Returning Home Policy Brief

One Year Out

URBAN INSTITUTE

Experiences of Prisoners
Returning to Cleveland

Justice Policy Center
2100 M Street NW
Washington, DC 20037
http://justice.urban.org

By Christy A. Visher and
Shannon M. E. Courtney
April 2007

Returning Home: Understanding the
Challenges of Prisoner Reentry is a
longitudinal study of prisoner reentry in
Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. The
study explores prisoner reentry across
multiple domains: the individual, family,
and peer group experience, as
documented through interviews with
prisoners before and after release from
prison; the community experience, as
documented through interviews with key
community stakeholders and focus groups
with residents; and the broader policy
environment at the state level.

With more than 650,000 prisoners released nationwide each
year, the reintegration of men and women leaving prison is
challenging policymakers and practitioners at the federal, state, and
local levels. Often cited as being of greatest concern is the high rate
of recidivism among former prisoners—half of whom return to
prison within three years—yet, recidivism is only one outcome in
the process of leaving prison and returning home. To examine this
entire process, in 2001, the Urban Institute launched a four-state,
longitudinal study entitled Returning Home: Understanding the
Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The study explores the
experiences of released men and women returning to communities
in Maryland, Illinois, Ohio, and Texas, and the factors influencing
their success and failure. (See the sidebar “Returning Home Study
Methodology” for more details about the data collection and
analysis.)

This research brief presents the final results from the Returning
Home study in Ohio, based on the third and final follow-up
interviews conducted with nearly 300 former prisoners at least 12
months after release who were living in Cleveland and the
surrounding area. (See sidebar “Profile of Study Participants” for a
description of the men interviewed.) We describe the lives of the
men during their first year out, including their ability to find stable
housing and reunite with family after release, and identify factors
associated with getting a job, and avoiding substance use and
recidivism. We also discuss the policy implications of our findings
and offer specific recommendations for helping released prisoners
become healthy and productive members of the communities to
The Urban Institute is a nonprofit nonpartisan policy which they return.
In Ohio, the George Gund Foundation,
Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati,
Cleveland Foundation, Smith Richardson
Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation,
Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services,
and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction provided support for the
project. Research Support Services, based
in Chicago, conducted the original data
collection under the expert direction of Dr.
Alisú Schoua-Glusberg.

research and educational organization established to
examine the social, economic, and governance
problems facing the nation. It provides information
and analysis to public and private decision makers
to help them address these challenges and strives to
raise citizen understanding of the issues and
tradeoffs in policy making. Any opinions expressed
are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Urban Institute, its board, or
sponsors.

This research brief is intended to serve as a foundation for policy
discussions about how released prisoners can successfully
reintegrate into their communities, whether in Cleveland or in
similar cities around the country. (See the sidebar “Ohio Returning
Home: Prior Reports” for previous reports.)

1

Key Findings
• Housing. One year out, many men were living with
family, yet in somewhat unstable housing situations
and less-than-desirable neighborhoods. A third were
living with a spouse or intimate partner and over a
third with a parent or sibling. Almost half considered
their living arrangements temporary, with nearly a
third having moved several times during the year.
About half said that drug dealing was a major
problem in their neighborhood, and almost a quarter
were living with former prisoners, illicit drug users,
or serious alcohol users.
• Employment. At one year, only 37 percent had a fulltime job and another 11 percent were working parttime. Employed men had close partner relationships
and helpful families, and were in good mental and
physical health. Also, men who had held a job during
their incarceration and those who had worked a
greater number of months after release were more
likely to be working one year out.
• Family and Friends. After release, most men reported
high-quality relationships with their families and
intimate partners. When asked to name the most
important thing keeping them out of prison, one in
four men identified family support, and another 16
percent said avoiding certain people and situations.
Of those who had returned to prison, 21 percent said
failing to avoid certain people and situations was the
reason behind their reincarceration.
• Programs and Services: Participation in certain
programs and services improved prisoners’ chances
for reentry success. About two-thirds of men
participated in programs and services after release.
Participation in substance abuse treatment
immediately after release reduced the likelihood of
frequent drug use one year out. Additionally, men

who earned their GED while in prison were more
likely to be employed a year after release.
• Health. Over half of the men reported suffering from
a chronic physical health condition after release, 29
percent showed symptoms of depression, and 20
percent showed signs of post-traumatic stress
disorder. The number of men reporting each condition
increased during the first year out.
• Substance Use. Drugs and alcohol were a problem for
many men during the first year after release. Over
one-third reported drug use or alcohol intoxication in
the 30 days prior to the one-year interview, and about
half of these men reported more than weekly use.
About a quarter of those who returned to prison said
that their drug use was the reason. Men most likely to
be using drugs frequently after release had drug-using
or criminal family members, used drugs early on after
release (one to six months out), and had anticipated
difficulty staying out of prison. Frequent substance
use one year out was less likely among men who had
strong attachment to children and those who were
required to maintain telephone contact with their
parole officer.
• Parole Violations and Recidivism. Over half of men
on supervision reported violating a condition of
release, typically by associating with other parolees or
by visiting places where drugs were used. Not
surprisingly, these parole violators were more likely
(than nonviolators) to be returned to prison the first
year out. Reincarceration data from the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC)
showed that 15 percent of men returned to prison,
with four out of five returns caused by a new crime
commission.

Housing and Community Residence

similar percentage residing in public or Section 8
housing.

Finding a place to live is one of the first obstacles
that former prisoners must overcome after they are
released. In this study, the men recognized the
significance of housing to their success after release,
with 84 percent anticipating in prerelease interviews
that having a place to live would be an important
factor in staying out of prison.

Composition of the households in which men lived
after release changed substantially from prior to their
incarceration and continued to change during their
first year out of prison (figure 1). More men
depended on a parent for housing and fewer lived
with an intimate partner. Nearly half were living
with a spouse or intimate partner before
incarceration, yet one year later, only 33 percent
were in such a living arrangement. Rather, men
relied much more on parents or siblings for housing
after release than they did previously, particularly in
the first six months following release. One year out,
over a third were living with a parent or sibling.

