Reentry & Rehabilitation
A Sense of Purpose as a Driver of Rehabilitation in Incarcerated People: An Evidence Brief
This evidence brief synthesizes theoretical, philosophical, and empirical literature on whether a sense of purpose drives rehabilitation among incarcerated people. It finds strong meta-analytic support for correctional education (43% lower recidivism odds, RAND) and CBT (25% recidivism reduction), moderate support from therapeutic communities and mentorship programs, but a critical gap in direct measurement linking purpose as a psychological construct to post-release outcomes. The Beaudry et al. (2021) Lancet Psychiatry RCT-only meta-analysis, which found effects largely disappear in larger trials, represents the most serious empirical challenge. For Georgia advocacy, the brief notes that the official GDC 3-year felony reconviction rate of ~25–31% and the BJS 9-year rearrest rate of 83% measure different things, and both are true.
Where this research is used
This page is a research collection: individual facts drawn from the sources listed further down, each traced to where it came from. A research topic brings many collections together into one overview of an issue. The facts on this page feed these 4 topics; open one to see how they fit with the rest of the evidence.
Parole & Sentencing
Georgia's parole system has contracted sharply over three decades: the Board of Pardons and Paroles released 5,588 people on parole in FY2025, down 42% from 9,455 in FY2019, and its lifer grant rate has fallen from 21.9% in FY2001–FY2006 to roughly 5% today. Average time served on a life sentence for a serious violent felony has risen from under nine years in 1973 to 29.6 years in FY2025 per the Board's own reporting — 31.1 years by GPS's separate count. The result is a system in which parole eligibility at 7, 14, or 30 years increasingly ends in denial, reconsideration up to eight years later, and release for many only at the maximum sentence date.
12,868 data points
Policy & Advocacy
Georgia's policy and advocacy landscape is defined by a paradox: a decade of bipartisan sentencing reform that measurably reduced incarceration and racial disparity, followed by a sharp reversal toward prison construction, surveillance technology, and record spending attached to no independent oversight. Legislative victories on wrongful conviction compensation, survivor justice, and out-of-time appeals sit alongside bills that died in the last minutes of session — an independent prison ombudsman, restrictive housing limits, parole transparency — and a post-conviction system the Chief Justice of Georgia calls 'a mess' that only the legislature can fix. The 2026 statewide elections and an unresolved federal investigation are the two live pressure points advocates are organizing around.
7,412 data points
Recidivism & Reentry
Georgia reports one of the lowest recidivism rates in the nation — a 25 to 27 percent three-year felony reconviction rate — but that figure counts only new felony convictions, only within three years, and only among people who survive the window. Georgia's own reconviction rate has climbed every year since 2019, reaching 30.7 percent for the 2022 release cohort even as the state spends more than a billion dollars a year on corrections, releases 12,000 to 16,000 people annually with almost no preparation, and funds vocational education at $172,000 statewide. The evidence on what works is unusually clear — education, vocational training, cognitive-behavioral programming, and transitional beds all correlate with substantially lower recidivism — and Georgia has systematized almost none of it at scale.
12,548 data points
Reform Models & Programs
Georgia operates a statewide cognitive-skills curriculum for parolees, twelve reentry and cognitive programming centers, contracted addiction treatment, step-down units inside its Tier segregation system, and an earned-time credit statute — and the national evidence base for each of those program types is unusually strong. What the record does not contain is current, published, rigorously designed outcome data for most of Georgia's own programs, and the state's direct spending on them amounts to a fraction of one percent of the prison budget. This page sets out what the research verifies, what Georgia actually runs, what it spends, what other states have achieved, and where the evidence stops.
12,091 data points
Key Findings
The most impactful data from this research collection. Tap a card for the full finding, GPS commentary on why it matters, and its source.
The finding
The 9-year follow-up of the same 2005 release cohort (analytic sample 67,966 records, representing 401,288 releases) found 68% rearrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Rearrests keep accumulating well past three years, and Georgia's official measure misses them because GDC counts only felony reconvictions within three years. Program effects judged on Georgia's figure may not capture later reoffending.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform acknowledged that Georgia's 30 percent recidivism rate had remained virtually unchanged for 10 years prior to the 2010s reforms despite a doubling of corrections spending.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Spending growth, on the Council's account, left Georgia's recidivism rate virtually unchanged over that decade; the brief's evidence concerns what programs offer, with strong meta-analytic support for correctional education and CBT but a gap in directly measuring purpose.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
The RAND meta-analysis found that $1 invested in prison education saves $4–$5 in reincarceration costs over the first three years.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Correctional education can be justified on cost grounds even without proof that purpose is what drives it. The savings rest on the same underlying studies that RAND cautioned have weak designs and selection effects.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.
