OHIO PRISONERS’ REFLECTIONS ON RETURNING HOME
KEY FINDINGS
Ⅲ Most prisoners returning to the

Cleveland area had extensive
criminal histories, with 65 percent having served more than
one prison term and 39 percent most recently serving
time because of a supervision
violation.
Ⅲ One-third of prisoners partici-

pated in classes or training,
with almost one in seven earning a GED.

t

he Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction released
28,177 individuals from prisons across the state in 2004,1 nearly six
times the number of prisoners released in 1980.2 Ohio has the seventh largest prison population in the country,3 and 22 percent of
released prisoners return to Cuyahoga County, with 79 percent of
those returning to Cleveland.4 The sheer number of prisoners being
released annually, along with a growing appreciation for the substantial challenges that ex-prisoners face as they reenter society and the fiscal
and social consequences of unsuccessful reintegration, has brought prisoner reentry—both in Ohio and nationwide—to the forefront of the public agenda.

Ⅲ About two-thirds of prisoners

were legally employed before
this prison term, but 53 percent also reported income
from illegal sources, and only
22 percent had a job lined up
after release.
(Continued on page 2)

To help inform the next generation of reentry policy and practice, the
Urban Institute launched Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges
of Prisoner Reentry, a multistate research project in Maryland, Illinois,
Ohio, and Texas. The purpose of Returning Home is to develop a deeper
understanding of the reentry experiences of returning prisoners, their
families, and their communities. This research project involves interviews
with male prisoners before and after their release from state correctional
facilities, focus groups with residents in neighborhoods to which many
prisoners return, and interviews with reentry policymakers and practitioners. State laws and policies are also reviewed to provide overall
policy context.

JANUARY 2006

CHRISTY VISHER
DEMELZA BAER
REBECCA NASER

URBAN
INSTITUTE
2100 M STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037

REENTRY DEFINED
For the purposes of this report, “reentry” is defined as the process of leaving an
adult correctional institution and returning to society. We have limited our scope
to those sentenced to serve time in state correctional institutions to focus on
individuals who are convicted of more serious offenses, are eligible for state
correctional programs, and may be managed by state correctional, parole, and
felony probation systems after release.

2

KEY FINDINGS
(Continued from page 1)
Ⅲ Almost three in four prisoners (72 percent) reported

illegal drug use prior to their incarceration (mostly
marijuana and cocaine), yet 50 percent of respondents did not participate in any drug or alcohol treatment programs while incarcerated.
Ⅲ The majority of prisoners felt close to their family

during their prison stay; 70 percent expected to live
with family after release, and almost half expected
that family would be a source of financial support.

This report presents findings from surveys completed
by 424 males shortly before their release from Ohio
prisons and their return to Cuyahoga County. We
present descriptive statistics regarding respondents’
criminal histories; substance use; employment backgrounds; current health problems; in-prison programming experiences; relationships with family
members; and expectations for release. Overall, these
findings describe a population with extensive histories
of substance use and criminal behavior, yet strong
family ties and great optimism for their return home.

Ⅲ Most prisoners were optimistic about the future,

with 77 percent saying that it would be easy to stay
out of prison and avoid a parole violation (among
respondents who expected to be on parole), yet
most also said that they would need help with job
training/education, counseling, and financial
assistance.

INCARCERATION AND RELEASE TRENDS IN OHIO
Ohio’s rate of prison population growth had mirrored the
national level for almost two decades, until 1998, when
Ohio’s state prison population peaked and started a threeyear decline. Between 1982 and 1998, Ohio’s prison population nearly tripled in size from 17,147 to 48,171. After
three years of decreases (1998–2000), the Ohio prison
population grew by less than 1 percent from 2001 to 2004
to reach 44,082. By 2004, Ohio had the 7th largest prison
population in the United States and the 25th highest incarceration rate, with 391 prisoners per 100,000 residents.
The increases in the Ohio prison population are due to more
admissions and longer lengths of stay. Increased admissions, particularly from 1987 to 1992, were the result of a
dramatic rise in new commitments for drug offenses, as
well as increases in serious violent crime, and thus in new
commitments for violent offenders. Longer lengths of stay,
especially for more serious offenses, also contributed to
Ohio’s prison population growth. Ohio’s release patterns
generally reflect the national admissions trends over the