Over one-third had lived in their own home before
incarceration, but immediately after release, only 18
percent were living in their own home—though by
one year out, this had risen to slightly more than 25
percent. One in ten men reported trouble finding
housing because of their criminal record, with a

2

Nearly half (46 percent) considered their living
arrangements temporary, reporting at the final
interview that they would only stay a few more
weeks or months, while 54 percent expected to stay
about a year or more. Nearly two-thirds were paying
for housing, compared with only 39 percent in the
first month after release—though notably, most who
thought their housing situation was temporary a
month after release still regarded their housing as
temporary one year out.

Figure 1. People Respondent Lived with at Each Interview
60%

46%
38%

40%

34%

33%
28%

27%

26%

25%

23%
20%

18%

20%
11%

0%
Prior to
incarceration

1 month
after release

6 months
after release

Spouse/Intimate Partner

Parent

12+ months
after release

For about a quarter of the men, their housing
situation could be jeopardizing their prospects for
successful long-term reintegration: 17 percent lived
with someone who had been in prison and 23
percent with someone who often drank to the point
of intoxication or used illegal drugs. These situations
could be especially harmful given that many had
supervision conditions restricting their proximity to
alcohol and drugs, as well as interactions with
former prisoners.

Sibling

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive (i.e., a respondent may
indicate more than one person he lived with).

By the end of the first year, nearly half (46 percent)
were living in the same neighborhood they had lived
in before incarceration. Those who had moved to a
new neighborhood said they did so primarily
because they wanted to avoid trouble in the old
neighborhood, they had lost their previous housing,
or because their family or friends had moved.

Employment and Financial Circumstances
Men reported low to moderate disorder (e.g., drug
sales, dangers, opportunities for trouble) in their
neighborhoods, though they lived in increasingly
more disorderly neighborhoods during the first year
out. Forty-nine percent cited drug selling as a major
problem in their neighborhood. Nonetheless, more
than three out of four believed that their
neighborhood was a safe place to live, although only
40 percent thought their neighborhood was a good
place to find a job.

Finding and maintaining a legal job after release can
be critical to successful reintegration, yet many
former prisoners face serious challenges when
seeking employment after release, especially in the
urban areas where they tend to reside. During the six
months before prison, over two-thirds (70 percent)
had been employed, typically in construction or
landscaping, factory work, and food service jobs.
Immediately after release, men relied on financial
support from several sources other than legal
employment, especially family and friends as well as
“under the table” work and public assistance (figure
3). One year out, 43 percent relied on legal

A majority (63 percent) of the men had lived in more
than one place during the year after release, and
nearly a third had moved several times (figure 2).
Figure 2. Number of Places Respondent Lived since
Release

Figure 3. Reported Sources of Financial Support
80%

Two
34%

67%

Prior to Incarceration

66%

1 month after release
6 months after release

60%

12+ months after release

46%

44%
43%

40%

36%

35% 35%

33%

30%
23%

25%

20%

One
37%

Not
asked

Three
21%

10%
4%

7% 7%

0%
Legal
Employment

Five+
3%

25% 25%
20%

Four
5%

"Under the Table"
Work

Spouse/Family/
Friends

Public
Assistance

Illegal
Activities

Note: Categories are not mutually exclusive (i.e., a respondent may
indicate more than one source of support).

Note: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.

3

Perhaps because of their criminal record, personal
connections were very important to respondents in
finding jobs, as 57 percent found a job by talking to
family or friends. Over one-quarter found a job
through an employment agency or by walking in and
applying. The primary types of jobs respondents
held one year out were construction and general
labor, factory work, and food service, similar to their
jobs before incarceration (figure 5).

employment, 36 percent on family and friends, 20
percent on public assistance, and less than 10
percent on illegal activities.
Incarceration had a substantial impact on the
likelihood of employment and level of wages earned
by men in the study (figure 4). One month after
release, men reported limited success in finding
employment: only one in five (21 percent) were
employed full-time. However, the percentage
employed full-time increased to 37 percent by one
year after release. Among those working, hourly
wages declined from an average of $12 prior to
incarceration to $9 in the first six months after
release and then increased slightly to $10 by one
year out. Of those who had looked for a job since
release, 81 percent reported that their criminal
history had affected their job search.

Family and Peers
Research on prisoner reentry and family experiences
has often focused on how the incarceration of
someone affects his or her family members,
particularly children. Less is known about the effects
of family relationships on the reintegration success
and failure of formerly incarcerated persons. Prior to
entering prison, most of the men in the study were
single (63 percent), with 23 percent married or living
with an intimate partner. However, over half (58
percent) had at least one child under age 18.

Figure 4. Preprison and Postrelease Employment and
Hourly Wages
80%

$15
$12.31

$13

In general, men in the study felt close to their
families. One year after release, men reported an
average of six close family relationships, and only 4
percent claimed to have no close family members.
Although 57 percent reported having a spouse or
intimate partner (33 percent said they were married
or living as married), this person was rarely named
as their closest family member. Rather, 40 percent
reported being closest to their mother and 26 percent
to a sibling, which is consistent with similar reports
at earlier interviews. About one-third (35 percent) of
men with minor children were living with their kids,
a substantial decline from the 57 percent living with
minor children before their incarceration.

58%
$9.48

40%

$10.06

$9.46

$10

37%

34%

$8

Dollars/Hour

Percent Employed

60%

$5

21%
20%
12%

12%

11%

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

7%
0%

$3

$0
Prior to
incarceration

1 month
after release
Full-time

Part-time

Current Wage

Note: At each postrelease interview, an additional 2, 3, and 1 percent,
respectively, reported employment but did not indicate the number of
hours employed and thus are not represented in the figure. Current
wage means based on those employed who provided salary
information (Ns = 264, 103, 150, and 133).

