Reentry court outcome: the impact of risk level and program completion

Purpose Despite their growing prevalence in both the state and federal systems, problem-solving courts – with the exception of drug courts – have not been the subject of extensive research. This study aims to investigate the relationship between program participation, successful completion and rearrest. Design/methodology/approach This study examines participants in a federal reentry court (n = 200) and those in a nonparticipant comparison group (n = 200) using an intent-to-treat analysis. Findings Across both groups (reentry court participants and nonparticipant comparison group), those assessed to be at high risk were more likely to be rearrested. Using an intent-to-treat analysis, distinguishing between reentry court graduates and nongraduates in the reentry court participant group, findings demonstrated that those successfully completing reentry court had lower rates of rearrest. This was not observed, however, for participants who were unsuccessful in completing reentry court. Research limitations/implications The possible iatrogenic effect of program noncompletion on rearrest rates call for additional research on reentry courts using the intent-to-treat design. Practical implications The assumption that any reentry court participation is beneficial and does not depend on program completion (dosage effect) may be inaccurate. Rather, there may be adverse consequences for those who start reentry court but do not complete it. Problem-solving courts could avoid unintended negative consequences for those who drop out of the program by prioritizing program completion and not admitting individuals who do not demonstrate adequate commitment to program requirements. Originality/value This study expanded past research to include arrest information for longer outcome periods and also to include the elapsed duration before rearrest.