Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header

Adult Male Svori Participants Reentry Evaluation August 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
Pre-release Characteristics and
Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the
SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
THE MULTI-SITE EVALUATION OF THE SERIOUS AND VIOLENT OFFENDER REENTRY INITIATIVE

August 2008

Pamela K. Lattimore
Christy A. Visher
Danielle M. Steffey

Acknowledgments
The Multi-site Evaluation of the Serious and Violent Offender
Reentry Initiative (SVORI) is supported by grant number 2004RE-CX-002 from the National Institute of Justice (U.S.
Department of Justice) and is conducted by RTI International
and the Urban Institute. Points of view are those of the authors
and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department
of Justice.
Principal Investigators
Pamela K. Lattimore, RTI International
Christy A. Visher, Urban Institute
Report Authors
Pamela K. Lattimore, RTI International
Christy A. Visher, Urban Institute
Danielle M. Steffey, RTI International
Staff Contributors
Susan M. Brumbaugh, RTI International
Jenny L. Osborne, Urban Institute
RTI and the Urban Institute also acknowledge the assistance
and direction provided by the members of our external advisory
group, as well as the assistance and support of the local SVORI
project directors and other site staff.
For more information about the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation,
please visit our website at http://www.svori-evaluation.org/.

iii

Contents
Section

Page

Executive Summary

ES-1 

Introduction

1 

The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation—Design and Methods ........... 3 
SVORI Program Overview .................................................. 7 
Characteristics of the SVORI and Non-SVORI
Comparison Respondents

13 

Demographic Characteristics .............................................13 
Housing .........................................................................17 
Family and Children .........................................................17 
Substance Use and Physical and Mental Health ....................20 
Employment History and Financial Support ..........................28 
Criminal History, Violence, Victimization, and Gang
Involvement ............................................................33 
In-Prison Experiences .......................................................35 
Service Needs

43 

Service Need Bundle Scores ..............................................44 
Transitional Services ........................................................45 
Health Services ...............................................................48 
Employment/Education/Skills Services ................................50 
Domestic Violence Services ...............................................52 
Child Services .................................................................53 
Levels of Need across Services ..........................................55 
Service Receipt

59 

Service Receipt Bundle Scores ...........................................60 
Coordination Services .......................................................60 
Transitional Services ........................................................63 
Health Services ...............................................................65 
Employment/Education/Skills Services ................................67 
Domestic Violence Services ...............................................70 

v

Child Services .................................................................71 
Levels of Receipt across Services .......................................72 
Conclusions

77 

Characteristics of Respondents ..........................................77 
Service Needs .................................................................79 
Service Receipt ...............................................................80 
Comparability of SVORI and Non-SVORI Respondents ...........81 
Implications ....................................................................84 
Future Reports ................................................................84 
References
Appendix A. Data Tables

vi

85 
A-1 

Exhibits
Exhibit Number

Page

1

States and agencies selected for the impact evaluation..... 4 

2

Adult male sample sizes, by state and group ................... 6 

3

Mean proportion of offenders receiving pre- and postrelease services, by group (as reported by SVORI
program directors) ...................................................... 9 

4

Service receipt bundle scores, by group, pre- and postrelease (as reported by SVORI program directors) ......... 11 

5

Demographic characteristics of respondents at time of
interview, by group ................................................... 14 

6

Age at time of interview, by site and group ................... 15 

7

Race (white or black), by site and group....................... 16 

8

Completed 12th grade or obtained a GED, by site and
group ...................................................................... 17 

9

Percentages of fathers reporting on child care or child
support responsibilities, by group ................................ 18 