Figure 5. Type of Job at Final Interview (N = 139)
Construction/
General Manual
Labor
35%

While men in the study had high expectations for the
quality of family relationships and family support
they would receive after release, they did not fully
recognize the importance of family until they had
been in the community a few months. When asked
before release what things would be important to
keeping them from returning to prison, many
respondents mentioned support from family (63
percent) and spending time with children (46
percent), though these were not indicated as
frequently as obtaining employment (90 percent),
finding a place to live (84 percent), and abstaining
from substance use (72 percent).

Assembly
Line/Factory/
Machinist
17%

Cook/Food Service
13%
Car Repair
5%
Other
9%

Maintenance
9%

Warehouse/Shipping
Delivery
12%

4

own problems with substance abuse and the law. A
large portion of men in the study had family
members with a history of conviction (64 percent)
and incarceration (62 percent), and 30 percent had
relatives who were in jail or prison. Family members
of nearly two-thirds (64 percent) had problems with
drugs and alcohol.

When asked a similar question a month after release,
the largest percentage (26 percent) identified support
from family as the most important thing that had
kept them out of prison, and an additional 9 percent
named seeing their children (figure 6). Support from
family continued to be the most frequently
mentioned factor at all subsequent interviews by a
wide margin over employment, housing, not using
drugs, avoiding people or situations, and faith or
religious organizations.

Friends of released prisoners in the study also
showed evidence of past criminal involvement. In
fact, during the year after release, men were
increasingly more likely to have contact with friends
who were negative influences: 74 percent had a
friend who had been to prison during the first month
out, and this increased to 84 percent by one year
after release. A third reported primarily positive peer
influences a month after release, but one year out,
only one in five men (22 percent) had mostly
positive peer influences.

Thus, it is not surprising that men gave high ratings
to their family for emotional and tangible support
and to the overall quality of their relationships
(exceeding 3 on a scale of 1 to 4), both of which
increased between the first and final interviews after
release. Additionally, men with a spouse or intimate
partner reported high-quality relationships, though
this declined slightly by a year after release.
Although family and friends can have a significant
influence on the reintegration process of those
recently released from prison, this impact is not
always positive. Family members often have their

Program Participation and Postrelease Attitudes
Prisoners who participate in programs and services
while incarcerated are often better prepared for the
transition back to their communities and have a
greater chance of success after release than prisoners
who do not participate in such programs. Among the
men in this study, those who received counseling in
prison were less likely to report substance use in the
first month after release than those who did not
report participating.1
After release, former prisoners often find it difficult
to continue programs and services as they readjust to
their communities and focus on finding employment.
However, during the year after release, about twothirds (66 percent) of the men in the study reported
having participated in at least one program since
their release. Most commonly, they participated in
substance abuse treatment (including Alcoholics
Anonymous and Narcotics Anonymous),
employment skills or job training, and general
counseling (figure 7).

Figure 6. Factors Mentioned as Important to Staying
Out of Prison
8%
8%
8%

Job

1 month after release

7%

Housing

3%

6 months after release

6%

12+ months after release

4%

Not using drugs

6%
6%
14%
14%

Avoiding people/
situations

16%
26%

Support from family

30%
27%
9%
10%

Seeing children
7%

9%

Faith/Religious
Organization

11%
11%

0%

10%

20%

30%

Figure 7. Participation in Programs during Year after
Release
38%

Substance Abuse Treatment

37%

Employment Skills/Job Training

16%

Life Skills

14%

Other

13%

Anger Management
Parenting Skills

8%

Basic Education/GED

8%

0%

Prisoners’ attitudes and beliefs about themselves and
the world around them can also affect their ability to
reconnect with family, friends, and the community
after release. Most men in the study expressed
readiness to change their criminal behavior. Just
prior to release, 80 percent reported that they would
not use drugs after release, 85 percent said they
would not commit crimes, and 89 percent claimed

22%

General Counseling

10%

20%

30%

40%

5

they would give up the friends and hangouts that
often led them into trouble. A year after release, 87
percent said they had given up old hangouts or
friends who were negative influences (self-reported
drug use and criminal activity are described later in
this brief).

Profile of Study Participants
The study participants consisted of the following:
424 men, who served an average of two yearsa in
an Ohio correctional facility and were living in the
Cleveland area; one year after release, 294 men
were interviewed (56 in jail or prison).b
The average age was 36 years; 74 percent were
African American, 18 percent white, and 8 percent
other; 5 percent identified themselves as Hispanic.c
63 percent were single and had never been
married, 23 percent were married, 67 percent had
children, and 31 percent lived with a minor child
before entering prison.
55 percent had a high school diploma before
prison and 58 percent had worked at least 40
hours per week in the six months prior to
incarceration.
65 percent had previously served time in prison
and 44 percent spent time in a juvenile correctional
facility.
47 percent were incarcerated for a violent crime,
24 percent for a drug crime, 15 percent for a
property crime, and 13 percent for technical
violations.
72 percent had used controlled substances and 60
percent reported recent alcohol intoxication before
entering prison.

Respondents were asked to report how “easy” or
“hard” it would be to succeed in nine areas. Across
all three postrelease interviews, the men consistently
reported struggling with two of these nine
challenges: finding a job and making enough money
to support themselves. However, over three-quarters
consistently said it had been easy to stay out of
prison, refrain from criminal activity, find housing,
provide food, achieve social acceptance, stay in
good health, and renew relationships with family
(figure 8).
Physical and Mental Health
Prisoners tend to have higher rates of chronic and
infectious diseases and mental illness than
individuals in the general population. Nonetheless,
most men (79 percent) in the study expressed
positive opinions about their physical health shortly
after release from prison. In spite of these positive
self-assessments, over half reported being diagnosed
with a chronic physical health condition (e.g., high
blood pressure, asthma, arthritis, and high
cholesterol) at each of the postrelease interviews
(figure 9), rising to 59 percent at the final interview.
About half of these men reported receiving treatment
or prescription drugs for their health condition, with
treatment or medication use rising slightly at each
wave since release from prison. By one year out, the
rate of treatment and prescription drug use was just
above that reported during prison.

a

To be consistent with data collection in other Returning Home
states, we selected men who had been sentenced to at least
one year in state prison. Many individuals in Ohio prisons are
serving sentences of less than one year.
b

As noted in the Methodology sidebar, corrections for attrition
bias yielded largely similar results; thus, only uncorrected
original data were analyzed to obtain the percentages reported
in this brief.
c

The racial composition of men in the study is consistent with
the composition of all prisoners released to Cuyahoga County.

