an odds ratio using the Cox transform described in Sanchez-Meca, et al (2003). The statistical analysis will be conducted using RevMan 5. Effect size outliers (> ± 3.0 standard deviations) will be Winsorized to less extreme values (next highest not judged an outlier). Exceptionally large sample sizes will also be Winsorized (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001, p. 108) to generate the values used in calculating effect size weights so that the corresponding effect sizes will not exercise a greatly disproportionate influence on any weighted analysis. In the case that small proportions of missing data on variables other than effect sizes exist, available case analysis will be conducted. Missing data can be imputed based on the mean for the most similar studies when a number of similar types of studies are available. To the extent that an insufficient number of similar types of studies are available, the approach of best (i.e., all 1 According to Botella and Gambara (2006), when the goal of meta-analysis is to summarize and communicate the state of the art, and only 3 or 4 studies are available, then it is probably better to make a description and assessment of the studies one by one, indicating the differences and similarities (p.429). Although the aim of this review is indeed to summarize the state of the literature, we will nevertheless proceed with a meta-analysis in the instance that there are at least 2 studies located for any of the outcome variables. We will do so with the understanding that an analysis with such a small number of studies is rather unstable (Botella and Gambara, 2006); and any conclusions drawn will be reported with this caution in mind.

13 Reentry Programs for Women 13 missing participants do not experience the event of outcome) and worst (i.e., all missing participants experience the event) case scenarios will be utilized. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to compare results based on different imputation assumptions (i.e., best vs. worst scenarios, or imputation with mean value) and available case analysis options. Results obtained from different analysis options will be compared in order to better understanding the robustness of results relative to different analysis approaches and assumptions we made in the review process. When larger amounts are missing, the variable will not be used in the analysis. In all cases, attempts will first be made to contact the original researchers to determine if they can supply the missing information. To examine the variation in effects across studies, a Q-test of the homogeneity of the logged odds ratios will be performed (Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). Because a relatively small number of studies is expected to be available, the Q test will not have great power for rejecting homogeneity. If the Q test emerges as even marginally significant (p<.10) under these circumstances, further investigation of effect size variability will be undertaken. In addition, other statistics, like I-square, will be considered to determine the heterogeneity in meta-analysis. I-square statistic (equal to [(Q-df)/Q] x 100%, where Q is the chi-squared statistic and df is its degrees of freedom) will be used to quantify heterogeneity of effect estimates across reviewed studies. Existence of substantial heterogeneity will be judged based on I-squared value greater than 50%. Once the heterogeneity is detected, a random effects model will be used to incorporate this heterogeneity in summarizing the estimated effects. We may also consider conducting subgroup analyses to summarize and compare effects from stratified data. Alternatively, metaregression implemented by other software like Stata will be considered as well (macros for metaregression work in SPSS, Stata, and SAS; there are also other meta-regression macros available for Stata). When heterogeneity is not observed, a fixed effect model will be used to summarize effect sizes. The fixed effects model assumes that variability between studies is exclusively due to random variation and individual studies are simply weighted by their precision. The random effects model assumes a different underlying effect for each study and takes this into consideration as an additional source of variation. Confidence intervals around each study s effect size (i.e. odds ratio or standardized mean difference) will reveal which are statistically significant. A forest plot will be made to show the point estimate of effect size and 95% CI of each study and the pooled coefficient and 95% CI. Sensitivity analyses will be conducted to determine whether the handling of outliers, imputation of missing data, or other such analysis decisions have appreciable influence on the results. These will be conducted by running the relevant analyses multiple times under different assumptions and procedures and comparing the results. Some studies are less likely to be published due to the size and/or statistical significance and therefore are less likely to be included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, systematic review and meta-analysis can be subject to publication bias. We will investigate publication bias by examining the degree of asymmetry of a funnel plot, which is a scatterplot of the estimate of effect size from each study in the meta-analysis against a measure of its precision, usually 1/Standard Error. The software, RevMan 5, will have the capability to produce this graph. A symmetrical appearance of the funnel plot will indicate absence of publication bias. Otherwise, existence of bias is related to the degree of asymmetry.

14 Reentry Programs for Women 14 Treatment of Qualitative Research The review will not include exclusively qualitative studies. IV. Timeframe The following timeframe will guide the completion of this review. Months after acceptance of protocol Activity 1-2 months Searches for published and unpublished studies 2 months Develop/adapt coding scheme 3 months Pilot-test coding scheme 3-4 months Retrieve all studies 5 months Determine eligibility 5-6 months Code all included studies 7 months Statistical Analysis 8-9 months Report writing 10 months Final editing V. Plans for Updating the Review We will plan to update the review three years after its initial publication. VI. Acknowledgments We would like to thank David Wilson, Mark Lipsey, Sandra Jo Wilson, and Robert Boruch for their assistance in locating relevant articles and providing valuable feedback on drafts, which helped in the preparation of this protocol. VII. Statement Concerning Conflict of Interest There are no conflicts of interest.