The finding
A targeted search did not locate any large prospective study linking baseline Purpose-in-Life or Meaning-in-Life Questionnaire scores in incarcerated populations to subsequent recidivism. The inmate-purpose literature is dominated by cross-sectional psychometric/validation studies and small uncontrolled logotherapy intervention pilots with proximal outcomes (hope, depression, self-esteem) rather than reoffending. This is the single most important missing study in the field.
Why it matters · GPS commentary
Without such a study, lower recidivism after education, CBT or mentoring cannot be credited to a sense of purpose itself. That is why the brief rates direct evidence weak and calls for validated purpose scales.
Our reading of the finding above. It is not part of the source.All Data Points
58 verified data points extracted from primary sources.
BJS 5-year rearrest rate for 2005 state prisoner releases Statistic
Of 404,638 state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, 67.8% were arrested within 3 years and 76.6% were arrested within 5 years; 55.1% had a reconviction within 5 years.
76.6% vs. 67.8 percent rearrested within 3 years
BJS 9-year rearrest rate: 83% Statistic
The 9-year follow-up of the same 2005 release cohort (analytic sample 67,966 records, representing 401,288 releases) found 68% rearrested within 3 years, 79% within 6 years, and 83% within 9 years.
83% vs. 68 percent rearrested within 3 years
BJS 9-year cohort accumulated ~2 million arrests Statistic
The 401,288 releasees in the BJS 9-year follow-up accumulated approximately 2.0 million arrests, averaging 5 arrests per person; 60% of these arrests occurred in years 4–9, meaning shorter follow-ups substantially undercount reoffending.
2,000,000 arrests accumulated vs. 5 average arrests per person
GDC 3-year felony reconviction rates 2011-2022 Statistic
The Georgia Department of Corrections reports three-year felony reconviction rates for all inmate facilities of roughly 26–28% from 2011–2019, dipping to 23.9% (2018), 25.3% (2019), 29.9% (2021), and 31.1% for the 2022 release cohort.
31.1% vs. 23.9 percent felony reconviction (2018 cohort, lowest)
GDC transition center recidivism lower, private prisons higher Statistic
Transition center releases have lower three-year felony reconviction rates (12–20%) while private prison releases are higher (~32%).
CSG Georgia 3-year felony reconviction rate: 27% Statistic
The Council of State Governments puts Georgia's three-year felony reconviction rate at exactly 27 percent, which is lower than the national average for that metric.
27% vs. lower than national average
GDC recidivism definition excludes technical violations and post-3-year reoffending Data gap
The official GDC reconviction rate does not take into account offenders who commit technical violations while on parole, nor offenders who recidivate after three years. National BJS data show that when technical parole/probation violations are included, returns to prison were ~52% within 3 years for the 1994 cohort.
Georgia 30% recidivism rate unchanged for a decade despite doubled corrections spending Finding
The Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform acknowledged that Georgia's 30 percent recidivism rate had remained virtually unchanged for 10 years prior to the 2010s reforms despite a doubling of corrections spending.
RAND: 43% lower odds of recidivism for correctional education participants Statistic
Davis et al. (RAND Corporation, 2013) meta-analyzed 57 recidivism studies and found inmates who participated in correctional education programs had ~43% lower odds of recidivating than non-participants, translating to a 30% versus 43% three-year recidivism rate — a 13-percentage-point absolute reduction.
43% vs. 13 percentage-point absolute reduction (30% vs 43%)
RAND: 13% higher odds of post-release employment for education participants Statistic
The RAND meta-analysis found odds of post-release employment were ~13% higher for education participants, though RAND notes only one study on this was rated higher quality, so this estimate is less robust.
13%
RAND: $1 in prison education saves $4-$5 in reincarceration costs Statistic
The RAND meta-analysis found that $1 invested in prison education saves $4–$5 in reincarceration costs over the first three years.
$5.00 vs. 4 dollars saved per dollar invested (lower estimate)
RAND caveats: weak designs and selection effects in underlying studies Methodology note
RAND itself flags that many of the underlying studies in the correctional education meta-analysis have weak designs, and participants may differ from non-participants on unobserved motivation (selection effects partially controlled for in higher-quality subsample analyses).
