Are Prisoner Reentry Programs Cost-Effective? Evidence from the Evaluation of MD REP

1. Are Prisoner Reentry Programs Cost-Effective? Evidence from the Evaluation of MD REP John Roman Aaron Chalfin Justice Policy Center The Urban Institute Presented at the: Prisoner Reentry Institute John Jay College of Criminal Justice New York, NY  September 7, 2007

2. REP Evaluation Results • Compares 229 REP clients to 370 prisoners released to non-REP neighborhoods in Baltimore (MD) over an average of 38 months. • Reduced recidivism (72% compared to 77.6% committed at • least one new crime in the study period); • Significantly reduced the number of new arrests; • No significant differences in time to re-arrest, likelihood of a • new conviction, number of new convictions, or time to a new conviction; • REP participants committed a total of 68 fewer crimes; • REP yields about $3 in benefits for every new dollar in cost, a • total net benefit of $7.2 million.

3. Other Key Findings Most of the program’s benefit accrued to the citizens of Baltimore whose risk of victimization was reduced – only a small and non-significant benefit to public agencies. Much of the cost-effectiveness is due to a difference in the incidence of the most serious crimes – we observe 11 attempted murders and 2 homicides in the control group and none in the treatment group.

4. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

5. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

6. Why Study REP? • REP was an early, organic initiative, developed by a private organization (the Enterprise Foundation); • Business model included unique features: • Strong corrections-community partnership; • Included programming Inside, in Transition and Outside; • REP program was service catalyst, not provider, CDCs • responded to a solicitation and delivered services; and, • Was intended to put itself out of business; • Provides a strong test of the community service reentry model; and • Served a sufficiently large number for evaluation.

7. The Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) REP initiative targets individual, community, and systems-level factors related to re-integration. REP was designed to: o provides a continuous support structure of programs and services to assist returning prisoners in the reintegration process (individual); o includes the local community, strengthening the community through its active role in the process and building informal social control (community); and, o has a structure that is based on an inter-organizational partnership between the Maryland Division of Corrections, the Enterprise Foundation, the Mayor’s Office on Criminal Justice, the Maryland Division of Parole and Probation, and local community organizations, among others (systems).

8. The Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) Services • Case management services that begin during incarceration and last until two years following release • Substance abuse treatment • Mental and physical health treatment • Education programs • Job readiness/employment • Housing • Family and community reunification

9. The Project was Developed in Two Distinct Stages First Stage – Began in 2001 • Targeted prisoners returning to Baltimore, MD (Druid Heights, Harlem Park, Park Heights, East Baltimore, Sandtown-Winchester); • Targeted male ex-prisoners (excluding sex offenders), one consecutive year in prison, 18-34 years - in practice, served everyone (older demographic) including walk-ins. Second Stage – Re-oriented in 2003 for SVORI • Expanded REP to two additional zip codes; • Added exclusions for mental illness and detainers; • Emphasized recruitment of prisoners with 1+ years in prison; and • Limited to ages 24-34 years

10. Communities Served by the REP Program • Park Heights is a large community located in Northwest Baltimore: • Population is 17,559 and 98.3% (17,264 residents) are African-American. • 5,168 households, 47.6% are single-parent households; • Median household income is $17,989; and • 32.1% of the households receive public assistance.

11. The REP Conceptual Framework Formal Social Control Informal Social Control The Division of Corrections The Community • In-Program Remediation • Labor Market Readiness • Training • Education • Health Improvement • Drug Treatment • Mental Health Treatment • Health Care • Personal Development • Anger Management • Parenting • Life Skills • Family Connection • Faith-based programs • Pre-Release Preparation • Service Needs Assessment • Develop Case Plan • Transitional housing • Identification • Health/medications • Income • Community Linkages • Advocate • Case Manager • Parole • Community organizations • Family Connections • Notification • Family Assistance • Immediate Post-Release • Programming • Parole • Supervision • Drug testing • Referrals for service • Community Service Provider • Substance Abuse • Job Training • Mental Health • Life Skills • Case Manager/Advocate • Problem-solving • Support/counseling • Advocacy • Community Integration • Community Groups • Connect to services • Pro-social opportunities • Families/Victims • Opportunity for restoration • Opportunity for restitution • Employers • Job opportunity • Training opportunity • Faith-based Groups • Family strengthening • Spiritual connections • Access to services

12. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

13. Research Design • The evaluation is an observational study using a retrospective quasi-experimental design to compare prisoners released from MTC to REP-eligible (treatment) and non-REP zip codes (comparison) in Baltimore City; • The comparison group was generated from a cohort of all prisoners released to non-REP Baltimore zip codes in the same period; • The comparison group was further restricted using propensity score matching to create balanced samples.

