How to Assess Family Strength and Risk on Prisoner Reentry
- Research Article
- Open Access
- Published:
Systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs addressing problematic drug use and mental health disorders amid people transitioning from prison to communities
Health & Justice volume 6, Article number:iv (2018) Cite this article
Abstract
Background
The paper presents a systematic review and metasynthesis of findings from qualitative evaluations of community reentry programs. The programs sought to engage recently released developed prison inmates with either problematic drug use or a mental health disorder.
Methods
Seven biomedical and social science databases, Cinahl, Pubmed, Scopus, Proquest, Medline, Sociological abstracts and Spider web of Science and publisher database Taylor and Francis were searched in 2016 resulting in 2373 potential papers. Abstruse reviews left 140 papers of which viii were included after detailed review. Major themes and subthemes were identified through grounded theory inductive analysis of results from the eight papers. Of the final 8 papers the majority (6) were from the United States. In total, the papers covered 405 interviews and included 121 (30%) females and 284 (70%) males.
Results
Findings advise that the interpersonal skills of example workers; access to social back up and housing; and continuity of example worker relationships throughout the pre-release and mail service-release flow are key social and structural factors in programme success.
Conclusion
Evaluation of customs reentry programs requires qualitative information to contextualize statistical findings and identify social and structural factors that impact on reducing incarceration and improving participant health. These aspects of program efficacy take implications for reentry program development and staff training and broader social and health policy and services.
Background
Effective community reentry programs are ane component in strategies to reduce recidivism and assist in the successful transition of prison inmates to customs. The rising charge per unit of developed incarceration is a major public health and societal problem worldwide. Globally, there are an estimated 10.35 1000000 people in custody (Walmsley 2015). Prison inmates are a vulnerable population characterised by circuitous health problems. People who accept experienced imprisonment have higher rates of mental illness, infectious diseases, chronic diseases and mortality in comparing to the general population (Bradshaw et al. 2017; Fazel and Baillargeon 2011). Problematic drug utilize is pervasive, affecting approximately one third of male prison house inmates and half of female prison inmates (Fazel et al. 2017). Inadequately treated mental health issues and substance utilize is associated with re-incarceration (Kinner and Wang 2014).
Reentry to the community is known to exist highly stressful. This is attributable to the complexity of health problems and poor engagement with wellness and social services (Fazel and Baillargeon 2011; Fazel et al. 2006; Kinner et al. 2011; Kinner 2006). A recent systematic review of randomized controlled trials of community reentry interventions designed to improve prisoner health from imprisonment to 1 year postal service release concluded 'the high brunt of mortality, morbidity, and hospitalization mail-release suggested that a greater focus on improving health in this population during and subsequently release is warranted' (Kouyoumdjian et al. 2015 p.e29) and that there are substantial gaps in show (also come across Hayhurst et al. 2015).
We aim to identify and synthesise the factors relevant to successful community reentry identified by qualitative reentry program evaluations. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to synthesise current bear witness in this area with a focus on reentry programs targeting mental health disorders and problematic drug employ. People with mental health disorders and problematic drug utilise are over-represented in the prison organisation. This is in role due to a lack of customs support services for these populations coupled with harsh legislation targeting particular behaviours (Brinkley-Rubinstein 2013).
The post-release period is a high-risk menses characterised past poor continuity of care, inadequate social support and limited financial resource resulting in poorer health outcomes and a return to crime related activities (Binswanger et al. 2012). Prison inmates with a history of drug dependence are particularly vulnerable, with higher rates of morbidity, bloodshed and render to custody in the 6-month mail-release catamenia (McMillan et al. 2008) and a heightened risk for mortality in the first week post-release (Bukten et al. 2017). Prison house inmates with a history of mental wellness disorder feel worse outcomes on release from prison including substance employ, poor mental health, and criminal activity (Cutcher et al. 2014). Diagnosis of a major psychiatric disorder tin be predictive of recidivism and associated with shorter time to re-incarceration (Fu et al. 2013). People with a dual diagnosis of mental wellness disorder and substance employ have a risk of re-incarceration more than xl% higher than individuals with no diagnosis (Blank et al. 2014).
Contempo research examining the causal relationship between problematic drug use and re-arrest shows a circuitous longitudinal clan between these factors and identifies social factors such every bit admission to support and services as significantly impacting these behaviours in the reentry population (Link and Hamilton 2017). This new evidence highlights the critical importance of access to effective reentry programs and social support for people exiting prison. Moreover, it indicates the relevance of qualitative plan evaluation to understand the nuances of program efficacy and the detail quality and blazon of social components that program participants notice beneficial.
