What the Research Says about Brand Name Programs

1. Community- and Institution-based Programs Offering an Array of Services

The largest category of brand name programs includes interventions employing a variety of treatment options in an attempt to address the unique needs of the returning population—ranging from mental health treatment to employment assistance. Programs such as the Auglaize County Transition Program (ACT) and Project Greenlight focused on providing services and support in an institutional setting, while interventions such as the New Jersey Day Reporting Center, New Jersey Halfway Back Program, ComALERT, and Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PCCP) offered assistance to recently released individuals in a community setting. The Boston Reentry Initiative provided both pre- and post-release services. We rated all the studies evaluating these programs as meeting a high level of rigor, with the exception of the ACT study.

Six of the seven studies found that program participation had a strong and significant impact on reducing recidivism among participants. The one remaining study, an evaluation of Project Greenlight, found evidence that the program actually contributed to increased rates of recidivism. Although the reasons for this harmful effect are unclear (and may be related to problems with implementation fidelity), it is encouraging that all six of the other programs were associated with strong reductions in recidivism. Moreover, the evaluation of ComALERT found that the program had a significant and beneficial effect on employment outcomes (none of the other studies examined outcomes other than recidivism).

2. Substance Abuse Programs

Thus far, two well-known substance abuse programs comprise this category (although others will be added over time). The modified therapeutic community program for mentally ill chemical abusers (MICAs) has been evaluated in two rigorous studies, with mixed results. One study found modest evidence of a beneficial effect, while the other study showed no evidence of an effect. An evaluation of the Victim Impact Panels that form a component of the San Juan County (New Mexico) DWI Program found no evidence of an effect.

3. Cognitive-Behavioral Program (EQUIP)

The EQUIP cognitive-behavioral program was originally designed to be applied with young offenders, but it has also been used with adult populations. One evalaution of EQUIP met our standards for methodological rigor – a study of the program’s psychoeducational component with adult inmates. Findings from this quasi-experimental study suggest that the psychoeducational component of the program may be effective in reducing recidivism among women; however, no effects were found with respect to recidivism outcomes of adult males.

4. Employment Program (CEO)

The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) provides participants with transitional jobs as well as other services to help them attain permanent employment. One evaluation of the program was identified, a three-year randomized controlled trial that found mixed evidence of effectiveness. While findings showed that program participants had lower rates of some types of recidivism, other types of recidivism were unaffected. Moreover, no effects were found on employment outcomes, other than findings associated with the transitional jobs provided by the program itself.

Future Areas of Research

In examining the literature, we identified a plethora of brand name interventions. For a majority of these programs, we identified only a single evaluation that met the project’s criteria for a basic or high level of methodological rigor. With EQUIP, for example, we identified two additional study series, but neither met our criteria; thus we considered only a single evaluation of the program. In other instances, we could only find a single study. As always, readers should exercise caution when judging the efficacy of any program based on one evaluation—even if the study meets the high standard rigor.

While most of the evaluations of these brand name programs focused on recidivism as an outcome (an appropriate measure for the study population), fewer studies assessed other types of program impact such as employment or substance abuse—even when the program explicitly identified these goals. Future research should seek to address this gap in the research.

(less)