Reentry programs reduce recidivism with evidence-based practices

Show all

Dr. Edward Latessa, respected University of Cincinnati Criminal Justice Researcher, recently responded to The New York Times article, “Pennsylvania Study Finds Halfway Houses Don’t Reduce Recidivism.” The piece criticized residential reentry programs, which seek to rehabilitate ex-offenders and help them effectively transition back into the community.

In his response, Dr. Latessa pointed out that the study was exclusive to Pennsylvania halfway houses and its findings cannot be generalized to include reentry programs nationwide. In Ohio, for example, Dr. Latessa said the University of Cincinnati conducted studies that were able to pinpoint practices that result in effective reentry programs. The results of these studies were applied to reentry programs throughout Ohio to enhance them and have helped them effectively reduce recidivism rates.

BI has consulted with Dr. Latessa to help refine and advance its evidence-based reentry programs in the last decade. In addition to Dr. Latessa’s remarks about Ohio reentry programs, BI works with several states, including California, Illinois, New Jersey and North Carolina, and counties nationwide to implement effective reentry programs. These programs include full day reporting centers or CORE day reporting programs, both designed to deliver evidence-based practices that help curb recidivism and enhance public safety.

By employing practices such as daily reporting, intensive case management, cognitive behavioral treatment, and connecting clients to long-term community resources, these reentry programs have been able to effectively rehabilitate re-offenders, ease prison and jail overcrowding and save taxpayer dollars.

You can read Dr. Latessa’s full response to the New York Times piece here.