Community reentry programs for people exiting prison are typically evaluated applying quantitative methods. Quantitative evaluation is necessary for examining plan outcomes, however, when a program aims to ameliorate the health of participants or preclude re-incarceration, quantitative methods are limited. Health is comprised not only of physical components that lend themselves to objective measurement simply also subjective and relational dimensions that are embedded in participant feel. Similarly, the structural factors that bear upon on incarceration are more circuitous than statistical crime information can reveal (de Viggiani 2007). In dissimilarity, qualitative evaluations of reentry programs reveal the experiential elements of program success and the social and structural aspects of reentry programs that impact positively on participant health and reducing incarceration. They let for the exploration of the 'why' in program efficacy.
Detailed information gathered in qualitative evaluations can contribute to the demonstration of implementation intensity and plan fidelity by connecting treatment subjects' experiences with assessment of program elements (Miller et al. 2012; Miller 2014; Neale et al. 2005; Thomas and Harden 2008). Qualitative evaluations contextualize quantitative findings to finer interpret a program'south holistic value and provide insight into source furnishings such as gender, ethnicity, instruction and other structural factors (CRD 2008). Synthesising qualitative research has similarly become important. Meta-synthesis seeks to explain and understand phenomena by pulling together findings from qualitative enquiry (Stone and Seaman 2014) into a new integrative interpretation (Finfgeld 2003).
Methods
Sample and procedures
The aim of this review is to provide a synthesis of the factors relevant to successful community reentry identified by qualitative reentry program evaluations. The telescopic of the review was papers describing qualitative evaluations of reentry programs for people transitioning from prison to communities targeting substance use and mental health disorders.
A search of databases for published papers containing qualitative evaluations of reentry wellness programs was completed using the PRISMA statement in October 2016 with a cut-off date of 2006. The cut-off appointment was chosen as there were few published findings for such programs earlier this date. This was in part due to the fact that reentry programs are relatively new and likewise to the lack of evaluation of such programs (Lattimore and Visher 2013). The review was restricted to studies relating to adult prison inmates over 18 years of historic period.
The search included databases Cinahl, Pubmed, Scopus, Proquest, Medline, Sociological abstracts and Web of Science and publisher database Taylor and Francis. Search terms included 'pre-release', 'transitional', 'reintegration', 'throughcare' and 'reentry program and prison', 'interview' and 'qualitative study'. Figure 1 details the search strategy in PRISMA format.
PRISMA flow diagram
The search resulted in 2373 papers including duplicates. The most productive databases were Scopus, Proquest and Taylor and Francis, which yielded 2025 between them. Abstract reviews resulted in the pick of 140 papers. Of these, 66 appeared to relate prison inmates' experiences of reentry programs. An iterative procedure then followed in which these papers were reviewed by the team of 3 researchers using a summary spreadsheet which included publication details, the focus of the newspaper and the abstract. Those relating primarily to substance utilise and mental health disorder were selected for review. This excluded papers focusing specifically on employment (n = iii), housing (n = 1) and college programs (n = 2) or specifically addressing a health condition, i.e. HIV (due north = one). The review so excluded those that were not qualitative (n = 2), not evaluating a program (n = 17), not concerned with prison inmates (northward = v) did not extend to community mail service-release (n = 12 focused on in-prison house programs but), or were concerned with a specific grouping such as young or long term prison inmates (and did not meet the reentry wellness program criteria) (northward = 16). See PRISMA diagram for reasons for exclusion and Tabular array 1 for the terminal viii papers selected with characteristics of the studies involved.
Assay
Following the almost recent and well-cited protocol for qualitative reviews developed past Walsh and Downe (2006) all papers were reviewed by iii squad members for rationale, recruitment, methods of assay and findings. The review included assessing the validity of results and for rigour across the rationale, methodology, findings and limitations. The final papers were examined in detail taking a grounded theory approach (Charmaz 2006) allowing for inductive analysis. Major themes and subthemes were identified through analysis of results from all papers. These themes were recorded in a table indicating the papers related to each theme. Detail from each paper relating to the themes identified were collected and summarised for each theme.
Every bit in Thomas and Harden (2008), "going across" the content of the original studies was accomplished by using the descriptive themes identified in inductive assay of study findings. Barriers and facilitators inferred from the views participants expressed about reentry program experiences were captured in the descriptive themes and the implications of these views for reentry program development were then considered.
