Integrating Lived-Experience into Reentry Design…

Over the past several decades, the US federal government has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in programs designed to successfully support reintegrating individuals leaving correctional confinement, with the goal of reducing their recidivism, improving reentry, and enhancing public safety.

Since 2009, approximately 800 grants totaling over $400 million dollars have been awarded under the Second Chance Act (SCA) alone, and research agencies both in and outside the Department of Justice have heavily funded national evaluations to assess these impacts. What has been learned from this colossal investment? While ample insights have been generated, far too often key findings lack the essential details and context needed to foster advancement within the field.

In the reentry research space, the focus has been almost entirely on rigor and intellectual meticulousness, elevating randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with little regard to implementation fidelity and context. Indeed, much of the research generated to date has failed to deliver what is inherently necessary: a thorough understanding of the nuances and limitations of program content and delivery that can inform better application of reentry programs, more accurate documentation of their impact, and a detailed understanding of program implementation failures that can improve practice and ultimately enhance public safety.

I feel strongly that reentry program evaluators must incorporate the lived-experiences, perceptions, and insights of three distinct populations into their study designs: program participants, developers, and implementers. Each stakeholder group brings a unique perspective that can help evaluators measure not just whether a program is working but how well it is working, for whom it is working, and how it can be improved and sustained. Each may also offer a deeper understanding into how best to measure reentry success beyond the routine metric of recidivism reduction alone.