RAND 43% figure is foundation for Second Chance Pell Grant restoration Policy
The RAND 43% lower odds of recidivism figure is the most-cited recidivism-reduction statistic in U.S. corrections policy and was the empirical foundation for restoration of Pell Grant access for incarcerated students (Second Chance Pell).
Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie: vocational/education participants ~1.5x more likely employed Statistic
Wilson, Gallagher & MacKenzie's earlier meta-analysis (2000) of corrections-based education, vocation and work programs found participants ~1.5 times more likely to be employed and modestly less likely to recidivate, though they cautioned that selection bias likely inflated apparent effects.
1.5x times more likely to be employed
Mitchell et al.: TC programs consistently show modest recidivism and drug use reductions Statistic
Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie (2007/2012) Campbell Systematic Reviews meta-analysis of 74 evaluations of incarceration-based drug treatment found TC programs consistently showed modest reductions in post-release recidivism and drug use; 30 of 35 TC evaluations identified a statistically significant treatment effect.
30 of 35 TC evaluations showing significant treatment effect
Mitchell et al.: average odds ratios for TC treatment effects Statistic
Average treatment-effect odds ratios across the 66 evaluations in the 2007 Mitchell, Wilson & MacKenzie review: ~1.37 for recidivism reduction and ~1.28 for drug-use reduction. TCs outperformed group counseling, boot camps and narcotic maintenance among the four modalities reviewed.
1.4 odds ratio for recidivism reduction vs. 1.3 odds ratio for drug-use reduction
Beaudry et al. 2021: RCT-only meta-analysis shows effects attenuate in larger trials Finding
Beaudry et al. (2021) Lancet Psychiatry systematic review and meta-analysis of 29 RCTs (9,443 participants) of psychological interventions in prison found OR = 0.72 (95% CI 0.56–0.92) across all RCTs, but when restricted to studies with >50 participants in the intervention group, OR = 0.87 (0.68–1.11), not statistically significant. The authors conclude publication bias and small-study effects appear to have overestimated the reported modest effects.
Beaudry et al.: TC-specific RCT evidence (2 RCTs only) Statistic
In the Beaudry et al. (2021) meta-analysis, therapeutic communities specifically (only 2 RCTs) showed OR 0.64 (0.46–0.91).
0.6 odds ratio for TC RCTs
Landenberger & Lipsey: CBT reduces recidivism by 25% Statistic
Landenberger & Lipsey (2005) meta-analysis of 58 experimental/quasi-experimental studies found mean recidivism was 25% lower in CBT treatment than control groups — a reduction from a mean recidivism rate of .40 in control groups to a mean rate of .30 for treatment groups.
25% vs. from .40 control to .30 treatment mean recidivism rate
CBT effects largest for higher-risk offenders and high-quality implementation Finding
Independent moderators of larger CBT effects included treatment of higher-risk offenders, high-quality implementation, and inclusion of anger control and interpersonal problem-solving components.
Brand-name CBT programs do not outperform generic CBT Finding
Lipsey, Landenberger & Wilson (2007) Campbell review confirms CBT reduces recidivism by an average of ~25–30% across well-implemented programs; brand-name programs (e.g., Reasoning & Rehabilitation, Moral Reconation Therapy, Thinking for a Change) do not outperform generic CBT.
InnerChange Texas: selection-effect critique (completers vs. controls) Case detail
Johnson & Larson (2003) evaluated the Texas InnerChange Freedom Initiative and found IFI graduates had lower rearrest and reincarceration rates. However, the original evaluation counted only program graduates (~75 of ~177 starters), and the comparison group was matched to the entire enrolling cohort. When dropouts and non-completers were included, the IFI participant group's outcomes were no better than — and on some measures worse than — the comparison group.
Duwe & King 2013: Minnesota IFI reduces rearrest and reconviction but not technical violations Finding
Duwe & King (2013) used Cox regression on 732 offenders released 2003–2009 in Minnesota and found IFI participation significantly reduced rearrest, reconviction, and new-offense reincarceration, though not technical-violation reincarceration. The authors attributed the effect substantially to the continuum of mentoring support received during incarceration and in the community — not religion per se.
California Arts-in-Corrections: 88% favorable outcomes vs 72.5% for all parolees Statistic
The original 1987 California Department of Corrections study (n = 177) found that at six months post-parole, Arts-in-Corrections participants had 88% favorable outcomes vs. 72.5% for all parolees; the difference grew with time at risk. Americans for the Arts reported 30% fewer parole violations and parole-violation rates ~15 percentage points lower for AIC participants six months after release.