Results
Of the final viii papers selected the majority (6) were from the Us, 1 was from the U.k., and 1 was from New Zealand. In vi studies it was stated that interviews were semi-structured, in one interviews were structured though there was opportunity for individual plan participants to expand upon information gathered through the questionnaire by giving personal, narrative accounts, and i study used focus groups only. The number of interview or focus group participants ranged from x to 226. In total, the papers covered 405 interviews (including 24 in focus groups). Three papers focused on female participants only, iv included males only and one included both. A total of 121 (30%) female person and 284 (lxx%) male participants were included in the studies. Ages were provided as a range or as an average with a minimum 19 years and a maximum 56 years. One newspaper did not include information on age or ethnicity/race and three papers provided an age range but not ethnicity/race. In all studies participants were invited to exist function of the research and voluntarily attended the programme being evaluated. In three studies a advisedly matched command group of those who chose not to or were unable to participate in the program due to their imminent release was used (Miller et al. 2016; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016; Zortman et al. 2016). In one study, participants were initially randomly assigned by selecting every 4th name on a list of programme participants over a five twelvemonth period (Gilbert and Elley 2015).
The overarching decision from all papers reviewed was that participants in reentry programs do good from a combination of practical resources and empathic support spanning from pre-release to varying lengths of time in the post-release period. 3 major themes were identified across all papers: 1) structural context; 2) supportive relationships and 3) continuity of care including pre-release planning. The themes shown in Table two while distinct have some overlap and interconnection. The following give-and-take presents a metasynthesis of findings from the papers analysed following identification of mutual themes.
Word
Structural context
The importance of structural context was identified in all of the papers reviewed. The structural context, identified as the systems that govern an private'due south engagement with, or admission to services includes aspects of the social system impacting on the individual's health and wellbeing and capacity to avert re-arrest. In the studies reviewed, structural context translated into specific forms of practical support provided via the programme or relational and psychological factors associated with service provision.
Housing and employment were identified in all studies as the most disquisitional forms of practical back up or 'recovery capital' (Elison et al. 2016) in terms of desistance from problematic drug use and avoiding reincarceration (Gilbert and Elley 2015; Hunter et al. 2016). This was acknowledged in programs either through the direct provision of housing as in the Solid Showtime Program evaluated past Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016) or via the role of program instance workers who were assigned to assist participants in accessing housing or employment past linking them in to other services (Angell et al. 2014; Gilbert and Elley 2015). In 1 written report, housing was identified equally the principal social factor impacting on reentry success and precursor for all other forms of social majuscule that might promote participant wellness and avoidance of re-arrest such as education, employment and pro-social relationships (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016). In Zortman et al. (2016), progression through the reentry program was contingent on finding employment whilst obtainment of housing and increasing independence were seen every bit markers of reentry success. The Fresh Start program evaluated past Hunter et al. (2016) focused on building employment readiness, job seeking and retention in addition to coordination of housing and other community services. In Angell et al. (2014), case managers focused on profitable inmates with mental illness in edifice community connections with mental health services, housing/landlords and social networks in order to establish long term sources of back up.
A pregnant issue for individuals exiting the prison system is how to overcome the structural deficits of stigma and discrimination associated with incarceration. Lack of credit history, finances, references from landlords and employment presented major barriers to participants securing housing post-release (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016). A number of the studies highlighted the important role of caseworkers in assisting participants to overcome these structural barriers via advocacy and access to their knowledge and connections with services (i.east 'social capital') (Angell et al. 2014, p496; Gilbert and Elley 2015). Assisting plan participants with accessing housing and other resource was as well identified as an important way in which caseworkers bonded and established trust with participants (Angell et al. 2014; Hunter et al. 2016; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016), which in plough promoted personal agency and attitude modify in participants (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016). These factors are identified as relevant to both positive reentry experience and success in the short term simply also capacity to reintegrate into the community in the longer term through access to resources and sustainable social support (Elison et al. 2016; Gilbert and Elley 2015).
The combination of both resources and empathic support provided by caseworkers produced positive relational and psychological outcomes for participants in the brusk and long term including reconnection with family (Hunter et al., 2016), improved interpersonal relationships (Zortman et al. 2016) improved cocky-efficacy (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016) and formation of pro-social identity (Gilbert and Elley 2015). Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016) notation that stable housing was associated with increased personal bureau, optimism, goal-setting, success and responsibility. Participants experienced changes in attitude and thinking and were more probable than the comparison sample to describe future plans such equally specific career paths or more than definite educational or vocational plans and to demonstrate attitudinal changes (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016, p.390). The Pathway program evaluated past Gilbert and Elley (2015) included community volunteering to reintegrate participants in their local communities and link them to pro-social activities. Participants reported that this experience promoted positive psychological changes that were protective against backsliding including development of a pro-social identity through the overcoming of negative stereotypes, contribution to the community, responsibility and new pro-social relationships.
