From 2001 to 2006, the Urban Institute's longitudinal, multistate study Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry explored the pathways of prisoner reintegration. The study examined the factors contributing to successful (or unsuccessful) reentry, to understand the reentry experiences of returning prisoners, their families, and their communities.

Returning Home documented the challenges of prisoner reentry along five dimensions: the individual, family, peer, community, and state. The study involved

• interviews with returning prisoners before and after release from state correctional facilities,

• interviews with family members of those returning prisoners,

• focus groups with residents of the neighborhoods to which most prisoners returned, and

• interviews with reentry policymakers and practitioners.

State laws and policies regarding reentry were also reviewed to provide policy context.

Returning Home began with a pilot study in Baltimore, Maryland (2001–03), followed by studies in Chicago, Illinois (2002–04), Cleveland, Ohio (2004–05), and Houston, Texas (2004–06).

Key Findings

The Returning Home studies in Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas yielded information regarding the experiences of returning prisoners, their families, and their communities. Major findings from the Returning Home study include the following:

• Attitudes. Returning prisoners have extensive criminal and substance-use histories, but are optimistic about what life will be like after release; they show high levels of self-esteem and expect that the reintegration process will be relatively easy (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher, Baer, and Naser 2006; Visher et al. 2004; Visher, La Vigne, and Farrell 2003).

• Prison programs. Most prisoners participate in some type of in-prison programming, but roughly a third express interest in a program unavailable to them (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).
  
  Prisoners who participate in job training and educational programs are less likely to return to prison after release (La Vigne, Brooks, and Shollenberger 2007).
  
  Additionally, former prisoners who participate in an employment program or substance abuse treatment are better able to avoid reincarceration the within a year of release (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009).

• Substance use. Despite extensive substance-use histories, few returning prisoners participate in substance-abuse treatment during incarceration (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2005; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher, Baer, and Naser 2006; Visher and Courtney 2006).
  
  Those who participate in substance-abuse treatment are less likely to use drugs after release (Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher et al. 2004).
  
  Besides drug treatment, other inhibitors of substance use during the first year postrelease include being on parole supervision and receiving tangible support from one's family (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; Yahner et al. 2008).
  
  About a quarter of former prisoners relapse to drugs or alcohol within a year postrelease (Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).

• Health. Although returning prisoners have positive views of their health, some report having chronic or infectious diseases, depression, or other mental illnesses (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2005; La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher et al. 2004).

• Employment. Many people returning from prison have significant educational and employment deficits: roughly half lack a high school degree or equivalent, more than half have been previously fired from a job, and many depended on illegal income before incarceration (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2005; Visher, Baer, and Naser 2006; Visher, La Vigne, and Castro 2003; Visher, La Vigne, and Farrell 2003).
  
  After release, former prisoners have limited success finding employment; about half find work the first year postrelease (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).
  
  Most former prisoners owe debt at release, which few manage to pay during the year following their release (Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).
  
  Former prisoners who held an in-prison job, participated in job training while incarcerated, earned a GED during prison, or participated in an employment program soon after release work a greater percentage of time the first year postrelease than those who did not (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; Visher et al. 2008).
  
  Other factors that increase the likelihood of employment include having worked before prison, lining up a job before release, and using a former employer to find a job after release (Visher et al. 2008; La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009).

• Family. Family members are the greatest anticipated source of financial resources, housing, and emotional support before prisoners are released (La Vigne and Kachnowski 2005; Visher and Courtney 2006), and families provide the greatest tangible and emotional support after release (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher et al. 2004).
  
  Most former prisoners report being very close to family and highly rate the quality of intimate-partner relationships, despite family members tending to have their own histories of criminal involvement and substance use (Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).
  
  Former prisoners who are married or have marriage-like relationships have lower odds of recidivism, drug use, or alcohol use than those in more casual relationships (Visher et al. 2009).
  
  Likewise, former prisoners who are married are more likely to find employment after release, and those with children to whom they are closely attached enjoy better employment and substance-use outcomes (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; Visher et al. 2008).

• Communities. Significant portions of returning prisoners are clustered in a handful of neighborhoods with high levels of social and economic disadvantage (La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher and Courtney 2007; Visher et al. 2004; Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010). Still, roughly half of released prisoners return to different neighborhoods than where they lived before incarceration—either to avoid trouble or because their families have moved (La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004; Visher and Courtney 2007).

• Recidivism. Although few former prisoners report engaging in crime after release, nearly a quarter say they are rearrested the first year postrelease (Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010).
  
  Official records show that nearly a quarter of former prisoners are reincarcerated in state correctional facilities within the first year of release (Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010), though reincarceration rates vary by state, ranging from approximately 15 percent in Ohio and Texas (La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009; Visher and Courtney 2007) to nearly one in three in Illinois (La Vigne, Visher, and Castro 2004).
  
  Among prisoners returned to custody, almost 75 percent return because of a supervision violation (Visher, Yahner, and La Vigne 2010). Former prisoners who worked before prison and those who find employment soon after release are less likely to be reincarcerated within a year of release (Visher et al. 2008; La Vigne, Shollenberger, and Debus 2009).

• Postrelease supervision. Being released to parole supervision helps former prisoners find employment and reduces their likelihood of substance use after release (Yahner et al. 2008). However, parole supervision has almost no impact on self-reported crime or rearrest after release and increases the likelihood of reincarceration because of technical violations (Yahner et al. 2008).

Methodology

The Returning Home study targeted prisoners serving at least one year in state correctional facilities who were returning to the communities of interest. The goals in each site were to collect information on people's life circumstances immediately before, during, and up to one year after their release.

Potential respondents were identified through compulsory prerelease programs where prisoners were already convened (Illinois and Texas) or from lists of individuals who were within 60 days of release (Maryland and Ohio). Members of the research team provided an overview of the study and details of informed consent to assembled groups of potential respondents. Study samples were recruited in 2002 in Maryland, in 2002 and 2003 in Illinois, and in 2004 and 2005 in Ohio and Texas.

Quantitative information collected on returning prisoners in each site included data from self-administered prerelease questionnaires; up to three in-person post-release interviews; family questionnaires in Illinois, Maryland, and Texas; and official recidivism records from state correctional agencies. In addition, qualitative information was collected from focus groups and stakeholder interviews in each of the targeted communities.