PRELIMINARY FINDINGS IN OHIO
These preliminary findings represent the views of
424 men who were about to be released from Ohio
prisons. With regard to the demographic characteristics of our sample, 74 percent of the respondents
were black, 18 percent were white, and 8 percent
were of another racial group or multiracial. Five percent of the sample were Hispanic or Latino. Their

past two decades. In 2004, 28,177 inmates were released
from Ohio prisons, three times the number of inmates
released two decades earlier.5

Since 2002, the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction (ODRC) has been working to develop a more
holistic and systematic approach to prisoner reentry in
which the concept of reentry underlies the assessments
and programming that a prisoner receives while in prison
as well as after release. While much of the postrelease
reentry strategy is focused on “reentry intensive” inmates
(those with the most serious criminal histories) who are
released to supervision, the ODRC has launched a release
preparation program for all inmates, regardless of their risk
assessment level or whether they will exit to supervision.
The Release Preparation Program, which starts six months
prior to an inmate’s release, includes employment readiness and other workshops, and seeks to provide transitional linkages so that the inmate will continue to receive
needed services after release.

3

possession, 9 percent for drug dealing, and the
remaining 13 percent for other offenses (figure 1).7

average age at the time of the prerelease interview
was 36 years old. Almost two-thirds of the respondents (63 percent) had never been married, and
58 percent had minor children.

Criminal justice history and involvement
Most respondents reported having long histories of
involvement with the criminal justice system, with
65 percent reporting that they had served more than
one prison term and almost half (44 percent) reporting time served in a juvenile facility.6 Eight in ten
respondents had been convicted more than once,
and the average age at first arrest was approximately
17 years old. Of the respondents, a third were serving
time for a property crime, roughly the same number
(31 percent) for a violent offense, 14 percent for drug

Thirty-nine percent of respondents had been serving
time in prison because of a parole or probation violation; of those, 33 percent returned for technical
violations and 67 percent returned for new crimes
committed while on probation or parole. The average length of incarceration was about 24 months,
with 45 percent of respondents serving two years or
less. About 36 percent served three years or more.

Education
Many respondents entered prison with considerable
educational, vocational, and employment needs.
Upon entering prison, 45 percent did not possess a

FIGURE 1. Distribution of Study Sample by Conviction Offense
Percent
40

35
32.7
30

30.8

25

20

15
14.4
12.7
10
9.4
5

0
Property

Violent

Note: Data are based on prisoners’ self reports (n = 416).

Drug
(possession)

Drug
(sale)

Other

4

high school degree or its equivalent. However, it is
notable that 24 percent had at least some college
education. One-third participated in classes or
training while serving this prison term, spending
an average of 11 hours per week in class. Moreover,
one-fourth of the respondents improved their
education level during their prison term, with
13 percent of all respondents earning a GED. Despite the fact that many respondents took advantage
of in-prison educational opportunities, most respondents (81 percent) said that they wanted to
take classes or training after release. Almost threefourths of respondents (70 percent) reported they
would need some help or a lot of help getting more
education.

Employment
Prisoners in our sample also face significant employment barriers after their release. Although about twothirds of respondents (68 percent) reported being
legally employed in at least one job in the six months
before their current prison term, 53 percent of the
entire sample reported that at least some of their
income came from illegal activity. Among the respondents reporting illegal income, 57 percent received at
least half of their total income from illegal activity.
During this term of incarceration, more than four out
of five respondents (86 percent) held a prison job. Over
two-thirds (68 percent) of those who worked while
incarcerated reported holding a prison support job,
such as working in the kitchen or performing sanitation
or maintenance; 30 percent worked at a prison industry
job, such as an auto mechanic or tractor driver.
When asked about life after prison, respondents
overwhelmingly felt that employment was going to
be important. Almost all respondents (90 percent)
felt that having a job would be an important factor
to staying out of prison. However, only one-fifth
(22 percent) reported that they already had a job

lined up after release. Among respondents who had
not yet secured postrelease employment, 89 percent
anticipated that they would need some help or a lot
of help finding a job. Most planned on talking to
friends (66 percent), walking in and applying
(61 percent), answering help wanted ads (61 percent), using a temporary agency (59 percent), and
talking to relatives (58 percent) as a means of finding work after release. Nearly three-fourths of all
respondents reported that they wanted some help or
a lot of help obtaining job training after release.

