skip to main content
Washington State Institute for Public Policy
Back Button

Reentry courts

Adult Criminal Justice
Benefit-cost methods last updated December 2024.  Literature review updated March 2025.
The purpose of reentry courts is to help facilitate successful reentry into the community for formerly incarcerated individuals. These specialized courts utilize a judge and other court staff to impose comprehensive supervision, graduated sanctions, and incentives as well as to coordinate services (e.g., substance abuse treatment) for defendants. While each reentry court is unique in operations, method, and length of treatment, they share the primary goals of supporting reintegration into the community and reducing criminal recidivism. For studies included in this analysis, treatment typically lasted 12 months and ranged from 6 to 18 months.
 
ALL
BENEFIT-COST
META-ANALYSIS
CITATIONS
For an overview of WSIPP's Benefit-Cost Model, please see this guide. The estimates shown are present value, life cycle benefits and costs. All dollars are expressed in the base year chosen for this analysis (2023).  The chance the benefits exceed the costs are derived from a Monte Carlo risk analysis. The details on this, as well as the economic discount rates and other relevant parameters are described in our Technical Documentation.
Benefit-Cost Summary Statistics Per Participant
Benefits to:
Taxpayers $4,320 Benefits minus costs $8,322
Participants $0 Benefit to cost ratio $2.95
Others $8,230 Chance the program will produce
Indirect $31 benefits greater than the costs 97%
Total benefits $12,581
Net program cost ($4,259)
Benefits minus cost $8,322

^WSIPP’s benefit-cost model does not monetize this outcome.

^^WSIPP does not include this outcome when conducting benefit-cost analysis for this program.

Meta-analysis is a statistical method to combine the results from separate studies on a program, policy, or topic to estimate its effect on an outcome. WSIPP systematically evaluates all credible evaluations we can locate on each topic. The outcomes measured are the program impacts measured in the research literature (for example, impacts on crime or educational attainment). Treatment N represents the total number of individuals or units in the treatment group across the included studies.

An effect size (ES) is a standard metric that summarizes the degree to which a program or policy affects a measured outcome. If the effect size is positive, the outcome increases. If the effect size is negative, the outcome decreases. See Estimating Program Effects Using Effect Sizes for additional information on how we estimate effect sizes.

The effect size may be adjusted from the unadjusted effect size estimated in the meta-analysis. Historically, WSIPP adjusted effect sizes to some programs based on the methodological characteristics of the study. For programs reviewed in 2024 or later, we do not make additional adjustments, and we use the unadjusted effect size whenever we run a benefit-cost analysis.

Research shows the magnitude of effects may change over time. For those effect sizes, we estimate outcome-based adjustments, which we apply between the first time ES is estimated and the second time ES is estimated. More details about these adjustments can be found in our Technical Documentation.

Meta-Analysis of Program Effects
Outcomes measured Treatment age No. of effect sizes Treatment N Effect sizes (ES) and standard errors (SE) used in the benefit-cost analysis Unadjusted effect size (random effects model)
First time ES is estimated Second time ES is estimated
ES SE Age ES SE Age ES p-value
Crime
Involvement in the criminal justice system (e.g., arrests, charges, convictions, incarceration) measured through administrative records (e.g. court records, arrests) or self-report.
 32 10 1874 -0.153 0.045 33 -0.153 0.045 41 -0.153 0.001
Technical violations^
Violations of the conditions of an individual’s terms of probation, parole, or supervision.
 32 1 255 0.519 0.141 35 n/a n/a n/a 0.519 0.001
Substance use^
Nonspecified substance use (i.e., alcohol, cannabis, or illicit drugs) that does not rise to the level of "disordered."
 32 1 51 -0.641 0.249 34 n/a n/a n/a -0.641 0.010
Substance use disorder^
A non-specified alcohol or drug use disorder. Typically, a collection of different types of disorders reported by study authors. 
 32 1 189 -0.388 0.148 33 n/a n/a n/a -0.388 0.009
Employment^^
Any employment, including part-time work.
32 1 51 0.852 0.255 34 n/a n/a n/a 0.852 0.001
Homelessness^
A lack of stable housing, often measured through self-report of conditions like living on streets or in shelters in a given time period.
 32 1 51 -0.443 0.534 34 n/a n/a n/a -0.443 0.407
1In addition to the outcomes measured in the meta-analysis table, WSIPP measures benefits and costs estimated from other outcomes associated with those reported in the evaluation literature. For example, empirical research demonstrates that high school graduation leads to reduced crime. These associated measures provide a more complete picture of the detailed costs and benefits of the program.

