Skip to main content

Table 1 Final papers selected for detailed review

From: Systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs addressing problematic drug use and mental health disorders amongst people transitioning from prison to communities

Paper

Main issue

Name of program

Demographics

Method

1. Angell et al. (2014). Engagement processes in model programs for community reentry from prison for people with serious mental illness. Int J Law Psychiatry, 37 (5), 490-500.

Mental illness

Critical Time Intervention (CTI) and Forensic Assertive Community Treatment (FACT)

Not given

37 Semi-structured interviews

2. Elison et al. (2016). Findings from mixed-methods feasibility and effectiveness evaluations of the “Breaking Free Online” treatment and recovery programme for substance misuse in prisons. Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy, 23 (2), 176-185.

Substance use

Breaking Free Online

Male, average age of 35.5 years (range 23–56 years) and all White-British

16 Semi-structured interviews

3. Gilbert and Elley (2015). Reducing Recidivism: An Evaluation of The Pathway Total Reintegration Programme. New Zealand Sociology, 30 (4), 15-37.

Services and support

Pathway Total Reintegration Programme

Male

12 Semi-structured interviews

4. Hunter et al. (2016), ‘A Strengths-Based Approach to Prisoner Reentry: The Fresh Start Prisoner Reentry Program’, International Journal of Offender Therapy & Comparative Criminology, 60 (11), 1298-314.

Services, case management

Fresh Start Prisoner Reentry Program Community Reentry Initiative

Males 64.5% Afr Am, 34% Latino

2 Focus groups × 12

5. Johnson et al. (2015). Development and Feasibility of a Cell Phone–Based Transitional Intervention for Women Prisoners With Comorbid Substance Use and Depression. The Prison Journal, 95 (3), 330-352.

Substance use, depression

Sober Network IPT

Female 19-54 years 4 Hispanic 3 Afr Am

22 Structured exit interviews

6. Miller et al. (2016), ‘Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation’, Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129.

Substance use

DCT program

Female 19-55 years

32 Semi-structured interviews

7. Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016). Solid Start: supportive housing, social support, and reentry transitions. Journal of Crime and Justice, 39 (3), 380-397.

Housing, social support

Solid Start program

Male, average age 40.8, 61% white

36 Semi-structured interviews

8. Zortman et al. (2016). Evaluating reentry programming in Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation & Parole: An assessment of offenders’ perceptions and recidivism outcomes. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 55 (6), 419-442.

Substance use

Pennsylvania’s Board of Probation & Parole (PBPP) 3 sites Berks County, Lackawanna County, York County

Male (86.2%, 79.3%, and 95.4%), young (41, 37, and 36%) slight majority from BC Hispanic (44.8%), majority LC White (86.2%), over half in YC Black (56.8%).

26 Semi-structured interviews

Qualitative analysis methods

Findings

1. Constant comparative analysis frequently associated with grounded theory

Findings suggest efforts to bolster successful community entry relied heavily on efforts to help clients obtain resources through advocacy and side-by-side assistance. These efforts deemed the most useful for engaging justice-involved clients in the helping process.

2. Interpretative phenomenological approach. Interview transcripts examined for quotes relevant to research aims, highlighted and notes made in margin on how quotes relate to research questions. Notes formed basis of themes identified and refined, with additional emerging themes added to the set.

Significant quantitative improvements to quality of life, severity of substance dependence and aspects of recovery progression illustrate initial effectiveness of BFO. BFO shows promise as one that can provide support that crosses the prison-community divide through providing continuity of care during the reintegration process.

3. Interview data illuminated elements of the programme contributing to success or otherwise, and how. Semi-standardised questions with randomly-selected sample of clients. Nothing on analysis methods.

Quantitative data on 12-month recidivism rates of programme graduates show reoffending markedly reduced. Key finding from interviews - many different services were valued by participants depending on their individual needs, but consistent and highly individualised social work support was crucial.

4. Two focus groups - one in prison, second in community at program site. Data analyzed for content and themes reflecting strengths based approach and highlighted challenges to approach and program implementation. Directed content analysis for themes related to the strengths-based approach and program identified by first author confirmed by the last author. Disagreements in themes discussed until agreement reached.

Focus group participants reported program followed-through to help them achieve their goals and was responsive to their needs, trust and respect for program staff and support experienced. Successful program strategies described included program culture, responsivity to needs, and the focus on strengths.

5. Standardized, structured exit interviews with participants to ask about their perspectives on how to improve the intervention, when it was comfortable/uncomfortable and easier/harder to call study counselors, any barriers to being completely honest with study counselors over the phone, why women stopped calling if they did and suggestions for re-engaging them, and women’s thoughts about the schedule of the phone sessions, the counselors, and the phones themselves

Results suggest that providing contact with supportive, positive, familiar prison providers after release by giving women inexpensive cell phones is feasible, and that women perceive it as helpful.

6. Results from both qualitative and quantitative data illustrate female participants’ outcomes as well as accounts of their offending, arrest, and incarceration. Quantitative data related to rearrest and probation violations were collected and analyzed to determine program effectiveness while qualitative interview data offer insights into offenders’ program experiences and their pathways to arrest and incarceration. (129-130)

1) Licit prescription drug use often predated transition into heroin and other opioid use; 2) Interpersonal romantic relationships played important role in pathways to substance abuse and criminal behavior; 3) Participants largely satisfied with the reentry program, staff, and treatment components, variable levels of perceived self-efficacy among the women; and 4) Some complaints of perceived gender-based inequities in programming and facility.

7. Parolees asked about expectations for the future and their ability to be successful: ‘Where do you see yourself 1 year from now?‘4 Parolees in program asked additional questions about impact on reentry including perspectives on strengths and weaknesses of the program. Using NVivo analysis proceeded in three phases; grounded theory approach for initial analysis followed by focused coding to generate additional subthemes. Based on patterns related to housing, social support, and reintegration to the community.

Results suggest that provision of housing not only facilitated feelings of stability and independence, it also influenced cognitive shifts in commitment to change and hope for the future for those in the Solid Start group. In addition to housing, the importance of social supports via peer networks served as another social factor influencing subjective change.

8. Content analysis techniques involved reviewing narrative accounts and initially coding into main themes. Specific subcategories were created from themes and enumerated. Discussion among evaluators and reaching consensus ensured reliability. Themes and categories related to substance abuse, cognitive distortions, and program staff were examined specifically.

Results suggest difference in opinion between offenders and service providers on identification of problems inside as well as outside correctional establishments. Highlights necessity to carefully assess support expectancies of incarcerated and released offenders, taking unique needs of each individual into account. Close respectful collaboration with clients and recognition as the main actors within their own treatment process condition for effective treatment.