Figure 9. Reported Physical Health Conditions and Receipt
of Medication or Treatment during and after Release

Figure 8. Reintegration Difficulties Reported after Release

80%

80%
70% 70%
65%

60%

66%

1 month after release
62%

12+ months after release

59%

59%

60%

6 months after release
56%

55%
48%

40%

33%

31%

40%

26%

28%

1 month
after release

6 months
after release

20%
20% 20%

20%

19%
17%

18%

17%
12%

14%
10%

0%
During Prison

0%
Find a job

Money to
support self

Social
acceptance

Renew family
relationships

Stay out of
prison

Physical Illness Reported

6

12+ months
after release

Receiving Treatment/Medication

A smaller but important share of men in the study
exhibited a need for mental health services (figure
10). Reports of problems with depression and other
mental illnesses increased from 16 percent during
prison to 21 percent at one year out. About half of
these men reported receiving treatment or
prescription medication (9 to 11 percent).

Figure 10. Reported Mental Health Conditions and Receipt
of Medication or Treatment during and after Release
40%

30%

21%
19%

20%

19%

16%

Responses to standard mental-health screening
questions indicate that a higher proportion (23
percent) were likely to be depressed one month after
release, increasing to 29 percent at one year out
(figure 11).2 Moreover, more men reported
symptoms consistent with post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) related to their incarceration
experiences at a year out (20 percent) than at one
month after release (14 percent).3

11%

11%

10%

9%

10%

0%
During Prison

1 month
after release

6 months
after release

Mental Illness Reported

12+ months
after release

Receiving Treatment/Medication

Figure 11. Depression and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD) Diagnoses
40%

Most of the men in the study were without any type
of insurance coverage one month after release. Of
the small share who had insurance (16 percent), half
were covered under Medicare or Medicaid and the
rest through private insurance, Veterans’ benefits, or
other insurance. The proportion with health
insurance increased gradually during the year after
release, reaching 27 percent at one year.

27%
23%

14%
10%

0%
1 month
after release

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

Depression

PTSD

Figure 12. Reported Drug Use or Alcohol Intoxication by
Frequency
40%

30%
17%

16%
20%
13%
10%

17%

18%

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

10%
0%
1 month
after release

A month after release, about a quarter of the men
reported drug use or alcohol intoxication, with use
increasing to 35 percent by one year out (figure 12).
Drug use alone increased from 14 to 25 percent over
this period (figure 13). About half who reported drug
use or intoxication reported more than weekly use.
And not surprisingly, drug and alcohol use was
related to an array of problems, most commonly
relationship problems and problems at home. During

20%

19%

20%

Substance Use
A history of serious and frequent substance use is a
common characteristic of incarcerated populations,
with at least half estimated to have a drug or alcohol
problem requiring treatment. The substance use
histories of men in the study mirror these national
data, with a significant share reporting extensive and
serious prior involvement with drugs and alcohol.
Nearly three-quarters (72 percent) reported some
drug use (most frequently marijuana and cocaine),
60 percent reported alcohol intoxication, and over
half reported daily drug use or intoxication in the six
months prior to prison.

29%

30%

Frequent Use

Infrequent Use

Note: “Frequent” is defined as more than weekly use.

the year after release, about a quarter of drug users
reported problems due to drug use and about 10
percent of alcohol users reported problems due to
alcohol use. Problems due to drug use increased
slightly from the first to the last interview (figure
14).

7

Figure 13. Reported Drug Use by Frequency

Figure 15. Percentage of Respondents on Supervision
and Percentage Who Violated a Condition

40%

100%
30%
75%
9%

20%

9%
56%

50%
63%

7%

10%

34%

16%

14%
7%

25%

0%
1 month
after release

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

22%

24%

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

13%
0%

Frequent Drug Use

Infrequent Use

1 month
after release

Note: “Frequent” is defined as more than weekly use.

Violated Condition

Figure 14. Reported Problems Related to Drug and
Alcohol Use in Past 30 Days

No Violation

Figure 16. PO Reported as Helpful with Transition Home
100%

40%

83%
28%

30%

71%

75%

69%
64%

25%
22%
20%

10%

50%

10%

9%

10%
25%

0%
1 month
after release

6 months
after release

Any problems due to Drinking

0%

12+ months
after release

Prerelease
expectation

1 month
after release

6 months
after release

12+ months
after release

Any problems due to Drugs

Note: Percentages based on supervised men only.

Note: Percentages based on men who reported any drug
or alcohol use at each time point.

out, fewer but still a majority of men (64 percent)
felt that their PO had been helpful (figure 16).

Postrelease Supervision
The majority of Ohio prisoners sentenced to a year
or more in prison are released to a period of
community supervision during which they are
expected to follow parole conditions enforced by the
Adult Parole Authority (APA) unit of the ODRC.
Consistent with this policy, about three-quarters (76
percent) of men in the study reported being on
supervision a month after release, although only 58
percent were on supervision a year out (figure 15).

The ODRC maintains a variety of special conditions
that can be required of a released prisoner.
Supervised men in the study reported an average of
10 such conditions. The majority (83 percent)
reported complying with their parole conditions one
month after release, but this declined to 58 percent a
year after release. The most commonly reported
violations were visiting places where controlled
substances were used and associating with other
parolees without written permission. Other
violations involved failing to maintain mandatory
interactions with their supervision officer, including
face-to-face contact, and failure to notify POs about
a residence change or arrest (figure 17).

Prior to release, most of the men who expected to be
on supervision thought that their parole officer (PO)
would be helpful after release (83 percent). One
month out, nearly three-quarters (71 percent)
reported that their PO was helpful with their
transition home, especially by understanding their
situation and providing encouragement. One year

8

We were also able to interview men who returned to
prison and we asked them why they had been
reincarcerated (figure 18). Of the 58 men who were
returned to prison, we interviewed 50 during their
new reincarceration.5 The two most common reasons
men gave for their return were drug use (23 percent)
and not avoiding people or situations that could get
them into trouble (21 percent). Difficulties
supporting themselves financially (17 percent) and
unemployment (11 percent) were also cited as
reasons.