2“Others” includes benefits to people other than taxpayers and participants. Depending on the program, it could include reductions in crime victimization, the economic benefits from a more educated workforce, and the benefits from employer-paid health insurance.

3“Indirect benefits” includes estimates of the net changes in the value of a statistical life and net changes in the deadweight costs of taxation.
Detailed Monetary Benefit Estimates Per Participant
Affected outcome: Resulting benefits:1 Benefits accrue to:
Taxpayers Participants Others2 Indirect3 Total
Crime Criminal justice system $4,320 $0 $8,230 $2,160 $14,710
Program cost Adjustment for deadweight cost of program $0 $0 $0 ($2,130) ($2,130)
Totals $4,320 $0 $8,230 $31 $12,581
Click here to see populations selected
Detailed Annual Cost Estimates Per Participant
Annual cost Year dollars Summary
Program costs $7,943 2017 Present value of net program costs (in 2023 dollars) ($4,259)
Comparison costs $4,286 2015 Cost range (+ or -) 30%
Program costs include case management, court hearings, drug testing, individualized treatment plans, and the cost of using jail as a sanction for violating behavior. These costs are taken from Carey, S.M., Rempel, M., Lindquist, C., Cissner, A., Ayoub, L.M., Kralstein, D., Malsch, M. (2017). Reentry court research: Overview of findings from the National Institute of Justice’s evaluation of Second Chance Act adult reentry courts. The estimated program cost is an average of the site implementations reported in the text. In our calculation, we do not include any offsetting of program costs via program participant fees. We assume the comparison group receives case management services similar in nature to “swift, certain, and fair” supervision. Cost for “swift, certain, and fair” supervision includes estimates of delivering community supervision services, the cost of imposing sanctions for violating behavior, and the cost to participate in cognitive behavioral therapy.
The figures shown are estimates of the costs to implement programs in Washington. The comparison group costs reflect either no treatment or treatment as usual, depending on how effect sizes were calculated in the meta-analysis. The cost range reported above reflects potential variation or uncertainty in the cost estimate; more detail can be found in our Technical Documentation.
Benefits Minus Costs
Benefits by Perspective
Taxpayer Benefits by Source of Value
Benefits Minus Costs Over Time (Cumulative Discounted Dollars)
The graph above illustrates the estimated cumulative net benefits per-participant for the first fifty years beyond the initial investment in the program. We present these cash flows in discounted dollars. If the dollars are negative (bars below $0 line), the cumulative benefits do not outweigh the cost of the program up to that point in time. The program breaks even when the dollars reach $0. At this point, the total benefits to participants, taxpayers, and others, are equal to the cost of the program. If the dollars are above $0, the benefits of the program exceed the initial investment.

Citations Used in the Meta-Analysis

Ayoub, L.H., & Pooler, T. (2015). Coming home to Harlem: A randomized controlled trial of the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. New York, NY: Center for Court Innovation

Carey, S.M., Rempel, M., Lindquist, C., Cissner, A.B., Ayoub, L.H., Kralstein, D., & Malsch, A. (2017). Reentry court research: Overview of findings from the National Institute of Justice's evaluation of second chance act adult reentry courts. NPC Research.

Hamilton, Z. (2010). Do reentry courts reduce recidivism?: Results from the Harlem Parole Reentry Court. New York, N.Y.: Center for Court Innovation.

Hamilton, Z.K. (2011). Adapting to bad news: Lessons from the Harlem Parole reentry court. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(7), 385-410.    

Hassoun Ayoub, L. (2020). The impact of reentry court on recidivism: A randomized controlled trial in Harlem, New York. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16, 101-117.

Taylor, C.J. (2020). Beyond recidivism: An outcome evaluation of a federal reentry court and a critical discussion of outcomes that matter. Justice Evaluation Journal, 3(2), 134-154.