Financial support
Respondents reported they would have few financial
resources with which to support themselves after
release. Aside from those with a job already lined up,
respondents anticipated being dependent on family,
friends, and public assistance until they fully transitioned back into their community. Not surprisingly,
the most frequently reported sources of expected
financial support after release were family (44 percent) and income from jobs (44 percent), with fewer
respondents expecting public assistance (27 percent),
financial support from friends (24 percent), or savings (17 percent). Eleven percent of respondents did
not expect financial support from any source after
their release from prison. Despite reporting barriers
to financial security after release, respondents were
generally optimistic about their expected financial
situations. Almost two-thirds of respondents
thought that it would be pretty easy or very easy to
support themselves financially after release, and 81
percent reported that it would be pretty easy or very
easy to provide themselves with food after release.

Substance Use
Alcohol and illegal drug use were very common
among respondents in the six months prior to

5

prison, with 72 percent reporting use of at least one
illicit drug and 60 percent reporting alcoholic intoxication. The most frequently used drugs were marijuana (56 percent), cocaine (38 percent), ecstasy
(11 percent), and heroin (10 percent). A significant
proportion of respondents were heavy drug users,
reporting daily use of marijuana (27 percent) or
cocaine (14 percent), for example. Moreover, many
respondents indicated that their drug use negatively
impacted their lives: almost one-third (32 percent)
reported that they experienced problems in their

RETURNING HOME STUDY DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY
The Returning Home study is being conducted in four
states. Based on a number of criteria, including quality
and availability of data, and variation in sentencing and
release practices, we selected Maryland for the pilot
study and Illinois, Ohio, and Texas as the states in which
the full research study would be conducted. The project is
being carried out in close collaboration with corrections
officials, policymakers, researchers, and community leaders in each of the states. Data collection is complete in
Maryland and Illinois and is currently underway in Ohio
and Texas.
In Ohio, the study design involves several data collection
efforts with prisoners returning to the Cleveland area: (1) a
self-administered survey given to groups of male prisoners
about one month prior to their release, (2) a one-on-one
interview with sample members one to three months after
release, (3) a second one-on-one interview at four to six
months after release, and (4) a third one-on-one interview
at 12 to 16 months after release. Our goal is to portray
each respondent’s life circumstances immediately prior to
and following their release from prison, as well as a year
after their return to the community. Thus, the surveys and
interviews explore various reentry expectations, needs,
and experiences, such as those related to prerelease
preparation, postrelease housing and employment, and
the renewal of personal relationships.

Participants were recruited over a 10-month period, from
the end of May 2004 to March 2005, from 10 state pris-

relationships due to drug use and over one-fourth
of respondents (26 percent) had arguments at home
due to drug use. Additionally, 41 percent reported
spending a lot of time either using drugs or recovering from drug use in the six months prior to entering prison, and 37 percent said they wanted to
stop using drugs or alcohol, but had been unable
to do so.
The majority of respondents agreed that not using
drugs (72 percent) and not drinking (61 percent)