In all studies, participants reported the benefit of case managers working to understand and see their private needs. This was attributed to the activity taken by case managers but also the disposition and commitment of case managers to provide clients with help and support. Instance managers' efforts to tailor back up to their individual clients was highly valued by participants and cardinal to plan efficacy in terms of addressing the causes of ongoing offending (Gilbert and Elley 2015, p twenty). Participants reported that programme responsiveness to individualised needs and goals resulted in connectedness to relevant resources and improved their chances of reentry success (Hunter et al., 2016). The characteristics of supportive relationships reported by program participants are outlined in detail in the next section.
Supportive relationships
The interpersonal skills of programme example managers were identified as central to program efficacy. Characteristics such equally empathy, honesty, non-judgmentalism, perseverance, reliability, intendance and commitment were repeatedly cited past participants as factors that contributed to their success in the plan and reentry feel. Participants spoke of case managers as highly supportive (Gilbert and Elley 2015, p25-26) and going 'above and beyond' for them (Angell et al. 2014, p494). In Johnson et al. (2015) counsellors were recognised equally a dependable back up person during the reentry period when participants were feeling anxious, solitary or stressed (p344).
These characteristics engendered item qualities in the client human relationship. Participants described relationships with case managers built on trust, openness, respectful advice, solidarity and support. Trust was especially important for participants with serious mental illness because of participants' past interactions with authorities, which were oftentimes coercive in nature (Angell et al. 2014, p493). In addition, example managers were valued for existence knowledgeable, non-administrative, hopeful, persistent and bachelor in a crisis. Participants reported how benign it was for them to accept someone who didn't give upwards on them (Gilbert and Elley 2015), someone who was in that location when they needed them (Johnson et al. 2015) and someone who had the knowledge and persistence to advocate on their behalf and help them in overcoming structural barriers to reintegration (Angell et al. 2014; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016).
Where bonding was established with the case manager, participants were motivated to succeed in the program and described the human relationship equally fostering their responsibleness and independence (Gilbert and Elley 2015; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016; Zortman et al. 2016). Participants had a vested interest in the plan because of the brotherhood and ongoing relationship they had with programme staff (Johnson et al. 2015). Effective engagement with clients through positive communication and applied assistance promoted investment in the shared tasks of treatment and enabled staff to provide customer-centred care (Angell et al. 2014). In some instances the support of caseworkers was direct credited for keeping the participant out of prison (Gilbert and Elley 2015, p23).
The theoretical and methodological underpinnings of programs are also relevant, as these influenced the nature of the client human relationship and program focus. For example, in Angell et al. 2014, acknowledgement that prison inmates with serious mental illness are most likely to prioritise reconnection with informal networks on release from prison meant that instance managers coordinated their efforts with clients' primary network members (Angell et al. 2014, p 495). Similarly, clients in the Fresh Start Prisoner Reentry Program noted that case managing director contact with family members helped to solidify reentry plans (Hunter et al. 2016, p1306). The online model of transitional care evaluated by Elison et al. (2016) focused on developing the recovery upper-case letter of inmates by edifice private coping skills. Participants in this program reported benefit from developing these skills only also significant anxiety about desistance from problematic drug utilize and crime in the post-release menstruation without therapeutic and practical support.
The programs evaluated by Gilbert and Elley (2015) and Hunter et al. (2016) were both underpinned by the 'Proficient Lives Model', which focuses on meeting individual needs and promoting long term reintegration via a strengths-based arroyo. This model is built on the premise that 'risk can be managed by promoting knowledge, strengths, skills and access to internal and external resources' (Hunter et al. 2016, p1301). In both these studies clients reported the benefit of ongoing support from supportive case managers who worked with them to meet their individual needs and goals. This included admission to resources and connection to social networks and customs activities that were protective confronting re-offending.
The importance of pro-social relationships was noted in several studies. Gilbert and Elley (2015) highlight the do good of peer and mentor relationships in terms of building pro-social identity and support networks. Zortman et al. (2016) identify prosocial back up networks every bit reinforcing pro-social behaviour and an essential element in the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders with a history of problematic drug use. Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016) note the motivational and therapeutic benefits of sharing experiences with peers facing like challenges (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016, p389). In recognition that women needed assistance to initiate contact with positive sober people in the community, the Sober Network Interpersonal Psychotherapy (IPT) program included interventions to build advice skills and connect participants with a sober back up network (Johnson et al. 2015, p336).