10 Criminal history and substance use of family and peers,
by group .................................................................. 19 
11 Lifetime substance use, by group ................................ 21 
12 Lifetime use of cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens, by
site and group .......................................................... 22 
13 Substance use during the 30 days prior to incarceration,
by site and group ...................................................... 23 
14 Use of specific substances during the 30 days prior to
incarceration, by group .............................................. 23 
15 Any substance use treatment prior to current
incarceration, by site and group .................................. 24 
16 Lifetime health problems, by group .............................. 25 
17 Current health problems, by group .............................. 26 
18 Average scores on Brief Symptom Inventory subscales,
by group .................................................................. 27 
19 Employment prior to incarceration, by group ................. 29 

vii

20 Employment during the 6 months prior to incarceration,
by site and group ...................................................... 30 
21 Characteristics of respondents’ jobs prior to incarceration,
by group .................................................................. 30 
22 Sources of income during the 6 months prior to
incarceration, by employment status and group............. 32 
23 Criminal history of respondents, by group ..................... 33 
24 Conviction offenses for current incarceration, by group ... 34 
25 Average duration of incarceration at time of interview,
by site and group ...................................................... 36 
26 Disciplinary infractions and administrative segregations
during current incarceration, by group ......................... 37 
27 Institutional employment, by site and group ................. 38 
28 Work-release participation, by site and group ................ 39 
29 Frequency of in-prison contact with family members and
friends, by group ...................................................... 40 
30 Amount of contact with family members and friends at
time of interview compared with contact when first
incarcerated ............................................................. 41 
31 Service need bundle scores across service bundles, by
group ...................................................................... 44 
32 Self-reported need for specific transitional services, by
group ...................................................................... 45 
33 Average service need bundle scores for the transitional
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 47 
34 Self-reported need for specific health services, by
group ...................................................................... 48 
35 Average service need bundle scores for the health
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 49 
36 Self-reported need for specific employment, education,
and skills services, by group ....................................... 50 
37 Average service need bundle scores for the
employment/education/skills services bundle, by site and
group ...................................................................... 52 
38 Average service need bundle scores for the domestic
violence services bundle, by site and group................... 53 
39 Self-reported need for specific child services, by group ... 54 
40 Average service need bundle scores for the child services
bundle, by site and group ........................................... 55 
41 Most commonly reported service needs, by group .......... 56 
42 Average service need bundle scores for all services, by
site and group .......................................................... 57 
43 Service receipt bundle scores across service bundles, by
group ...................................................................... 60 
44 Self-reported receipt of specific coordination services, by
group ...................................................................... 61 

viii

45 Average service receipt bundle scores for the coordination
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 62 
46 Self-reported receipt of specific transitional services, by
group ...................................................................... 63 
47 Average service receipt bundle scores for the transitional
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 64 
48 Self-reported receipt of specific health services, by
group ...................................................................... 66 
49 Average service receipt bundle scores for the health
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 67 
50 Self-reported receipt of specific employment, education,
and skills services, by group ....................................... 68 
51 Average service receipt bundle scores for the
employment/education/skills services bundle, by site and
group ...................................................................... 69 
52 Average service receipt bundle scores for the domestic
violence services bundle, by site and group................... 71 
53 Average service receipt bundle scores for the child
services bundle, by site and group ............................... 72 
54 Most commonly reported services received, by group ..... 73 
55 Average service receipt bundle scores for all services, by
site and group .......................................................... 74 
56 Statistically significant differences between SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents. ............................................ 83 
A-1 Adult male case disposition—Wave 1 (pre-release) ....... A-1
A-2 Respondent characteristics, by group .......................... A-2
A-3 Proportion of respondents who reported needing specific
services, by group .................................................. A-11
A-4 Proportion of respondents who reported receiving specific
services, by group .................................................. A-12

ix

Executive Summary
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
funded agencies in 2003 to develop programs to improve
criminal justice, employment, education, health, and housing
outcomes for released prisoners. Sixty-nine agencies received
federal funds ($500,000 to $2,000,000 over 3 years) to
develop 89 programs.
The SVORI multi-site evaluation was funded by the National
Institute of Justice in the spring of 2003 and included prerelease and follow-up interviews with nearly 2400 returning
prisoners. Sixteen programs are included in the impact
evaluation, comprising 12 adult programs and 4 juvenile
programs located in 14 states: Colorado (juveniles only),
Florida (juveniles only), Indiana, Iowa, Kansas (adults and
juveniles), Maine, Maryland, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma,
Pennsylvania, South Carolina (adults and juveniles), and
Washington.
This report presents findings from the pre-release interviews
conducted with adult males in the 12 adult impact sites. The
sample includes 863 men who were enrolled in SVORI
programs and 834 comparison men who did not receive SVORI
programming. The data presented in this report are primarily
descriptive and convey characteristics of the respondents, as
well as their pre-prison and incarceration experiences.
Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents are
presented for the purpose of assessing pre-release
comparability between groups.
Characteristics of the SVORI and non-SVORI Comparison
Respondents
ƒ

The average age of the respondents was 29 years, and
about half were black and one-third were white.