14. Sources of Administrative Data • REP data identifying REP clients (no linking variables); • Demographic and institutional data (current incarceration) from the DPSCS Offender-Based State Correctional Information System I (OBSCIS I); • Criminal history (arrests and convictions) and recidivism data from the Criminal History Records Information (CHRI) maintained by the DPSCS Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS); and, • Community-level demographics and economic indicators for Baltimore zip codes from 2000 US Census.

15. Sampling Framework Identified almost 300 REP clients released from MTC to the City of Baltimore between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2004, and about 4,200 prisoners released from MTC during the same period (but not to REP zip codes). We were concerned that motivation of REP clients might bias study results: Used propensity scores to match REP clients based on observable characteristics predicting enrollment in REP.

16. Propensity Score Matching to Ensure Comparability Propensity score models are used to predict the probability that each individual in the sample receives treatment. Comparison offenders are then matched to treatment offenders in their probability of being selected for treatment. Comparison offenders were selected using a “nearest neighbor” matching procedure where the two nearest neighbors were selected. Diagnostics - the treatment group and matched comparison group do not differ significantly in their probability of having received treatment, and the mean estimated Y ~ distribution of MREP clients in the population, indicating a successful match.

17. Propensity Score Matching Result The final sample includes 599 prisoners released from MTC to the City of Baltimore between January 1, 2001 and December 31, 2004, including 229 REP clients and 370 non-clients released during this period.

18. Sample Characteristics

19. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

20. Impact Analysis – Bi-variate Outcomes

21. Impact Analysis – Bi-variate Outcomes

22. Hypotheses to be Tested by the Evaluation Tested five hypotheses about the impact of the REP program, that REP participants are: • Less likely to be arrested for a new crime following their release from prison; • Arrested fewer times for new crime(s); • Less likely to be convicted of a new crime; • Convicted fewer times for new crimes; and, • REP participants had longer time to re-arrest.

23. Impact Analysis - Multivariate Models Three multivariate model specifications were used to test recidivism hypotheses. • Logistic regression models test whether there was any difference in arrest and conviction prevalence—e.g., the proportion of the sample with at least one arrest or at least one conviction; • Negative binomial regression models test whether there was any difference in arrest and conviction incidence—e.g., the number of new arrests or new convictions; • Cox proportional hazard models test whether the two groups differed with respect to how fast a recidivism event occurred (i.e.., whether the impact of treatment on recidivism varied by group over time).

24. Impact Analysis - Multivariate Models The general model framework used to estimate these models: Yi = αi + β1REPi + β2TIME AT RISKi + Kλ + εi • Yi is an indicator of recidivism (re-arrest or re-conviction); • REPi is a dummy variable indicating REP participation; • TIME AT RISKi is the number of days that an ex-prisoner is not incarcerated. K is a matrix of offender-level demographic variables, including; • Ex-prisoner characteristics. Age; • Prior Criminality.Total prior arrests for person crimes, property crimes, and drug crimes, prior parole violations; • Offense Characteristics. Felony (or not), mandatory release, poor performance while incarcerated, escape risk.

25. Impact Analysis – Multivariate Results (Re-arrest)

26. Impact Analysis – Multivariate Results (Re-arrest)

27. Impact Analysis – Multivariate Results (Re-arrest) Interpretation of Covariates

28. Impact Analysis – Multivariate Results (Re-conviction)

29. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

30. Cost-Benefit Analysis The REP CBA compares new costs of administering REP to program benefits. • We use a economic cost model to estimate costs as the opportunity costs of the use of resources associated with the provision of services to REP clients. These costs include in-house program costs and costs to community partners. • The benefits of REP take two forms: • (1) averted costs to crime victims; and • (2) reduced (prevented) costs for public agencies.