The papers evaluating female programs (Johnson et al. 2015 and Miller et al. 2016) identified particular social factors impacting on program efficacy. These factors were relational. Miller et al. (2016) found that women'south pathways to problematic drug apply and offense are strongly associated with romantic partner relationships. Women also reported pathways to habit and offending resulting from childhood trauma. These factors are relevant to program efficacy because even when women were engaged in the program and held positive views about rehabilitation, women experienced pregnant self doubt most their capacity to stay sober during the mail service-release period (p132). Women also reported significant dissatisfaction with perceived gender inequities related to treatment and wellness care in prison house (p133). Significantly, these findings were not revealed by the quantitative component of the program evaluation, highlighting the importance of qualitative program review. Miller et al. (2016) conclude that reentry programs demand to exist developed including clearly definable female-specific components such as trauma-informed care and based on further understanding well-nigh choices related to social networks and relationships (p134).
Johnson et al. (2015) similarly argue that an interpersonal arroyo to Substance Utilize Disorders (SUD) and Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) is imperative to coming together the needs of incarcerated women considering interpersonal difficulties non but affect MDD merely are also predictors of SUD relapse and recidivism in women (p331). This program was a relationship-based intervention including ongoing therapeutic support from a prison counsellor and assistance with edifice a supportive peer network. Participants in the study reported that admission to a structured programme postal service-release was benign because of their lack of prosocial relationships with people who are sober (p344). The therapeutic relationship was especially important to staying sober considering women highly valued the continuity of intendance from a familiar and trusted professional. Counsellors could effectively engage women in prison and post-release, even in instances of relapse (p345).
Continuity of care from the same worker made a significant difference to the women in the Johnson et al. (2015) study, however, continuity of care was a primary theme identified beyond all papers. The post-obit section will outline this in further detail.
Continuity of care
Continuity of care is essential to building 'recovery uppercase' that extends beyond short term reentry to long term reintegration (Elison et al. 2016). As outlined higher up, 'recovery capital' took various forms in the studies reviewed including resources such equally housing and employment; pro-social relationships; pro-social identity; coping skills; and community engagement. Continuity of care provided by professional staff allowed for attention to individual needs and the formation and maintenance of a therapeutic relationship (Hunter et al. 2016; Zortman et al. 2016). In Hunter et al. 2016, programme services were fifty-fifty added over time in response to participants' stated risks, needs, strengths and goals (p1308). Participants identified this responsiveness equally a key strength of the program. In Zortman et al. (2016) participants cited the continuity of care from instance managers every bit an of import component in their progression through the programme, sustained success and relapse prevention. Through continuous back up, participants were able to develop insight into their problems and build skills and resources to prevent substance employ relapse (Zortman et al. 2016). Johnson et al. (2015) also report a pregnant decrease in depressive symptoms and substance utilize amongst program participants from baseline to 3 months post-release, attributed to the continuous support provided by counsellors.
Other participants reported that through ongoing case manager support and resources they were able to change their lives and experienced increased independence and responsibility over time as a event of these supports (Gilbert and Elley 2015). In some studies this was enhanced past supportive peer and family relationships (Angell et al. 2014; Gilbert and Elley 2015; Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016; Zortman et al. 2016). Indeed, due to the express resources in some studies, there was a focus on reconnecting participants with family unit or new social supports in lodge to build sustainable recovery capital (Angell et al. 2014).
Pre-release back up was identified every bit critical to success in the post-release period in terms of initial identification of needs and goals and building rapport with example managers (Angell et al. 2014; Hunter et al. 2016; Miller 2014). Pre-release planning was administered in differing means beyond the programs. Elison et al. (2016) found potential for an online plan to support the process of recovery from substance use in prison house and provide continuity of care in the reentry process. Elison et al. (2016) identify graded transition from prison to customs with enhanced opportunities for intervention and rehabilitation as possible contributors to 'increased effectiveness and sustained therapeutic benefits' of the program (p.177). Another program, Sober Network Interpersonal Psychotherapy, 'provides contact with the same prison-based counsellor from within prison through the start 3 months after release to stabilize women until they can get established with community treatment providers' (Johnson et al. 2015, p332). Johnson et al. (2015) give accounts of pre-release programme processes such as establishing positive social connections by reaching out to sober people while nevertheless incarcerated.
The Solid Kickoff housing provision and social back up program included pre-release planning which enabled physical separation from prior residence and opportunity for change, case management and coordination of services co-ordinate to private demand (Pleggenkuhle et al. 2016, p.383). The Fresh Start programme evaluated by Hunter et al. (2016) included case managers working with their clients to complete a 'ReEntry Plan' reflecting the clients' strengths, goals, and identified needs so that each participant had a treatment plan before exiting the correctional facility. Example managers in the Fresh Starting time programme 'served as a natural bridge for individuals transitioning from prison to … community' and sought to (a) enhance motivation and engagement; (b) establish clear collaboration betwixt the criminal justice system, handling providers, and community supports; (c) establish continuity of care; and (d) provide pre- and post-release supports (p.1303).