15 Reentry Programs for Women 15 References Arditti, J. & Few, A. (2006). Mothers reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17.1, March 2006, Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices, and issues. Crime & Delinquency, 47, July 2001, , Bacon, W. and Pillemer, T. (2000). Violence blamed as women fill prison. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from the World Wide Web: Berk, R., Lenihan, K. & Rossi, P. (1980). Crime and poverty: experimental evidence from exoffenders. American Sociological Review, 45.5, October 1980, Bloom, B. (2003). Gendered Justice: Addressing Female Offenders. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Bureau of Justice Statistics (2002). Reentry Trends in the United States. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from the World Wide Web: Dowell, D., Klein, C. & Krichmar, C. (1985). Evaluation of a halfway house for women. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, Elkins, M., Gray, C., and Rogers, K. (2001) Prison Population Brief England and Wales April London: Home Office Research Development Statistics. Fretz, R. (2005). Step-down programs: the missing link in successful inmate reentry. Corrections Today, 67.2, April 2005, Gelb, K. (2003). Women in prison: why is the rate of incarceration increasing? Paper Presented at Evaluation in Crime and Justice: Trends and Methods. Canberra, Australia, March Hannah-Moffatt, K. Shaw, M. (2000). An Ideal Prison?: Critical Essays on Women s Imprisonment in Canada. Halifax: Fernwood Publishing. Irwin, J., Schiraldi, V. & Ziedenberg, J. (1999). America s One Million Nonviolent Prisoners. Washington, D.C.: Justice Policy Institute. Retrieved October 19, 2007 from the World Wide Web: Lapidus, L., Luthra, N., Verma, A., Small, D., Allard, P. & Levingston, K. (2005). Caught in the net: The impact of drug policies on women and families. New York: American Civil Liberties Union, the Brennan Center, and Break the Chains.

16 Reentry Programs for Women 16 Legal Action Center (2002). Employment discrimination and what to do about it. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from the World Wide Web: Lipsey, M. & Wilson, D. (2001). Practical Meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Little Hoover Commission (2004). Breaking the Barriers for Women on Parole. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from the World Wide Web: Mallar, C. & Thornton, C. (1978). Transitional aid for released prisoners: evidence from the Life Experiment. The Journal of Human Resources, 13.2, Spring 1978, Morgan, R. (1999). New Labour law and order politics and the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Report on alternatives to prison sentences. Punishment and Society, July 1, No. 1. O Brien, P. (2001). Just like baking a cake : women describe the necessary ingredients for successful reentry after incarceration. Families in Society, 82.3, O Brien, P. & Harm, N. (2002). Women s recidivism and reintegration: Two sides of the same coin. In: Figueira-McDonough & Sarri (Eds.). Women at the margins: neglect, punishment, and resistance. New York: Haworth. O Brien, P. & Young, D. (2006). Challenges for formerly incarcerated women: a holistic approach to assessment. Families in Society, 87.3, Osher, F., Steadman, H. & Barr, H. (2003). A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: the APIC model. Crime & Delinquency, 49.1, January 2003, Parliament of New South Wales (2001). Select Committee on the Increase in Prisoner Population. Retrieved November 5, 2007 from the World Wide Web: Prendergast, M., Wellisch, J. & Wong, M.M. (1996). Residential treatment for women parolees following prison-based drug treatment: Treatment experiences, needs and services, outcomes. The Prison Journal, 76.3, September 1996, Petersilia, J. (2003). When Prisoners Come Home. New York: Oxford University Press. Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67.2, April 2005, Reentry Policy Council (2003). Charting the safe and successful return of prisoners to the community. Retrieved August 30, 2006 from the World Wide Web: Richie, B. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as the return to their communities:

17 Reentry Programs for Women 17 findings from life history interviews. Crime & Delinquency, 47.3, July 2001, Richie, B., Freudenberg, N. & Page, J. (2001). Reintegrating women leaving jail into urban communities: a description of a model program. Journal of Urban Health, 78.2, June 2001, Sanchez-Meca, J., Chacon-Moscoso, S., & Marin-Martinez, F. (2003). Effect size indices for dichotomized outcomes in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 8, Seiter, R. & Kadela, K. (2003). Prisoner reentry: what works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49.3, Sudbury, J. (2002). Celling black bodies: black women in the global prison industrial complex. Feminist Review, 70, 2002, Travis, J. (2005). But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. Visher, C., Winterfield, L. & Coggshall, M. (2006). Systematic review of non-custodial employment programs: impact on recidivism rates of ex-offenders. In: The Campbell Collaboration Reviews of Intervention and Policy Evaluations (C2-RIPE), February, Philadelphia, PA: Campbell Collaboration. Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson M. (2000). Crime, class and reintegration: The socioeconomic, familial, and civic lives of offenders. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Meeting, San Francisco; November 18, Zurhold, H. & Haasen, C. (2005). Women in prison: responses of European prison systems to problematic drug users. International Journal of Prisoner Health, 1.2, December 2005,