31. How Were the Costs of REP Calculated? Cost data were collected via semi-structured interviews with REP staff and those staff employed by REP contractors. Cost data were collected using a “bottom up” approach whereby the cost of each program input was estimated by multiplying the price of the input (typically the wage of the service provider) by the quantity of the input received by the offender (hours of treatment). Overall, we found that the REP program cost about $1.2M to administer in FY2004. • $190,000 in costs to the Enterprise administrators of REP • $560,000 for subcontractors • $460,000 for project partners

32. How Were the Costs of REP Calculated? Cost for FY 2004 = $1.21 Million, no data are available for earlier years (with fewer participants); Prorating for the number of people entering each year, we estimate a cost of about $3.5 Million to operate the program between 2001 and 2004; REP served 326 participants in this period, for a cost per participant of about $10,600, and an average of $6,500 per participant per year.

33. Who May Benefit from REP? There are two potential beneficiaries of REP: • private citizens whose harms are reduced as the number and/or severity of crimes are reduced, and • public agencies who spend less to investigate, arrest, and supervise participants who desist from expected offending

34. Benefits of REP to Private Citizens Two types of benefits from REP due to a reduction in crime: • Reduces direct losses from crime, including lost productivity, hospital and rehabilitation costs. • Reduces intangible losses (fear, pain and suffering). Together these are the costs of crime to victims. Estimates of the cost of crime to victims are drawn from: • McCollister (2002) • Rajkumar and French (1997) • Miller, Cohen and Rossman (1993) All costs are reported in 2006 dollars, adjusted using the Consumer Price Index (CPI)

35. Estimates of the Costs of Crime to Victims

36. Benefits of REP to Public Agencies Benefits of averted crimes accruing to three public agencies are considered. These agencies benefit from reduced crime since they do not need to investigate and prosecute new crimes, or supervise new convicted offenders: • Police, Corrections, Probation and Parole Estimates of the benefits of averted crimes come from the extant literature or come from Urban Institute estimates: • Cost of arrest: $1,000 • Daily cost of probation: $7 • Daily cost of prison: $77 Assumes that offenders serve 55% of their total sentence

37. Estimation of Benefits Tobit regression is employed to estimate the marginal monetized benefits of REP. The to isolate the welfare impact of REP: SOCIAL COSTi = αi + c1REPi + Kγ + εi • SOCIAL COSTi is the total cost to public agencies and crime victims associated with each offender • REPi is a binary treatment indicator equal to one if the offender is enrolled in REP and zero otherwise. • K is a matrix of covariates that predicts re-offending. • C1, the coefficient on REPi is the estimated average benefit of treatment – the amount of money that society saves as a result of REP.

38. Estimation of Marginal Benefits

39. Estimation of Marginal Benefits

40. The Effect of Homicide on CBA Estimates • We observe: • 11 attempted homicides in the comparison group (average • harm of $388,257); • 2 completed homicides (average harm of $1.1Million); • 0 attempts and 0 completed homicides in the REP treatment • group. • Should we treat these events as outliers?

41. The Effect of Homicide on CBA Estimates • There were 135 homicides or attempted homicides in the full comparison sample of 4,105 (1 in 30). • If those events are evenly distributed across all • MTC releasees, we would see one homicide (or attempt) for every 30 ex-prisoners. • In the REP comparison sample, we observe one • homicide (or attempt) in every 28 comparisons. • Claim: this justifies inclusion of the attempted murder and murders in the cost-benefit analysis.

42. Presentation Overview • Describe the REP initiative concept and operation; • Describe the research design; • Discuss quasi-experimental results; • Discuss cost-benefit results; and, • Implications and next steps.

43. Limitations of this Study Many of the results reported here are not significant at conventional levels, suggesting a problem with statistical power. • A post-hoc power analysis confirms that had we observed 100 additional treatment group participants with the same distribution of outcomes, those outcomes that are significant at p<0.15 would have been significant at p<0.05. • We cannot rule out the possibility that some unobserved factor was related to both treatment enrollment and outcomes. • The impact of rare events such as homicide on cost-benefit analysis of criminal justice programs is an important issue. Excluding homicide from the analysis renders all cost-benefit results insignificant.

44. Implications If prisoner reentry programs such as REP are successful in marginal improving self-control, or informal self-control, and the most serious crimes (homicide and attempted homicide) are crimes that can be deterred by those mechanisms, than it is reasonable to believe that these programs can substantially reduce crime and save private citizens the cost associated with substantial harms.

45. Contact Information Email: jroman@ui.urban.org