Figure 17. Reported Violations among Those on
Supervision One Year Out (N = 171)
Visiting Location Where
Substances Used

26%

Associate with other
Parolees

20%

16%

Face-to-Face Contact

Residence Change
Notification

12%

11%

Employment

Arrest Notification

0%

10%
10%

The remainder of this brief further explores the
reasons for success and failure among men in the
study, focusing on employment, substance use, and
criminal activity in the year following release.

20%

Note: Percentages are based on supervised men required to
comply with each condition.

Criminal Involvement
Understanding Reentry Success and Failure
According to research by the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, most prisoners have long criminal records
and exhibit high rates of recidivism. Such repeat
involvement with the criminal justice system was
strongly evident in the Ohio Returning Home study.
Criminal histories were extensive and began early in
life: two-thirds (65 percent) had served previous
prison terms, and 44 percent had spent time in a
juvenile correctional facility. Despite these extensive
criminal histories, 77 percent of men in the study
expected it to be “pretty easy” or “very easy” to stay
out of prison following release.

Employment
To understand why some men were more successful
at obtaining employment upon release than others,
we used multiple regression to identify factors
associated with current employment a year after
release. Analyses indicated that family, early
employment, postrelease services, and certain parole
conditions were important to finding postrelease
employment. Men who had close relationships with
a spouse or intimate partner and whose families were
more helpful than they had anticipated were more
likely to be employed. Earning a GED while in
prison also increased the likelihood of postrelease
employment. Additionally, men who had held a job
during their incarceration, those who had worked
more the first six months after release, and those
with a supervision condition to maintain
employment were more likely to be working. On the

To assess their continued involvement in criminal
activity, men in the study were asked to self-report
any crime committed since release. One year after
release, nearly three in ten (29 percent) reported that
they had committed at least one crime at some point
after release, with drug possession (51 percent) and
drug dealing (32 percent) most often reported. Yet
surprisingly, an even larger group (40 percent)
reported that they had been arrested at least once
since release.4

Figure 18. Reason Reported for Reincarceration
(N = 50)
Not avoiding certain
people/situations
21%

Using drugs
23%

We also examined official records of reincarceration
obtained from the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction and found that 15
percent had been returned to prison in the year
following release. Of those reincarcerated, 81
percent were returned for a new crime, with the
remainder returned for a parole violation.

No place to live
4%
Not enough money to
support self
17%

Drinking alcohol
6%
Unemployment
11%

Other
17%

Note: Percentages do not equal 100 due to rounding.
Cases with missing information not included.

9

Table 1. Predictors of Employment One Year after
Release

Table 2. Predictors of Frequent Drug Use One Year
after Release

Those who had…

Those who had…

Those who had…

Those who had…

• earned their GED while in

• a physical health

• close attachment to their

• admitted intentions while

condition after release
• depression after release

children
• received substance
abuse treatment
immediately after release
• telephone contact with
their PO as a parole
requirement

•
•
•
•
•

prison
very close partner
relationships after release
families that were more
helpful than expected
jobs while in prison
more time employed
since release
supervision conditions
requiring employment

…were more likely to be
employed.

•
•
•
•
•

…were less likely to be
employed.
…were less likely to use
drugs frequently.

other hand, men who suffered from a physical health
condition or depression during the first six months
after release were less able to find work (table 1).6

still incarcerated to
continue criminal activity
or drug use after release
expected difficulty staying
out of prison after release
negative family influences
used any drugs
immediately after release
used drugs frequently six
months after release
been placed on parole
immediately after release

…were more likely to use
drugs frequently.

we examined the factors that predicted criminal
behavior using two measures of recidivism: selfreported rearrest and official reincarceration in an
Ohio prison (as reported by the ODRC). Men who
did not report an arrest in the year following release
were more likely to have served a longer sentence,
had supportive partner relationships during
incarceration, and were receiving treatment or
medication for a health condition. Those on
supervision a month after release and supervised
men who were required to maintain telephone
contact with their PO were also less likely to report
being arrested (however, those with more positive
attitudes toward their PO were more likely to selfreport rearrest).8 Factors that increased the
likelihood of reporting arrest included preprison
problems caused by drinking, living with someone
who uses drugs or drinks alcohol to the point of
intoxication, and serious involvement in crime as a
juvenile, as indicated by time spent in a juvenile
detention facility (table 3).9

Drug Use
To understand what factors influenced released
prisoners’ ability to avoid illegal substance use after
release, we examined how various factors affected
frequent (more than weekly) drug use one year after
release (table 2). Analyses indicated that fathers who
were closely attached to their children had a reduced
likelihood of drug use. Additionally, those who
received substance abuse treatment immediately
after release were less likely to be frequent drug
users. Required telephone contact with their parole
officer, given that the men were on parole, also
inhibited the likelihood of frequent drug use
(however, men on parole in general were more likely
to report frequent use).
Factors that increased the chances of frequent drug
use a year after release included self-reported
intentions to commit crime or use drugs expressed
while still in prison, expectations that staying out of
prison would be hard after release, any drug use
immediately following release and frequent drug use
six months out, and negative family influences (i.e.,
having a family member who had served time in
prison, been convicted, or used drugs).7

Housing, employment, and attitude toward release
were key factors associated with reincarceration at
some point in the year after release (table 4). The
ability to find stable housing in the first month
following release, having a job six months after
release, and a positive attitude about postrelease
challenges (i.e., those who thought it would be easy
to stay out of prison after release) were some of the
strongest inhibitors of reincarceration. Those who
reported a postrelease violation one month out and

Criminal Activity
To distinguish between men likely to desist from
crime after release from those likely to recidivate,

10

Securing stable housing proved a significant
challenge for many men in the study. A year after
release, nearly half considered their housing
situation to be temporary, and many were still
dependent on a parent or sibling for their housing
needs. The importance of finding a stable residence
cannot be overestimated: men who found such
housing within the first month after release were less
likely to return to prison during that first year out.
Further, living in a setting without negative
influences such as drug or alcohol abusers proved
crucial to avoiding rearrest. Services that enable
former prisoners to secure positive and stable
housing immediately after release could yield
positive results for those released, as well as for the
general public.