88% vs. 72.5 percent favorable outcomes for all parolees
RTA program-reported <3% return-to-prison rate (with caveats) Statistic
Rehabilitation Through the Arts (RTA) at Sing Sing reports a
3%
Arts program evaluations are almost all observational and often small Methodology note
Almost all arts-program evaluations are observational, often small, and frequently program-reported. Van der Meulen & Omstead (2021, The Prison Journal) explicitly critique the rehabilitation-and-recidivism framing imposed on arts evaluations. The strongest empirical claim the arts-in-prison literature can sustain is reduced in-prison infractions and improved engagement; recidivism claims rest on weaker designs.
Sells et al. 2020: peer-mentored reentry RCT shows lower recidivism Finding
Sells et al. (2020) conducted a small RCT (n = 55 men) of peer-mentored community reentry vs. standard services. The mentored group had significantly lower recidivism in logistic regression controlling for LSI-R risk and demographics. The mentorship model explicitly emphasized criminal desistance, social navigation, and gainful citizenship.
Arches Transformative Mentoring: 69% lower felony reconviction at 12 months, 57% at 24 months Statistic
Arches Transformative Mentoring (NYC, ages 16–24) evaluation by Lynch et al. (Urban Institute, 2018) reports felony reconviction rates among Arches participants are 69 percent lower 12 months after beginning probation and 57 percent lower 24 months after beginning probation relative to a propensity-matched comparison group.
57% vs. 69 percent lower felony reconviction at 12 months
Reker 1977: inmates score lower on Purpose-in-Life test than normative samples Statistic
Reker (1977) studied 48 male inmates at a Canadian federal penitentiary. Inmates scored significantly lower on PIL than non-incarcerated normative samples (inmate mean ~100; Crumbaugh's normal-sample mean 112.4 SD 14.1; clinical mean 92.6 SD 21.3). The Crumbaugh & Henrion (1988) clinical-normal cutting score is 102; inmates as a group fall in the existential-vacuum range.
100 PIL mean score (inmates) vs. 112.4 PIL mean score (normal sample)
PIL psychometric reliability in inmates Statistic
Reker (1977) found split-half reliability of .85 (corrected .92) and 12-week test-retest reliability of .68 for the Purpose-in-Life test in an inmate population, establishing it as psychometrically sound in this context.
0.9 corrected split-half reliability vs. 0.7 12-week test-retest reliability
Critical data gap: no prospective study links baseline PIL/MLQ in inmates to recidivism Data gap
A targeted search did not locate any large prospective study linking baseline Purpose-in-Life or Meaning-in-Life Questionnaire scores in incarcerated populations to subsequent recidivism. The inmate-purpose literature is dominated by cross-sectional psychometric/validation studies and small uncontrolled logotherapy intervention pilots with proximal outcomes (hope, depression, self-esteem) rather than reoffending. This is the single most important missing study in the field.
Aliakbari Dehkordi et al. 2020: group logotherapy RCT increases hope in imprisoned women Finding
An RCT (n = 90) of group logotherapy vs. control among imprisoned women in Shiraz, Iran found logotherapy significantly increased hope (Miller Hope Scale, p = .001). The outcome measured was hope, not recidivism.
Van Dierendonck 2023: d = 0.44 effect size for interventions targeting Ryff well-being dimensions Statistic
Van Dierendonck's 2023 meta-analysis of interventions targeting Ryff psychological well-being dimensions reports an overall effect size of d = 0.44 in controlled trials. While not specific to prisoners, this establishes purpose as a measurable, modifiable construct addressable through psychosocial interventions.
0.4 Cohen's d effect size
Netto, Carter & Bonell 2014: zero RCT-level studies of GLM-based interventions Data gap
Netto, Carter & Bonell (2014) conducted the first systematic review of GLM-based interventions and found zero studies meeting inclusion criteria for RCT-level evidence.
Mallion et al. 2020: GLM interventions at least as effective as standard relapse prevention, with better engagement Finding
Mallion, Wood & Mallion (2020) systematic review of 17 GLM studies (only one RCT, all targeting men who had sexually offended) found GLM-consistent interventions were 'at least as effective as standard relapse prevention programs, whilst enhancing participants' motivation to change and engagement in treatment.'
