The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in PDF Format.

The text below is a portion of the complete document.

Abstract

This study evaluates the impact of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) on crime in Baltimore between 2001 and 2005. It compares 229 REP clients to a contemporaneous cohort of 370 prisoners released to non-REP neighborhoods in Baltimore City. The quasi-experimental design tests whether REP reduced the prevalence and incidence of criminal justice contact, and whether the program was cost-beneficial. REP clients committed fewer new crimes, and that REP was cost-beneficial, returning $3 in benefits per dollar in new costs. The total net benefit to the citizens of Baltimore is $7.2 million, or $21,500 per REP participant.

Overview

This study evaluates the impact of the Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative (REP) on crime using a cohort of prisoners released from the Maryland Transition Center in Baltimore, Maryland, between March 2001 and January 2005. We use retrospective administrative data to test the hypotheses that participation in REP reduced re-arrest and re-conviction, and increased time to re-arrest, and also to test whether changes in those outcomes were cost-beneficial. We compare 229 REP clients to a contemporaneous cohort of 370 prisoners released from the Maryland Transition Center to neighborhoods in Baltimore City that were not in the REP catchment area. The quasi-experimental design tests whether REP reduced the prevalence and incidence of criminal justice contact during their post-release period, which averaged 38 months.

We find that REP was successful in reducing criminal offending. Fewer REP clients (72% compared to 77.6%) committed at least one new crime in the study period, which averaged 38 months. Overall REP participants committed 68 fewer crimes during the study period than ex-prisoners in the comparison group. There were no significant differences in time to re-arrest, likelihood of a new conviction, number of new convictions, or time to a new conviction.

We find that the REP program was cost-beneficial, returning about $3 in benefits for every dollar in new costs. The total net benefit, total benefits minus total costs, to the citizens of Baltimore from the REP program is about $7.2 million, or about $21,500 per REP participant. While there was a small and non-significant benefit to public agencies from REP, most of the program's benefit accrued to the citizens of Baltimore, whose risk of victimization was reduced. Much of the difference in cost-effectiveness is due to a difference in the incidence of serious crimes, as we observed 11 attempted murder charges and two murder charges among the comparison group and no murder or attempted murder charges within the treatment group.

Some caution is warranted in interpreting these results. Using conventional standards for statistical significance only the number of new re-arrests was statistically significant in the final analysis. However, the finding that REP reduced the incidence and prevalence of new arrest and that REP produced a marginal benefit was significant at p<0.15. The lack of statistically significant results may well be due to the relatively small sample size that limited our ability to detect real effects. The consistency of the results across all model specifications supports this hypothesis.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in PDF Format.

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.