Table 3. Predictors of Self-Reported Arrest One Year
after Release
Those who had…

Those who had…

• served a longer sentence

• spent time in a juvenile

• close partner relationships
•
•
•

•

while in prison
been on parole
immediately after release
required telephone
contact with their PO
received treatment or
medication for a health
condition six months after
release
used drugs frequently
before prison

…were less likely to be
rearrested.

detention facility
• problems due to drinking

before prison
• positive attitudes toward

parole officer
• lived with someone who
abuses drugs or alcohol
since release

…were more likely to be
rearrested.

Families also played a large role in the reentry
process. Especially after release, many former
prisoners relied heavily on their families for
emotional and tangible support. In fact, family
support was the most frequently cited reason why
men believed they had been able to stay out of
prison—this was true one month, six months, and
one year after release. As evidence of the protective
nature of family relationships, having a helpful
family increased the likelihood of employment and
close attachment to children decreased the likelihood
of substance use (among returning fathers). Families
can also, however, negatively affect reintegration
when they have their own problems with crime and
substance abuse. Men who reported such negative
family influences were more likely to use drugs
frequently one year out. To incorporate families
effectively into the reentry process, both the positive
and negative aspects of family involvement should
be factored into reentry programming.

Table 4. Predictors of Reincarceration One Year after
Release
Those who had…

Those who had…

• secured long-term

• violated a parole

housing
• expected it to be easy to
stay out of prison
• a job six months after
release
• used drugs frequently
before incarceration

condition immediately
after release
• been on parole six
months after release

…were less likely to be
reincarcerated.

…were more likely to be
reincarcerated.

those who were on parole six months out were more
likely to have been reincarcerated within their first
year after release—this finding might reflect other
attributes of these men (e.g., criminal career
severity).10

In support of previous research, returning prisoners’
relationships with their intimate partners increased
their chances for reentry success. Men who felt
closest to their partners while in prison were less
likely to report being rearrested. Close partner
relationships after release from prison also increased
the likelihood of employment one year out.
Encouraging and easing partner visitation during
incarceration may help preserve and enhance
prisoners’ feelings of closeness with their partner.
The provision of relationship and marriage support
services, during and after prison, may also

Summary and Policy Implications
This report is the fifth and final product of the
Returning Home study in Ohio. The report
summarized the experiences of prisoners returning to
the Cleveland area spanning over twelve months
following release. Important factors associated with
reintegration success and failure include obtaining
employment, close contact with supportive family,
parole supervision conditions, stable housing, and
abstaining from drug use.

11

hangouts that got them into trouble. Such attitudes
appeared to influence prisoners’ abilities to change.
Men who thought it would be easy to stay out of
prison were less likely to be reincarcerated and to
report frequent drug use one year after release.
Conversely, men who admitted intentions to commit
crimes and use drugs once released were more likely
to do so, as illustrated by a higher prevalence of
frequent drug use one year out. Prerelease programs
that address prisoners’ readiness and willingness to
change could enhance their chances of success.

strengthen partnership bonds that could, in turn,
increase the support available to former prisoners.
Health status also appeared to influence reintegration
success. One year out, over half of the men reported
a physical health condition, nearly one-third were
diagnosed with depression, and one-fifth exhibited
signs of PTSD. These health conditions inhibited
men’s ability to obtain employment: those with a
physical health condition or depression six months
after release were less likely to have a job after a
year. On the other hand, for returning prisoners
suffering from a chronic physical or mental health
condition, receiving medication and treatment for
their illness appeared to decrease the likelihood of
rearrest one year following release. Considering that
nearly three-quarters had no health coverage a year
after release, their ability to obtain much-needed
services was questionable. Assisting returning
prisoners in obtaining health insurance, especially
those diagnosed with physical and mental health
problems in prison, could help them get the medical
attention they need and increase their chances of
success after release.

Substance use also has a major impact on
reintegration. After release, drug use and alcohol
intoxication among the men in the study increased
over time, with recent use reaching 35 percent after a
year out. The proportion of users reporting problems
associated with drug use also gradually increased
from 22 to 28 percent. Substance use immediately
following release, as well as frequent drug use after
six months, were predictive of continued drug use a
year after release. Additionally, for men who had
returned to prison, drug use was cited most often as
the reason for their return. Not surprisingly, many
prisoners are in need of substance abuse treatment
before and after release.

Obtaining employment and financial independence
were two of the most important factors in the reentry
experience. After a year out, about half of the men
were employed, but only 37 percent were employed
full-time, with an average salary of $10 per hour.
Incarceration’s impact on employment and wages
was substantial, with very few men achieving the job
stability and wage levels that they had experienced
prior to incarceration. Many former prisoners relied
on other sources of financial support, including
“under the table” work, support from family and
friends, public assistance, and illegal activities. A
few predictors of success in finding employment
included having a prison job and having supportive
family. Former prisoners returning to the Cleveland
area clearly need substantial assistance in finding
and maintaining employment.

Returning prisoners often seek out programs and
services to increase their chances for reentry success.
To illustrate this point, over a third of the men
attended basic education courses while incarcerated
and those men who succeeded in earning their GED
in prison were more likely to be employed a year
out. Additionally, about two-thirds received services
in the year after release, and such participation
appeared to increase reentry success. Men who
obtained substance abuse treatment immediately
after release were less likely to report frequent drug
use after one year out. Encouraging and aiding
prisoners in obtaining needed service before and
after release can help improve reentry outcomes.
Upon release, the majority of men in the study were
placed on a period of supervision. Most parolees
perceived their supervision officers as helpful,
though this proportion decreased slightly over the
year following release. By one year out, over half of
the men were still on supervision, and 42 percent of
those men admitted to violating at least one
condition. Various aspects of supervision appeared
to influence reentry success and failure. Men

Released prisoners’ attitudes and beliefs, particularly
their readiness and ability to change, influenced their
reentry experiences. Over three-quarters of men in
the study anticipated that it would be easy to stay out
of prison, renew relationships with family, and be
socially accepted once released, and these positive
attitudes remained consistently high after release.
Most men also reported giving up the friends and

12

5.