Zeccola et al. 2021: not enough evidence to confirm GLM efficacy on recidivism Data gap
Zeccola, Kelty & Boer (2021) screened 1,791 articles and found only 6 met inclusion criteria for GLM recidivism evaluation — all observational designs, no RCTs. In half the studies GLM did not increase recidivism risk; in half there was some evidence of risk reduction at correct treatment dosage. Their conclusion: 'There is currently not enough peer-reviewed evidence to unequivocally confirm the efficacy of the GLM.'
Andrews, Bonta & Wormith 2011: GLM adds nothing unique beyond RNR Quote
Andrews, Bonta & Wormith (2011) defended RNR and concluded: 'At the present time, there is nothing unique in GLM other than the encouragement of weak assessment approaches and the addition of confusion in service planning.' They argue enhancing personal goods does not in itself reduce criminogenic needs, but reducing criminogenic needs produces downstream improvements in well-being.
Maruna: redemption scripts and generativity as central to desistance Finding
Maruna's Liverpool Desistance Study (fieldwork 1996–1998; n approximately 65) identified two prototypical self-narratives: a 'condemnation script' (persister's account of being doomed by uncontrollable forces) and a 'redemption script' in which the desister reframes a criminal past as instrumental to a transformed, prosocial 'true self.' A defining feature of the redemption script is generativity — a concern with leaving a positive legacy and contributing to the next generation.
Sampson & Laub: marriage, employment, and military service as positive turning points Finding
Using reconstructed Glueck data on 500 delinquent men followed to age 70, Sampson and Laub developed the age-graded theory of informal social control, identifying marriage, stable employment, and military service as positive turning points that strengthen 'stake-in-conformity.' Crucially, they treat the meaning and obligations embedded in these roles — not merely supervision — as what does the work of desistance.
Giordano: four-stage cognitive transformation theory of desistance Finding
Giordano, Cernkovich & Rudolph (2002) argued that Sampson and Laub overweight external turning points and underweight agency. Their theory of cognitive transformation identifies four sequential shifts: (1) general openness to change, (2) exposure and receptivity to specific 'hooks for change,' (3) envisioning a 'replacement self,' and (4) reframing the deviant behavior as undesirable.
Good Lives Model: 10-11 primary human goods Finding
Ward's Good Lives Model posits 10 primary human goods (later proposed as 11 by Purvis 2010): life (healthy living), knowledge, excellence in play, excellence in work, excellence in agency (autonomy/self-directedness), inner peace, relatedness, community, spirituality, happiness, and creativity. Offending is conceptualized as a maladaptive strategy for securing these goods.
Ryff's six dimensions of psychological well-being include Purpose in Life Finding
Carol Ryff's six-dimension model of psychological well-being — Self-Acceptance, Positive Relations, Autonomy, Environmental Mastery, Purpose in Life, and Personal Growth — has been validated across hundreds of studies and explicitly includes purpose as a core dimension. Ryff grounds the model in Aristotelian eudaimonia.
SDT: autonomously motivated treatment participants have better outcomes Finding
Treatment court studies (Morse, Cusack & Andiloro 2014; Wild, Yuan, Rush & Urbanoski 2016) found that autonomously motivated participants in drug treatment courts had better engagement and lower relapse than externally pressured participants. A Hong Kong qualitative study (n = 103) found that drug users with high intrinsic and autonomous motivation in methadone-maintenance programs had lower drug-relapse occurrence; external motivation alone negatively predicted adherence.
Van Damme et al. 2023: detained adolescents' treatment motivation aligns with GLM primary goods Finding
Van Damme et al. (2023) found in detained adolescent boys that factors which raised treatment motivation aligned with GLM primary goods ('excellence in work and play,' 'excellence in agency,' 'relatedness').
Interpretive note: felony reconviction vs. rearrest measure different things Methodology note
Felony reconviction within 3 years is not the same as rearrest within 9 years, which is not the same as any return to incarceration. The Georgia ~25–31% figure and the BJS 83% figure are measuring different things; both are true. For Georgia advocacy, framing matters.
Selection-effect lesson from InnerChange Texas Methodology note
The InnerChange Texas controversy is the textbook illustration of why 'completers vs. controls' comparisons systematically overstate program effects, since program completion is itself a marker of motivation, stability, and lower baseline risk. Most observational evaluations of arts, faith-based, and mentorship programs share this vulnerability.
Reverse causation caveat in desistance research Methodology note
People who are already on a desistance trajectory may construct redemption scripts as a way of making sense of changes that have other causes (aging, fading peer effects, neurobiological maturation through the mid-20s, lifestyle changes). The Liverpool Desistance Study and Maruna's framework cannot distinguish narrative cause from narrative consequence.