ES-1

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

ƒ

About 60% had a high school diploma or GED.

ƒ

Prior to incarceration, most respondents reported living
in a house or apartment that belonged to someone else,
and nearly all reported having family members and
friends who had been convicted of a crime or had
problems with drugs or alcohol.

Substance Use and Physical and Mental Health
ƒ

Nearly all respondents reported having used alcohol and
marijuana, whereas more than half reported cocaine
use.

ƒ

Of those who had ever used drugs, about two-thirds
reported having used one or more illicit drugs during the
30 days prior to their incarceration.

ƒ

Most respondents reported few physical health
problems, and most described their mental health status
at the time of the pre-release interview as excellent or
very good.

Employment History and Financial Support
ƒ

Most study participants reported having worked at some
point during their lifetimes, and about two-thirds
reported working during the 6 months prior to prison.

ƒ

Of those working during the 6 months prior to prison,
about three-quarters described their most recent job as
a permanent job for which they received formal pay.

ƒ

Nearly half of the respondents reported supplementing
their legal income with income from illegal activities,
with those who had no job prior to prison more likely to
report illegal income.

Criminal History
ƒ

The respondents reported an average age at first arrest
of 16 and an average of 12 arrests.

ƒ

Most respondents had been previously incarcerated and
about half had been detained in a juvenile facility.

ƒ

At the time of the interview, respondents reported an
average length of incarceration of more than 2 years.

ƒ

Most respondents indicated that family members had
served as an important source of support during their
incarceration.

Although the SVORI and comparison respondents were similar
on many of several hundred measures, they differed on a few
measures:
ƒ

ES-2

SVORI respondents were more likely to be black and
less likely to be white than comparison respondents.

Executive Summary — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

ƒ

Non-SVORI respondents were significantly more likely
than SVORI respondents to indicate symptoms of
hostility and psychosis on the mental health subscales.

ƒ

Self-reports on “ever using” drugs indicated somewhat
higher usage among the non-SVORI respondents.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were somewhat less likely to have
been employed prior to incarceration.

ƒ

On some indicators, SVORI respondents were less
involved in pre-prison substance use.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were less likely to be in prison for a
parole violation.

ƒ

SVORI respondents were more likely to be serving time
for a drug crime.

ƒ

SVORI respondents had spent more time in prison
during the current incarceration.

ƒ

SVORI respondents reported more disciplinary
infractions and administrative segregations than were
reported by the non-SVORI respondents, which may be
associated with their longer lengths of stay.

Levels of Service Needs
ƒ

Respondents reported high levels of service needs
across the spectrum of 28 services included in the
interview; on average, respondents reported needing
more than half of the services.

ƒ

The most common needs reported by SVORI
respondents were education (94%), financial assistance
(86%), a driver’s license (83%), job training (82%), and
employment (80%).

ƒ

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were similar on
most measures, but non-SVORI respondents were
significantly less likely than SVORI respondents to report
needing financial assistance or access to clothing and
food banks and more likely than SVORI respondents to
report needing mental health or substance abuse
treatment, domestic violence support groups, or a
change in their criminal attitudes.

Levels of Service Receipt
ƒ

SVORI programs were successful in greatly increasing
access to a wide range of services and programming.
The SVORI respondents were much more likely than the
non-SVORI respondents to report receiving most of the
services we asked about.

ES-3

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

ƒ

The most common services SVORI respondents reported
receiving were participating in programs to prepare for
release, meeting with a case manager, working with
someone to plan for release, taking a class specifically
for release, and receiving a needs assessment.