Reported reasons for reincarceration are only
available for men who returned to prison within a
year after release and who completed a postrelease
interview while incarcerated. Responses from men
who were reincarcerated in a jail only were excluded
from the analysis.
6. Three other factors (wanted financial support, owing
debt, and being on supervision) were significant at
0.10 in the weighted or unweighted model but not in
both; thus, their effects are not discussed.
7. Two other factors (prerelease spirituality and taking
medications for a health condition after release) had
effects significant at 0.10 only after weights were
applied and are thus not discussed.
8. Although supervised men with a positive attitude
toward their PO were more likely to report rearrest,
official ODRC records indicated that they had a
lower rate of return to prison. Thus, it is possible that
the rearrest finding captured these prisoners’
increased willingness to admit rearrest.
9. The observed effect of age at release, significant at
0.05, failed to retain significance when weights were
applied. Additionally, giving up friends and/or
hangouts that got men into trouble was only a
significant predictor with the application of weights.
These discrepant findings are not discussed.
10. Preprison employment was only a significant
predictor after weights were applied; thus, the effect
is not discussed.
11. Time between release and the final postrelease
interview was excluded as a control measure from the
official reincarceration model because the follow-up
period was set at one year. For the employment
model, preprison education level was also included as
a control variable.

required to maintain telephone contact with their
parole officer were less likely to report frequent drug
use after release or rearrest. Parole conditions
requiring employment also increased the likelihood
of employment after one year out. The risk of
reincarceration was greater for those on supervision
and for those who reported parole violations shortly
after release. Supervised men were also more likely
to report frequent drug use a year after release.
Ultimately, reentry success is most commonly
measured by former prisoners’ abilities to refrain
from future criminal activity. Over a year after
release, nearly a third of the men in the study
reported committing a crime (typically drug
possession and dealing), 40 percent reported being
rearrested, and 15 percent were officially returned to
prison. For those who returned to prison, when
asked the main reason for their reincarceration, the
top reasons noted in addition to drug use were
failing to avoid people and situations that could get
them into trouble, not having enough money to
support themselves, and unemployment.
This report is intended to provide a foundation for
policymakers and practitioners as they consider
options for improving reintegration among released
prisoners returning to Cleveland and similar
communities. Listening to the experiences of these
former Ohio prisoners should help point the way to
policy innovations that are empirically grounded,
pragmatic, and reflective of the realities of reentry.
Notes
1.

2.

3.

4.

Other Returning Home Reports

The protective relationship between in-prison
counseling and substance use one month postrelease
was not replicated when we examined the predictors
of frequent drug use one year after release.
Scores of 16 and above on the Center for
Epidemiologic Studies depression scale were
considered to indicate a high likelihood of depression
(details available upon request).
Items measuring PTSD symptoms were adapted from
a validated 17-item PTSD symptom scale (details
available upon request). Scale items correspond to
the DSM-III-R diagnostic criteria for PTSD.
Self-reported crime and arrest figures were calculated
based on responses from any of the postrelease
interviews. These figures likely underestimate the
prevalence of crime and arrest of men for whom we
do not have data for the entire year after release.

Brooks, Lisa E., Christy A. Visher, and Rebecca L. Naser.
2006. “Community Residents’ Perceptions of
Prisoner Reentry in Selected Cleveland
Neighborhoods.” Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
Kachnowski, Vera. 2005. “Returning Home Illinois
Policy Brief: Employment and Prisoner Reentry.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., and Vera Kachnowski. 2003. “A
Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
———. 2005. “Texas Prisoners’ Reflections on
Returning Home.” Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.

13

La Vigne, Nancy G., and Barbara Parthasarathy. 2005.
“Returning Home Illinois Policy Brief: Prisoner
Reentry and Residential Mobility.” Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute.

Returning Home Study Methodology
The Returning Home study was implemented in four
states, including a pilot study in Maryland and full studies
in Illinois, Ohio, and Texas. The goal in each state was to
collect information on the life circumstances of
respondents immediately prior to and following their
release from prison, as well as up to a year into their
reintegration in the community. Each study involved
surveys and interviews that explored various reentry
expectations, needs, and experiences, such as those
related to prerelease preparation, postrelease housing
and employment, and the renewal of personal
relationships.

La Vigne, Nancy G., and Gillian Thomson. 2003. “A
Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.” Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Christy A. Visher, and Jennifer
Castro. 2004. “Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences
Returning Home.” Washington, DC: The Urban
Institute.
La Vigne, Nancy G., Cynthia A. Mamalian, Jeremy
Travis, and Christy Visher. 2003. “A Portrait of
Prisoner Reentry in Illinois.” Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.

The study design in Ohio was composed of several data
collection efforts. The first effort involved 424 male
prisoners sentenced to at least one year in prison who
were returning to Cuyahoga County and entailed (1) a
self-administered survey given to groups of prisoners
about one month prior to release and (2) three one-onone interviews with sample members conducted
approximately one month, six months, and one year (14
months) after release. The second effort consisted of a
series of focus groups with community residents in the
Cleveland neighborhoods that received the highest
proportion of returning prisoners, as well as one-on-one
interviews with reentry policymakers and practitioners in
Cleveland. Data in this research brief come from the selfadministered prerelease surveys of 424 prisoners
(administered from May 2004 through March 2005) and
the three postrelease interviews conducted with 358,
322, and 294 released prisoners, respectively,
throughout the first year following release.