ons. The facilities were selected from the institutions that
released a substantial number of male prisoners to the
Cleveland area to represent a variety of security levels.
Generally, only individuals with prison sentences of at least
one year were recruited for the study, in order to have a
large number of respondents able to report on topics such
as in-prison programming and employment.8 In each facility, we scheduled times to explain the study and distribute
a self-administered survey to those willing to participate.
Seventy-five percent of those who attended the study orientation agreed to participate in the study, yielding a sample
of 424 men returning to the Cleveland area. To assess
sample representativeness, we compared those in the prerelease sample who were released in 2004 with other
adult males released to Cuyahoga County (N = 4,872).
Only three differences emerged as statistically significant
(p < 0.05) in a multivariate regression. Respondents in our
sample were less likely to be incarcerated for a drug
offense (22 versus 39 percent), more likely to be housed
under medium security at release (48 versus 35 percent),
and more likely to be released to supervision (75 versus
49 percent). Given that recruitment efforts were targeted at
males serving at least a year in prison and returning to the
Cleveland area, some of the report findings may not be representative of all male Ohio releases in 2004.
In addition to interviews with ex-prisoners, we are also
holding focus groups with community residents in the
Cleveland neighborhoods that receive the highest number
of returning prisoners and conducting interviews with reentry policymakers and practitioners in Cleveland.

6

would be important factors to helping them stay out
of prison in the future. But despite these sentiments
and expressed needs among some respondents, only
3 percent participated in drug treatment, 24 percent
attended Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics
Anonymous (AA/NA), and 23 percent participated
in both (figure 2).

Health
Most respondents (88 percent) expressed a positive
view of their health, describing it as good or excellent. In spite of their positive outlook, many prisoners reported having been diagnosed with high blood
pressure (18 percent), asthma (11 percent), arthritis
(8 percent) or diabetes (4 percent). Infectious diseases were also mentioned by respondents, with small
but significant numbers indicating they had been previously diagnosed with Hepatitis B/C (10 percent),
tuberculosis (4 percent), HIV or AIDS (1 percent),
or another sexually transmitted disease (4 percent).
Moreover, 26 percent reported that they were currently on prescription medication for a health
problem.

While physical health problems are prevalent
among this population, mental health problems
present an equally daunting challenge for prisoners
preparing to return to Cleveland. Roughly one in
seven respondents (14 percent) reported having
been diagnosed with depression and 8 percent
reported having other mental health problems. Also
of note is the intersection between substance use and
health, with 9 percent reporting that they had experienced health problems due to their drinking and
13 percent reporting health problems due to drug
use during the six months leading up to their current
prison term.
Although many respondents reported at least one
serious health condition, 89 percent anticipated that
it would be pretty easy or very easy for them to stay in
good health after their release. However, 86 percent
reported that they would need help obtaining health
care after their release.

WHAT WORRIES YOU THE MOST ABOUT YOUR LIFE
AFTER PRISON?
Ⅲ 31%—finding a job or not getting a job because of

FIGURE 2. Drug or Alcohol Treatment Participation (n = 419)

their criminal record
Ⅲ 21%—“nothing” worried them about life after

release
Ⅲ 11%—obtaining money and being financially secure

AA/NA only
24%

Ⅲ 10%—being accepted by society and readjusting to

life outside prison
Drug
treatment only
3%

Neither
50%
AA/NA and
drug treatment
23%

Ⅲ 10%—staying out of trouble and avoiding old friends

and hangouts
Ⅲ 8%—staying away from drugs/alcohol and staying

“clean”
Ⅲ 6%—making the same mistakes and returning to

prison
Responses from soon-to-be released prisoners
(n = 405)

7

Family relationships and support
Before they began this prison term, almost twothirds of the respondents (63 percent) had never
been married, 8 percent reported being divorced or
separated, and 23 percent were married or had been
living with a partner as married prior to this prison
term. Other respondents were widowed (4 percent)
or reported some other type of relationship (3 percent). Many of these prisoners were also parents of
minor children (58 percent), with 30 percent of
respondents reporting that they had lived with at
least some of their children prior to their current
prison term. In addition, 89 percent of respondents
with children reported providing financial support
before they entered prison, with 43 percent of
respondents with children providing daily financial
support.
Family members were central to providing emotional support during the prison term.9 While
incarcerated, most respondents (81 percent) said

their family was a source of support and almost all
(92 percent) wanted their families to be involved in
their lives. Furthermore, 81 percent reported that
they felt close to their families during their prison
stay. Respondents also felt they served as a source
of support for their families, with only 28 percent
reporting that they did not serve as a source of
support.
Respondents had high expectations for family support after their release from prison. Eighty-three
percent anticipated that their families would be
supportive after their release, with most prisoners
(70 percent) expecting to live with family after
prison and almost half (44 percent) expecting that
family would be a source of postprison financial support (figure 3). Few respondents were concerned
about renewing their relationships with family. The
vast majority (83 percent) felt that it would be easy.
Among respondents who were parents, 80 percent
thought that it would be easy to renew relationships
with their children, and among those with minor