ƒ

There were only four services for which the difference in
service receipt between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents was not significant: assistance modifying
custody agreements, batterer intervention programs,
medical treatment, and assistance accessing public
financial assistance.

ƒ

Overall, SVORI respondents reported receiving about
one-third of the service items—in contrast to the onefifth of items that non-SVORI respondents reported
receiving.

The results from these interviews show that our SVORI and
non-SVORI groups are similar on most characteristics and that
those who participated in SVORI programs were more likely to
receive pre-release programming and services. These findings
set the stage for future examinations of outcomes.

ES-4

Introduction
The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI)
was a collaborative federal effort, established in 2003, to
improve outcomes for adults and juveniles returning to their
communities after a period of incarceration. The initiative
sought to help states better utilize their correctional resources
to address outcomes along criminal justice, employment,
education, health, and housing dimensions. Funded by the U.S.
Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, Housing and Urban
Development, and Health and Human Services, SVORI was an
unprecedented national response to the challenges of prisoner
reentry.
Sixty-nine state and local grantees (corrections and juvenile
justice agencies) received SVORI funding, representing all 50
states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
These grantees developed 89 programs that targeted adult and
juvenile correctional populations. SVORI funding was intended
to create a three-phase continuum of services for returning
prisoners that began during the period of incarceration,
intensified just prior to release and during the early months
post-release, and continued for several years following release
as former inmates took on more productive and independent
roles in the community. The SVORI programs attempted to
address the initiative’s goals and provide a wide range of wellcoordinated services to returning prisoners. Although SVORI
programs shared the common goals of improving outcomes
across various dimensions and improving service coordination
and systems collaboration, programs differed substantially in
their approach and implementation (Winterfield and Lindquist,
2005; Winterfield and Brumbaugh, 2005; Lindquist, 2005;
Winterfield et al., 2006).

1

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

SVORI Evaluation
Research Questions
ƒ To what extent did
SVORI lead to more
coordinated and
integrated services
among partner
agencies?
ƒ

To what extent did
SVORI participants
receive more
individualized and
comprehensive
services than
comparable
individuals not
enrolled in SVORI?

ƒ

To what extent did
SVORI participants
demonstrate better
recidivism,
employment, health,
and personal
functioning outcomes
than individuals not
enrolled in SVORI?

ƒ

To what extent did
the benefits derived
from SVORI
programming exceed
the costs?

In spring 2003, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) awarded
RTI International, a nonprofit research organization, a grant to
evaluate programs funded by SVORI. The Urban Institute, a
nonpartisan economic and social policy research organization, is
collaborating on this project, which is one of the largest
evaluation studies ever funded by NIJ. Through data collected
from grantee staff, partnering agencies, and returning
prisoners, this 6-year study involves a comprehensive
implementation evaluation of all 89 SVORI programs, an
intensive impact evaluation of 16 selected programs, and an
economic analysis on a subset of the impact sites (see
Lattimore et al., 2005). The goal of the SVORI evaluation is to
document the implementation of SVORI programs and
determine whether they have accomplished SVORI’s overall
goal of increasing public safety by reducing recidivism among
the populations served.
The implementation assessment addresses the extent to which
the 89 SVORI programs (69 grantees) increased access to
services and promoted systems change. The impact evaluation
is assessing the effectiveness of SVORI by comparing key
outcomes among those who received services as part of SVORI
and a comparable group of individuals who received “treatment
as usual” in the 16 sites participating in the impact evaluation.
The impact evaluation includes a longitudinal study of 2,391
returning prisoners (adult males, adult females, and juvenile
males) who were interviewed approximately 1 month prior to
release and then again at 3, 9, and 15 months after release. 1
The third component of the evaluation, an economic analysis, is
intended to determine the return on SVORI investment and will
include both a cost-benefit and a cost-effectiveness analysis.
This report presents findings from the pre-release interviews
conducted with adult males in the 12 adult impact sites. The
sample includes 863 SVORI program participants and 834
comparison men who were not enrolled in SVORI programs.
The data presented in this report are primarily descriptive and
1

2

A total of 2,583 pre-release interviews were completed out of 2,982
that were fielded (86.6% completion rate). Nearly 200 (192) of
those who completed a baseline interview were not released during
the 18 months in which the initial post-release interview was being
conducted; these 192 subjects were excluded from the study as not
eligible for the evaluation. Evaluation eligibility requirements
included prison release, because the focus of the evaluation is
reentry into the community.