Program staff in the study of Miller et al. (2016) also assisted programme participants through individualized 'Reentry Accountability Plans' including coordination of mental health, medical, and drug handling and linking to customs resources prior to release' (p.131). In the Pathway Program, individual needs are assessed in a 2-month 'phasing in' pre-release procedure reported by participants every bit important to preparing for release and decreasing the stressors associated with reentry (Gilbert and Elley 2015, p.24). Participants reported finding value in unlike service elements, reflecting the individualised nature of the client plans (Gilbert and Elley 2015).
Programme participants recognise the demand for ongoing support and in some instances, the opportunity for continuity of care was the primary motivator for program participation (Hunter et al. 2016; Johnson et al. 2015). Participant motivation is an important cistron in program efficacy, as Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016) demonstrate that the facilitation of positive and practical attitudes tin be an important mechanism of desistance (p393). Overall, participants beyond all studies reported that continuity of care offered the tools to become independent. This was not only near accessing housing and other structural resources but the psychological shifts that come through ongoing support and building of recovery capital.
Limitations of the studies
At that place are common limitations beyond all of the studies reviewed. These are typical of qualitative research and include: i) Small sample sizes; ii) Unable to institute causality because the focus was on eliciting participant experiences; and 3) Non-generalizability of findings. Not-generalizability of findings is relevant in that most of the studies are from the U.s.a. and results may not translate elsewhere due to differences in prison house systems just as well applies at the plan level, i.e. the experiences of one ready of participants cannot be generalised to other potential programme users.
Selection bias is as well a limitation across many of the studies. For case, Pleggenkuhle et al. (2016) note that participants in their study may have been more motivated than other inmates. Hunter et al. (2016) recognise that their report lacked a comparison group and Miller et al. (2016) identify that their control group was not randomized. There is a need for more longitudinal data (Elison et al. 2016; Gilbert and Elley 2015; Hunter et al., 2016) and more than information on female reentry feel (Angell et al. 2014). Gender issues related to plan content were raised in only two of the papers reviewed (Johnson et al. 2015 and Miller et al. 2016). Moreover, the findings of Johnson et al.'s (2015) study are limited, every bit they were unable to establish causality because participants were as well engaged with mental health and substance apply disorder treatment services. Zortman et al. (2016) identify that there are limitations to the validity of their data because participant responses were self-reported and there was a lack of standardization across their enquiry sites.
Description of method of assay varied between papers and in one instance was absent (Gilbert and Elley 2015). It was evident still that in all cases a variation of thematic assay was used, which is arguably the most common method of initial analysis in qualitative research (Braun and Clarke 2006). Some papers then applied a theoretical approach to the give-and-take of the analysis such equally an interpretative phenomenology (Elison et al. 2016) or a strengths based approach (Hunter et al. 2016). Greater uniformity in qualitative evaluation methods is desirable in bringing together results from similar studies.
Limitations of the review
At that place is limited qualitative program evaluation research available and standardization of qualitative evaluation and inclusion is a work in progress. There were some differences in programs that take not been examined in item in our analysis though we did detect similar elements in the program evaluations included. Data analysis methods applied in the qualitative evaluations reviewed were forms of thematic or grounded theory analysis. Our systematic review analysis has treated all methods similarly and focused on reported results. More than consistency is needed in qualitative methods used in evaluation studies to enable comparisons and review of the literature.
Decision
This is the kickoff systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs. Findings propose that access to social back up, housing and employment; the interpersonal skills of example workers; personalized approaches to case management; and continuity of care throughout the pre-release and post-release period are the key social and structural factors in program success. These factors impact on other measures of plan efficacy such every bit reduced substance utilize and protecting confronting re-incarceration. The role of caseworkers as an advocate and advisor for program participants plays an of import role in program success, as respectful communication combined with practical support was identified as beneficial in all papers. For women, the relational aspects of caseworker support such as trust and rapport are critical to programme participation and relapse prevention. Continuity of individualised care goes some style to addressing the risk factors associated with reentry past profitable clients in establishing 'recovery capital letter'. This includes accessing and maintaining housing and employment and providing an ongoing therapeutic human relationship and connexion to pro-social relationships. Where sustainable recovery is achieved, this can be transformative, resulting in reintegration into the community, long term desistance from substance apply and offense and improved psychological health (Gilbert and Elley 2015).
Implications for public policy
The review indicates that comprehensive reentry programs that address the full range of social and structural issues via individualised support from case managers can be effective. Participants report benefit from reentry programs where a combination of practical resources and empathic support is provided spanning from the pre-release to the mail service-release period. The need for integrated, rather than crisis-driven support, and gender specific health and social support services to support reentry is also indicated.