FIGURE 3. Expectations for Family Support (ns = 418, 379, and 416)
Percent
100

80

83.3
78.4

60

40

43.6

20

0
Provide support

Provide housing

Financial support

8

children, over half (58 percent) expected that at least
some of their children would live with them after
their release from prison.

cation (70 percent) and over three-quarters wanted
help obtaining financial assistance (76 percent) and
transportation (76 percent).

Despite the high levels of family support reported
by respondents, there were indications that many
respondents had family members facing similar
challenges—a history of substance abuse and
involvement in the criminal justice system. Well
over half of respondents (64 percent) had at least one
family member who had been convicted of a crime
and 30 percent had a family member currently serving time in prison. In addition, 57 percent reported
that someone in their family had problems with
drugs or alcohol.

Respondent optimism may have been influenced by
high levels of reported spirituality, with two-thirds
(63 percent) indicating high levels of faith and/or
religious practices.10 Significant numbers reported
praying or meditating daily (56 percent) or reading
the Bible, Koran, or other religious literature every
day (27 percent).

Attitudes and beliefs
Most respondents were optimistic about their potential to successfully reenter society. Among the sample, most thought it would be pretty easy or very easy
to find a place to live after release (66 percent of
respondents who had not yet secured housing),
financially support themselves (63 percent), and find
a job (51 percent of respondents without a job lined
up). Respondents also anticipated that it would be
easy to stay out of prison after release (77 percent)
and avoid a parole violation (77 percent of those who
expected to be released on parole).
Though most respondents were hopeful about overcoming challenges they would face upon release,
many also reported that they would need help confronting these challenges. Eighty-six percent of
respondents reported that they would need help
accessing health care, with significant proportions
also indicating that they would need help accessing
counseling (45 percent) or mental health treatment
(28 percent). A majority of the prisoners indicated
that upon release they would need help accessing job
training services (74 percent) or obtaining more edu-

Housing and community
Given that the majority of respondents anticipated
living with a family member after release, few
expressed concern about securing postprison housing. At the time of the prerelease interview, 66 percent had housing lined up for after their release and
an even greater proportion (70 percent) anticipated
that they would live with a family member. Among
the 28 percent who did not yet have a place to live,11
the most common method for finding housing was
to contact a family member (39 percent), followed by
using a referral service or housing program (35 percent), asking their parole officer (30 percent), checking the newspaper (29 percent), accessing a
government program (26 percent), asking a friend
(24 percent), and contacting a shelter (24 percent).
Among the prisoners who had not secured housing
at the time of the interview, 66 percent thought that
it would be pretty easy or very easy to find a place to
live, though 80 percent anticipated that they would
need help locating housing.
Most respondents who knew where they would live
after release described their neighborhood as safe
and said that it would not be difficult to stay out of
trouble there (81 percent). More than half of respondents (53 percent) who had secured housing
reported that they were looking forward to seeing

9

WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING FORWARD TO THE MOST
ABOUT YOUR LIFE AFTER PRISON?
Ⅲ 51%—renewing family relationships with children,

parents, and significant others; rebuilding relationships; getting a “second chance”
Ⅲ 19%—being employed in a good job; being finan-

cially successful
Ⅲ 15%—“freedom,” “getting my life together,”

but also to facilitate policy discussions at the local,
state, and national levels. A statistical snapshot of
male prisoners returning to Cleveland and Cuyahoga
County, based on interviews conducted before
release, indicates that these individuals are at high
risk of various obstacles that may hinder their successful reintegration (table 1). Research findings
from the Ohio Returning Home prerelease survey
suggest several policy directions:

“making decisions for myself”
Ⅲ 3%—nothing to look forward to

Responses from soon-to-be released prisoners
(n = 410).

certain people in their neighborhood; only one in
nine respondents said they were nervous about seeing certain people in their neighborhood. Moreover,
most respondents (84 percent) indicated that they
would vote after release if they could.