Introduction — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Differences between
SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents are
presented for the purpose
of assessing pre-release
comparability between
groups.

convey characteristics of the subjects, as well as their preprison and incarceration experiences. Differences between
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents are presented for the
purpose of assessing pre-release comparability between the
two groups.
Immediately below, we provide an overview of the design of
the SVORI impact evaluation, including the selection of
respondents and the interview process. We then provide a brief
summary of the characteristics of the local SVORI programs,
derived from surveys of the SVORI program directors. This
description is followed by a presentation of findings from the
pre-release interviews. The findings are presented in the
following order: First, we present the demographic
characteristics of the SVORI and non-SVORI adult males. We
then describe their self-reported pre-prison housing status;
relationships with family and peers; health status, including
physical and mental health and substance use; employment
and education history; criminal history, violence perpetration,
and victimization; and in-prison experiences. The subsequent
sections provide detailed descriptions of the respondents’ selfreported service needs and in-prison service receipt. The report
concludes with a discussion of the comparability of our
evaluation groups, implications of our findings, and a
description of forthcoming reports.

THE SVORI MULTI-SITE EVALUATION—
DESIGN AND METHODS
The impact evaluation component of the SVORI multi-site
evaluation includes a longitudinal study of adult male, adult
female, and juvenile male returning prisoners. Data collection
consisted of four waves of in-person, computer-assisted
interviews: the pre-release interview (Wave 1) conducted about
1 month prior to expected release 2 and three follow-up
interviews (Waves 2 through 4) conducted 3, 9, and 15 months
following release. In addition, oral swab drug tests were
conducted during the 3- and 15-month interviews for adult
respondents who were interviewed in a community setting. The
interview and drug test data will be supplemented with
administrative records obtained from state correctional
agencies and arrest data to examine recidivism outcomes.
2

The median time to release at the time of the interview was 30 days.

3

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

The 16 sites included in the impact evaluation were 12 adult
programs and 4 juvenile programs located in 14 states.
Exhibit 1 lists these impact sites. The sites are diverse in
programmatic approach and represent reasonable geographic
diversity.
Criteria Used to
Select Impact Sites
ƒ The program had
clearly defined
elements and goals.

4

ƒ

The program was or
was expected to be
fully implemented.

ƒ

The program target
population was
accessible and was
expected to be of
sufficient size.

ƒ

An appropriate
comparison
population was
available and
accessible for
inclusion in the
study.

ƒ

Administrative data
were of good quality
and available for the
evaluation.

ƒ

The program was
amenable and able
to participate in the
evaluation.

Exhibit 1. States and agencies selected for the impact
evaluation

State
CO
FL

Grantee Agency
Colorado Department of Corrections
Florida Department of Juvenile Justice

IA
IN
KS
KS
ME
MD

Iowa Department of Corrections
Indiana Department of Corrections
Kansas Department of Corrections
Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority
Maine Department of Corrections
Maryland Department of Public Safety and
Correctional Services
Missouri Department of Corrections
Nevada Department of Corrections
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and
Corrections
Oklahoma Department of Corrections
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
South Carolina Department of Corrections
South Carolina Department of Juvenile
Justice
Washington State Department of Corrections

MO
NV
OH
OK
PA
SC
SC
WA

Focus of Impact
Evaluation
Juveniles
Juveniles
(Dade County)
Adults
Adults
Adults
Juveniles
Adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
Adults
Juveniles
Adults

A site-specific research design was developed for each impact
site. In two sites (Iowa and Ohio), a random assignment
evaluation design was implemented by the programs. In the
remaining sites, comparison groups were developed by isolating
the criteria that local site staff used to identify individuals
eligible for enrollment in their SVORI program (these included
factors such as age, criminal history, risk level, post-release
supervision, transfer to pre-release facilities, and county of
release). Where possible, the comparison subjects came from
the same pre-release facilities and were returning to the same
post-release geographic areas as the SVORI participants. In
some instances, comparison subjects were identified as those
who met all eligibility criteria except pre- or post-release
geographic parameters. When this occurred, we selected our