Mallik Kane, Kamala. 2005. “Returning Home Illinois
Policy Brief: Health and Prisoner Reentry.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy A., and Shannon M. E. Courtney. 2006.
“Cleveland Prisoners' Experiences Returning Home.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy, and Jill Farrell. 2005. “Chicago
Communities and Prisoner Reentry.” Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy, Demelza Baer, and Rebecca Naser. 2006.
“Ohio Prisoners’ Reflections on Returning Home.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Descriptive analyses included the entire prerelease
sample of 424 respondents where data were available.
Eighty-four percent of the 424 men (N = 358) were
reinterviewed one month after release, 76 percent (N =
322) were reinterviewed six months out, and 69 percent
(N = 294) were reinterviewed about one year out
(average of 14 months). A total of 260 respondents (61
percent) completed all three postrelease interviews. As
noted shortly, when corrections for attrition bias were
addressed using weights, the analysis results remained
largely comparable. Thus, only unweighted results are
presented in this brief.

Visher, Christy A., Nancy G. La Vigne, and Jennifer
Castro. 2003. “Returning Home: Preliminary
Findings from a Pilot Study of Soon-to-Be-Released
Prisoners in Maryland.” Justice Research and Policy
5(2): 55–74.
Visher, Christy A., Nancy G. La Vigne, Jill Farrell. 2003.
“Illinois Prisoners’ Reflections on Returning Home.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Visher, Christy, Vera Kachnowski, Nancy La Vigne, and
Jeremy Travis. 2004. “Baltimore Prisoners’
Experiences Returning Home.” Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute.

To predict reintegration success and failure one year
after release regarding employment, substance use, and
recidivism, we used multivariate logistic regression on
the 260 men who completed the prerelease and all three
postrelease interviews. All predictive analyses
statistically controlled for respondents’ age, race, marital
status, employment history, preprison drug use, criminal
history, supervision status, and time between release
and the third postrelease interview.11 Relationships
reported as significant are those found to be statistically
significant in multivariate models at a probability equal to
or less than 0.10.

Visher, Christy A., Rebecca L. Naser, Demelza Baer, and
Jesse Jannetta. 2005. “In Need of Help: Experiences
of Seriously Ill Prisoners Returning to Cincinnati.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Watson, Jamie, Amy L. Solomon, and Jeremy Travis.
2004. “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Texas.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Winterfield, Laura, and Jennifer Castro. 2005. “Returning
Home Illinois Policy Brief: Treatment Matching.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

To ensure that our predictive analysis findings, based on
the sample of 260 participants, were generalizable to the
larger group of participants at each survey wave, as well

14

as to the original sample of 424 prerelease participants,
we compared the samples on a variety of reentry
domains. First, we examined the reentry experiences of
the sub-sample of men who completed every interview (n
= 260) and compared them to the experiences of all men
who participated at any of the survey waves. We found
these groups to be nearly identical in every domain,
including residential mobility, family support and
relationship quality, partner relationship quality, financial
obligations and support, attitudes and beliefs,
reintegration difficulties, and postrelease programming.
Similar trends over time also emerged for neighborhood
disorder, attachment to children, employment, substance
use, parole violations, and reincarceration, although
slight percentage differences (usually favoring the
subsample) were noted between the two groups.
Second, to increase the comparability of the predictive
analysis findings to the entire sample of prerelease
participants, we computed weights using a wide range of
measures from the prerelease interview. We analyzed
each of our multivariate models with and without weights
and detected very few differences. Only those factors
significant with and without the application of weights are
reported as significant predictors of reentry success and
failure one year after release. Discrepant findings are
footnoted.

About the Authors
Christy A. Visher, Ph.D., is a principal research
associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban
Institute. She is principal investigator of the multistate
Returning Home project and is also coprincipal
investigator of a national evaluation of prisoner
reentry programs.
Shannon M. E. Courtney, M.A., is a research
associate in the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy
Center. She has experience in data analysis and
research methodologies, especially as applied to
issues surrounding prisoner reentry.

Acknowledgments
We would like to thank many individuals for their
contributions to this research project. The Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction,
especially Edward Rhine and Steve Van Dine,
generously provided time and valuable information.
Special thanks also go to Research Support Services,
under the direction of Dr. Alisu Schoua-Glusberg, for
conducting the pre- and postrelease interviews.
Production of this report was also made possible
through the team efforts of a number of researchers in
the Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, including
Rebecca Naser, the project director for the Returning
Home study in Ohio, and Jennifer Yahner and
Avinash Bhati, who assisted with data analysis. The
Returning Home study in Ohio is funded by the
generous support of the George Gund Foundation,
Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Cleveland
Foundation, Smith Richardson Foundation, Annie E.
Casey Foundation, Ohio Office of Criminal Justice
Services, and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation
and Correction.

Prior Reports
The first phase of the Ohio Returning Home study
involved analyzing data collected by the Ohio
Department of Rehabilitation and Correction to
describe incarceration and reentry trends and
characteristics in the state. Findings were reported in
“A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.”
The second phase involved interviewing male
prisoners returning to the Cleveland area, once before
and three times after release. Two research briefs
describe their prerelease expectations and immediate
postrelease experiences: “Ohio Prisoners’ Reflections
on Returning Home” and “Cleveland Prisoners’
Experiences Returning Home.”
In addition, Returning Home researchers held focus
groups with residents of three Cleveland communities
with the highest concentrations of returning prisoners
and completed interviews with Cleveland
policymakers and practitioners. See “Community
Residents’ Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry in
Selected Cleveland Neighborhoods” and “Cleveland
Stakeholders’ Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry”.
All reports are available on the Urban Institute web
site: http://www.urban.org.

15

URBAN INSTITUTE

Justice Policy Center
2100 M STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20037

(202) 833-7200
www.urban.org

UI’s Justice Policy Center (JPC)
carries out nonpartisan research to
inform the national dialogue on crime,
justice, and community safety. JPC
researchers collaborate with
practitioners, public officials, and
community groups to make the
Center’s research useful not only to
decision makers and agencies in the
justice system but also to the
neighborhoods and communities
harmed by crime and disorder.

16

Visit our web site to browse,
download, or purchase copies
of many Justice Policy Center
reports: http://jpc.urban.org