Ⅲ Soon-to-be-released prisoners in our sample, who

were men with an average age of 36 years, had
long, serious histories of substance abuse and
criminal justice involvement, including previous
parole or probation violations. Over 70 percent
reported illegal drug use or alcohol intoxication.
About one-quarter had participated in a treatment
program other than AA/NA for drug or alcohol
problems, suggesting that many prisoners will
return to the community with persisting addictions which, if not addressed, could lead to subsequent substance abuse and criminal involvement.

Postrelease supervision
Ⅲ About a third of respondents are leaving prison

Seventy-five percent of the study sample reported
that they would be subject to postrelease
supervision.12 Among those who knew they would be
under parole supervision, a majority (83 percent)
expected that their parole officer would be helpful
during their transition back into the community. It
is noteworthy that of the respondents who were
going to be on parole, 77 percent thought that it
would be pretty easy or very easy to avoid a parole
violation.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS
AND NEXT STEPS

with less than a high school degree or equivalent
and only 22 percent had postprison jobs lined up
at the time of the prerelease survey. Employment
readiness and referral services, therefore, are critical resources for these returning prisoners.
Ⅲ Prisoners generally remain close to their families

during incarceration. Prisoners also expect to rely
on family members for housing and financial support during the first month out of prison. For
these reasons, prisons should incorporate families
into their prerelease programming and postrelease
supervision.
Ⅲ Physical and mental health disorders affect a large

Returning Home is a multistate, longitudinal study
designed not only to contribute to the knowledge
base about the pathways and implications of reentry,

group of returning prisoners, including 26 percent
who are taking prescription medication. While 28
percent said that they would specifically need men-

10

tal health treatment, a surprising 45 percent
reported that they would need help getting counseling. Providing information about access to
health care after release should be an important
component of reentry planning for soon-to-bereleased inmates.
Ⅲ About 6 in 10 prisoners have children under age

18. Because incarceration often separates parents
from their children, prisons should prepare
inmates for renewing their relationships with their

children, including guidance on how to provide
emotional and financial support after release.
In addition to this research brief, we will be publishing topic-specific research summaries to inform policy and practice about prisoner reentry. We will also
produce a full technical report, including analyses of
all prerelease and postrelease data, postrelease criminal history data, and findings from interviews with
community members and service providers. The
final report, which will be published in 2007, will

Table 1. A Snapshot of Male Prisoners Returning to Cleveland (Ns range from 368 to 422)

Preprison attributes

Number of children when entered prison
Respondent threatened, hurt, or harassed a family member before prison
Worked before prison

1.8
14%
68%

Criminal justice history

Any illegal drug use before prison
Age at first arrest
Served time in a juvenile correctional facility
Average number of prior incarcerations
Currently serving time for a parole or probation violation

72%
18
44%
2.6
39%

In-prison attributes

Earned a GED while incarcerated
Participated in drug or alcohol treatment
Receiving treatment for depression
On medication for a health problem
Prayed or meditated daily
Read Bible or other religious literature daily

13%
26%
9%
26%
56%
27%

Expectations and
needs after release

Expected postprison earnings per hour (of those who planned to work)
Expect to live with family after release
Need help finding a job
Need help getting more education
Need help getting job training
Need help getting child care
Need help getting counseling
Need help getting financial assistance
Need help getting mental health treatment
Need help getting drug or alcohol treatment

$13
70%
65%
70%
74%
27%
45%
76%
28%
26%

11

present conclusions from the study and discuss them
in the context of policy implications. The results of
the Ohio study will also be a part of a larger crossstate analysis based on Returning Home research conducted in Illinois, Maryland, and Texas.

involved in your life, considered yourself a source of support
for your family, and family was a source of support for you.
10

Items on the spirituality scale included frequency of prayer
or meditation, frequency of reading the Bible, find strength in
religion or spirituality, feels guided by God on a daily basis,
spiritual/religious beliefs help define life goals, and faith helps
understand right from wrong.