References
-
Angell, B, Matthews, E, Barrenger, S, Watson, AC, Draine, J. (2014). Appointment processes in model programs for community reentry from prison for people with serious mental affliction. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(5), 490–500.
-
Binswanger, IA, Nowels, C, Corsi, KF, Glanz, J, Long, J, Booth, RE, Steiner, JF. (2012). Render to drug utilise and overdose later on release from prison: a qualitative written report of gamble and protective factors. Addiction Scientific discipline & Clinical Practice, 7, 3.
-
Bare, WA, Draine, J, Barrenger, S, Hadley, T, Evans Jr, A. (2014). Examining the touch of mental illness and substance utilise on time till re-incarceration in a county jail. Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 41(iii), 294–301.
-
Bradshaw, R, Pordes, B, Trippier, H, Kosky, Northward, Pilling, S, et al. (2017). The health of prisoners: summary of Prissy guideance. BMJ, 356, j1378 March 27.
-
Braun, 5, & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic assay in psychology. Qualitative Inquiry in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
-
Brinkley-Rubinstein, L. (2013). Incarceration as a catalyst for worsening health. Health and Justice, 1, iii.
-
Bukten, A, Riksheim Stavseth, M, Skurtveit, S, Tverdal, A, Strang, J, Clausen, T. (2017). High gamble of overdose decease post-obit release from prison: variations in mortality during a 15-year observation flow. Addiction, 112(8), 1432–1439.
-
Charmaz, Yard (2006). Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
-
CRD. (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. Retrieved from York: https://world wide web.york.air-conditioning.great britain/media/crd/Systematic_Reviews.pdf
-
Cutcher, Z, Degenhardt, L, Alati, R, Kinner, S. (2014). Poor health and social outcomes for ex-prisoners with a history of mental disorder: a longitudinal study. Australian and New Zealand Periodical of Public Health, 38, 424.
-
de Viggiani, Due north. (2007). Unhealthy prisons: exploring structural determinants of prison health. Sociology of Health and Disease, 29(one), 115–135.
-
Elison, Southward, Weston, South, Davies, G, Dugdale, Southward, Ward, J. (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.
-
Fazel, Due south, & Baillargeon, J. (2011). The wellness of prisoners. The Lancet, 377(9769), 956–965.
-
Fazel, Southward, Bains, P, Doll, H. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: a systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181–191.
-
Fazel, S, Yoon, IA, Hayes, AJ. (2017). Substance use disorders in prisoners: an updated systematic review and meta-regression analysis in recently incarcerated men and women. Addiction. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.13877 [Epub ahead of print].
-
Finfgeld, DL. (2003). Metasynthesis: the state of the Art—And so Far. Qualitative Wellness Research, 13(seven), 893–904.
-
Fu, JJ, Herme, M, Wickersham, JA, Zelenev, A, Althoff, A, Zaller, ND, Bazazi, AR, Avery, AK, Porterfield, J, Hashemite kingdom of jordan, AO, Simon-Levine, D, Lyman, M, Altice, FL. (2013). Understanding the revolving door: individual and structural-level predictors of recidivism amongst individuals with HIV leaving jail. AIDS and Behaviour, 17(supp2), S145–S155.
-
Gilbert, J, & Elley, B. (2015). Reducing backsliding: an evaluation of the pathway total reintegration programme. New Zealand Sociology, 30(four), 15–37.
-
Hayhurst, K, Leitner, Thou, Davies, L, Flentje, R, Millar, T, Jones, A, King, C, Donmall, 1000, Farrell, Thou, Fazel, S, Harris, R, Hickman, M, Lennox, C, Mayet, S, Senior, J, Shaw, J. (2015). The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diversion and aftercare programmes for offenders using form A drugs: a systematic review and economical evaluation. Health Applied science Assessment, xix(vi), 1–168.
-
Hunter, BA, Lanza, As, Lawlor, Thousand, Dyson, W, Gordon, DM. (2016). A strengths-based approach to prisoner reentry: the fresh outset prisoner reentry program. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 60(11). https://doi.org/x.1177/0306624X15576501.
-
Johnson, JE, Williams, C, Zlotnick, C. (2015). Development and feasibility of a cell phone–based transitional intervention for women prisoners with comorbid substance utilize and depression. The Prison Journal, 95(3), 330–352.
-
Kinner, S, Preen, D, Kariminia, A, Butler, T, Andrews, J, Stoove, M, Constabulary, K. (2011). Counting the price: Estimating the number of deaths among recently released prisoners in Australia. Medical Periodical of Australia, 195(2), 64–68.
-
Kinner, SA. (2006). Continuity of health impairment and substance misuse among adult prisoners in Queensland, Australia. International Journal of Prisoner Health, ii(ii), 101–113.