Publication bias in faith-based and arts-in-prison literature Methodology note
Both faith-based and arts-in-prison literatures are dominated by program-affiliated researchers, and null findings appear to be underpublished.
GLM evidence base confined mostly to sex offender treatment Methodology note
Most rigorous GLM evaluation has been with sex offenders; most CBT evaluation has been with mixed adult populations; most desistance theory has been built from predominantly white and male samples. Application to women, racial minorities, and people with long sentences requires care.
Structural factors cannot be overcome by individual purpose alone Finding
McNeill, Baldry, and others have argued that an excessive focus on individual purpose and identity can responsibilize people for outcomes shaped by housing, employment, racial discrimination, and supervision conditions that no internal transformation can overcome. Purpose-based programming complements but does not replace structural reentry support.
Net assessment: purpose thesis is strong on theory, moderate on proxies, weak on direct measurement Finding
The thesis that purpose is a key driver of rehabilitation is defensible but at a calibrated strength: strong on theory and qualitative mechanism, moderate when triangulating across proxy outcomes, weak on direct longitudinal measurement. No single study or meta-analysis isolates 'purpose' as the causal ingredient.
Proxy problem: hard outcome data measure program participation, not purpose directly Data gap
Almost all hard outcome data measure program participation, education, or employment, not purpose as a directly measured construct. When RAND reports a 43% reduction in recidivism odds for education participants, we do not know how much of that effect runs through cognitive skills, credential signaling, routine activities, prosocial peer networks, hope/purpose, or self-selection.
OJJDP Ohio youth mentoring: reductions not statistically significant Finding
Stout et al. (OJJDP-funded evaluation of six Ohio youth mentoring programs) found that while some reductions in recidivism were found, the differences were not statistically significant in the parole sample.
Frankl: meaning as primary motivational force Quote
Viktor Frankl argued that 'striving to find a meaning in one's life is the primary motivational force in man' — a drive distinct from Freud's pleasure principle and Adler's striving for power. His clinical method, logotherapy, treats existential vacuum (the absence of meaning) as a pathogenic state.
Recommended Stage 1: education + CBT + peer-mentoring continuity Policy
For Georgia program design, Stage 1 (year 1) should anchor any new program in education + CBT + structured peer-mentoring continuity from inside to outside the prison — the three components carrying the heaviest meta-analytic evidence. Target high-risk participants where CBT effects are largest. Use intention-to-treat tracking from day one.
Recommended Stage 3: close the measurement gap with validated purpose scales Policy
Stage 3 (years 1–3): Administer validated meaning/purpose scales (Purpose-in-Life test; Meaning in Life Questionnaire; Ryff Psychological Well-Being scales) at baseline, mid-program, and release. Track for 3 and 5 years. This is the single research contribution most likely to advance the field and substantially strengthen future advocacy.
Benchmark: if 3-year reconviction exceeds GDC ~27% without adjustment, reanalysis needed Policy
If 3-year felony reconviction in program graduates exceeds the GDC ~27% baseline without selection-effect adjustment, intention-to-treat reanalysis is essential before scaling.
BJS 5-year reconviction rate: 55.1% Statistic
Of 404,638 state prisoners released in 30 states in 2005, 55.1% had a reconviction within 5 years.
55.1%
Sources
43 cited sources backing this research.
Primary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Secondary
Academic
Tertiary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Data portal
Primary
Data portal
Primary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Official report
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Academic
Secondary
Journalism
Primary
Official report
Primary
Official report
Primary
Press release
Secondary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Primary
Official report
Secondary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Secondary
Official report
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Primary
Academic
Key Entities
Organizations, people, facilities, and other named entities referenced in this research.
Arches Transformative Mentoring
[program]
Bureau of Justice Statistics
[organization]
California Arts-in-Corrections
[program]
Carol Ryff
[person]
Council of State Governments
[organization]
Fergus McNeill
[person]
Georgia Council on Criminal Justice Reform
[organization]
Georgia Department of Corrections
[organization]
Good Lives Model
[program]
InnerChange Freedom Initiative
[program]
John Laub
[person]
Liverpool Desistance Study
[program]
Peggy Giordano
[person]
RAND Corporation
[organization]
Rehabilitation Through the Arts
[program]
Risk-Need-Responsivity Model
[program]
Robert Sampson
[person]
Second Chance Pell
[program]
Shadd Maruna
[person]
Tony Ward
[person]
Viktor Frankl
[person]