ENDNOTES
11

Four percent of respondents did not answer this question.

1

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. “July
2005 Facts.” Columbus, OH: Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction, 2005.

12

Three percent of respondents were not sure whether or not
they would be supervised.

2

This statistic is based on a Bureau of Justice Statistics estimate that 630,000 prisoners were released from federal and
state prisoners in 2002. Paige M. Harrison and Jennifer C.
Karberg. “Prison and Jail Prisoners at Midyear 2002.”
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S.
Department of Justice, 2003.

FOR FURTHER READING
La Vigne, Nancy G., and Gillian L. Thomson. 2003. “A
Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.” Washington, DC: The
Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410891.

3

Paige M. Harrison and Allen J. Beck. “Prison and Jail
Inmates at Midyear 2004.” Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2005.
4

Nancy G. La Vigne and Gillian L. Thompson with Christy
Visher, Vera Kachnowski, and Jeremy Travis. “A Portrait of
Prisoner Reentry in Ohio.” Washington, DC: Urban Institute,
2003.
5

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Bureau
of Research.
6

The information in this section is based upon self-reported
criminal behavior and may differ from the Ohio Department
of Rehabilitation and Correction records on number of prior
convictions, current conviction offense, etc.
7

In this report, property crimes include burglary, robbery,
theft, car theft, and fraud or forgery; violent crimes include
assault, homicide, sex offense, and multiple and sex offense;
other includes weapons offense and other offense.
8

Individuals incarcerated for less than one year may not have
the opportunity to participate in programs or employment
opportunities before the conclusion of their sentence; thus,
these individuals would not be able to respond to a significant
number of the questions on the survey instrument.
9

The family support scale was comprised of the following
items: felt close to your family, wanted your family to be

La Vigne, Nancy G., Christy Visher, and Jennifer Castro.
2004. “Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences Returning Home.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.
org/url.cfm?ID=311115.
Lynch, James, and William Sabol. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry in
Perspective.” Crime Policy Report, vol. 3. Washington, DC:
The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/pdfs/410213_
reentry.pdf.
Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. 2002. “Beyond the
Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America.” Washington,
DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.org/
UploadedPDF/310583_Beyond_prison_gates.pdf.
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001.
“From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences
of Prisoner Reentry.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/pdfs/from_prison_to_home.pdf.
Visher, Christy, Vera Kachnowski, Nancy G. La Vigne, and
Jeremy Travis. 2004. “Baltimore Prisoners’ Experiences
Returning Home.” Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=310946.
Visher, Christy, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Jill Farrell. 2003.
“Illinois Prisoners’ Reflections on Returning Home.”
Washington, DC: The Urban Institute. http://www.urban.
org/url.cfm?ID=310846.

12

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank the many individuals and organizations that have contributed to the success of this
research project. The Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, especially Edward Rhine and
Steven Van Dine, and the staff of the 10 prisons in
which we conducted the in-prison interviews were enormously helpful and generous with their time. We are
particularly appreciative of Research Support Services,
under the direction of Alisu Schoua-Glusberg, who skillfully conducted the original data collection for this
report. We would also like to thank Jennifer Castro and
Lisa Brooks of the Urban Institute, who contributed
research and editorial assistance for this report.
Finally, we are very grateful for the participation of the
424 individuals in the Returning Home study in Ohio.
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 Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Correction.

To receive free monthly email updates on the
research of the Justice Policy Center, join the
Center’s e-mail distribution list by sending an
e-mail to JPC@ui.urban.org.

ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Christy A. Visher 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.
Demelza Baer is a research assistant in the Justice
Policy Center at the Urban Institute.
Rebecca Naser is a research associate in the Justice
Policy Center at the Urban Institute. Her primary
research interests include corrections, prisoner
reentry, program evaluation, and issues of social
inequality.

The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.