Addressing Non-uniformity in Reentry Programs\u2019 Results<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\nBefore now, there\u2019s been widespread ignorance on why reintegration programs\u2019 outcome are non-uniform. We hardly ever cared to find out why Tom and Jerry had entirely different outcomes after release.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In 2007, the Second Chance Act \u2013 a government provision for services and programs aimed at reducing recidivism \u2013 was initiated. The inception of this federal grant increased public interest in the secrets of a successful reentry program.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Besides the effect of crime on societal order, keeping inmates is a huge financial burden to the government – Annual cost estimated at about $31,000 per inmate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
To reduce this burden, states are making studies on factors behind the low success rate of anti-recidivism programs. They, as well, seek ways to increase the number.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
From experience, we found four elements that, if implemented, could assist state agencies and other partner organizations make best use of resources and create more goal-oriented reentry programs for a more desired outcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In other words, we sought to find out how most of the prison inmates can achieve Jerry\u2019s result.<\/p>\n\n\n