-
Kinner, SA, & Wang, EA. (2014). The example for improving the wellness of ex-prisoners. American Journal of Public Health, 104(eight), 1352–1355.
-
Kouyoumdjian, FG, McIsaac, KE, Liauw, J, Green, S, Karachiwalla, F, Siu, W, … Hwang, SW. (2015). A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of interventions to amend the wellness of persons during imprisonment and in the yr afterwards release. American Journal of Public Wellness, 105(iv), e13–e33.
-
Lattimore, PK, & Visher, CA. (2013). The impact of prison reentry services on brusque-term outcomes: show from a multisite evaluation. Evaluation Review, 37(3-4), 274–313.
-
Link, NW, & Hamilton, L. (2017). The reciprocal lagged effects of substance utilise and recidivism in a prisoner reentry context. Health & Justice, 5, viii.
-
McMillan, GP, Lapham, S, Lackey, 1000. (2008). The effect of a jail methadone maintenance therapy (MMT) programme on inmate recidivism. Habit, 103(12), 2017–2023.
-
Miller, HV, Miller, JM, Barnes, JC. (2016). Reentry programming for opioid and opiate involved female offenders: Findings from a mixed methods evaluation. Journal of Criminal Justice, 46, 129.
-
Miller, HV, Tillyer, R, Miller, JM. (2012). Recognizing the need for prisoner input in correctional research: Observations from an in-prison driving while intoxicated reduction program evaluation. Prison Periodical, 92(2), 274–289.
-
Miller, JM. (2014). Identifying collateral effects of offender reentry programming through evaluative fieldwork. American Periodical of Criminal Justice : AJCJ, 39(1), 41–58.
-
Neale, J, Allen, D, Coombes, L. (2005). Qualitative research methods within the addictions. Habit, 100(eleven), 1584–1593.
-
Pleggenkuhle, B, Huebner, BM, Kras, KR. (2016). Solid start: supportive housing, social support, and reentry transitions. Periodical of Crime and Justice, 39(3), 380–397.
-
Stone, AM, & Seaman, AT (2014). Meta-synthesis: The utility of synthesizing qualitative wellness communication research. In BB Whaley (Ed.), Research methods in health communication: principles and application, (pp. 254–275). New York: Taylor and Francis.
-
Thomas, J, & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Inquiry Methodology, 8(45), 1–10.
-
Walmsley, R (2015). World population prison house list, (11th ed., ) World Prison house Brief, London: Institute for Criminal Policy Research, Birkbeck, University of London.
-
Walsh, D, & Downe, Southward. (2006). Appraising the quality of qualitative enquiry. Midwifery, 22(2), 108–119.
-
Zortman, JS, Powers, T, Hiester, M, Klunk, FR, Antonio, ME. (2016). Evaluating reentry programming in Pennsylvania's Board of Probation & Parole: an assessment of offenders' perceptions and recidivism outcomes. Periodical of Offender Rehabilitation, 55(6), 419–442.
Acknowledgements
Non applicable
Funding
The research was funded with a Health Futures Development Grant from the University of Engineering science Sydney.
Availability of information and materials
The dataset(s) supporting the conclusions of this article is (are) included or referenced inside the article.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
SK, ES and SWard conceived and supervised the review. SR undertook searches. ES, SK, SR reviewed search results. ES, SK, SR and SWayland conducted concluding review analyses. SR, SK, ES led the writing. SWard and SWayland contributed to revision of manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Approval to comport the study was provided by the JH&FMHS Human Research Ethics Committee (JH File Number: G835/12) and UTS Man Inquiry Ethics Committee (ETH15-0080).
Consent for publication
All authors of the manuscript have read and agree to its content and are accountable for all aspects of the accurateness and integrity of the manuscript in accordance with ICMJE criteria.
All authors agree that the article is original, has non already been published in a journal, and is not currently under consideration by another periodical.
All authors agree to the terms of the SpringerOpen Copyright and License Agreement, and, where applicable, Open Data policy.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they accept no competing interests.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Admission This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/four.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you lot give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kendall, S., Redshaw, Due south., Ward, Due south. et al. Systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs addressing problematic drug use and mental health disorders amongst people transitioning from prison house to communities. Health Justice vi, 4 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0063-8
-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI : https://doi.org/x.1186/s40352-018-0063-8
Keywords
- Prisoner reentry program
- Qualitative evaluation
- Health and welfare
- Pre and post release planning
- Support relationships
- Structural factors
Source: https://healthandjusticejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40352-018-0063-8
0 Response to "How to Assess Family Strength and Risk on Prisoner Reentry"
Post a Comment