Introduction — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

comparison sample from pre-release facilities that were
comparable to facilities in which SVORI was available or
individuals from SVORI facilities that were returning to a
different but similar geographic area. Eligible respondents (both
SVORI and comparison) were identified on a monthly basis
during the 17-month pre-release interview period. 3
Pre-release interviews were conducted from July 2004 through
November 2005 in more than 150 prisons and juvenile
detention facilities. In addition to obtaining approval from the
Institutional Review Boards at RTI and the Urban Institute,
memoranda of agreement and/or formal research agreements
were negotiated with all agencies, and evaluation staff ensured
that study procedures were approved by all facilities (and/or
correctional agencies overseeing the facilities) in which
interviews were conducted. The interviews were conducted in
private settings by experienced RTI field interviewers using
computer-assisted personal interviewing methodology. Prerelease interviews were conducted approximately 30 days prior
to release and were designed to obtain data on the
respondents’ characteristics and pre-prison experiences, as well
as incarceration experiences and services received since
admission to prison. These interviews also obtained data on the
respondents’ post-release plans and expectations about
reentry.

Despite the complexity of
collecting Wave 1 data on
an ongoing basis in more
than 150 correctional
institutions in 14 states,
the field staff had minimal
difficulties.

Despite the complexity of collecting Wave 1 data on an ongoing
basis in more than 150 correctional institutions in 14 states, the
field staff had minimal difficulties. The primary problem during
the early phases of fielding the interview involved our reliance
on often inaccurate expected release dates for individuals
identified as eligible for the study. Site contacts provided lists of
eligible individuals with expected release dates within 90 days.
However, early in the interviewing period, it became evident
that a sizeable number of eligible individuals were being
released before an interview could be scheduled. To alleviate
3

Every effort was made to identify SVORI program refusers and
exclude them from the evaluation. These efforts included working
with local program staff to ensure that individuals refusing to
participate in SVORI were not included on lists of potential
comparison subjects. In some cases, SVORI program refusers were
interviewed as comparison subjects; however, the evaluation team
dropped these individuals from the comparison group when their
prior program refusal was discovered. In addition, SVORI program
directors reported few refusals among those identified for potential
participation in SVORI.

5

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

this problem, we worked with site contacts to obtain
information about the maximum amount of “good time” a
potential respondent could earn in order to factor good time
credits into release-date projections. 4 This change in procedure
minimized the number of eligible individuals who were released
before they could be interviewed. Among eligible sample
members approached for interviews, we experienced very low
refusal rates, on average less than 12% across the 12 adult
male sites. 5 A breakdown of the categories of refusals and
ineligible cases is available in Appendix Exhibit A-1.
Exhibit 2 presents the distribution of adult male pre-release
interview respondents by state and by group (i.e., SVORI or
non-SVORI). The findings presented in the subsequent sections
are based on the data collected during interviews with these
1,697 respondents.
Exhibit 2. Adult male
sample sizes, by state
and group

State
Iowa
Indiana
Kansas
Maine
Maryland
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Washington
Total

4

SVORI
114
64
23
35
130
36
107
47
42
57
179
29
863

Non-SVORI
55
94
48
44
124
50
50
38
51
66
166
48
834

Total
169
158
71
79
254
86
157
85
93
123
345
77
1,697

% of Total
10.0
9.3
4.2
4.7
15.0
5.1
9.2
5.0
5.5
7.2
20.3
4.5
100.0

Inaccurate expected release dates are a common problem in
management information systems maintained centrally by
departments of correction. Information that is needed to accurately
predict a release date—such as good time credits, infractions that
result in cancellation of good time—is often maintained primarily by
the institution where the inmate is residing prior to release.
5
We have no reason to expect that these "early releases" were
anything other than random or that the early release was related to
participation in SVORI programs.

6

Introduction — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI Goals
ƒ To improve quality of
life and selfsufficiency through
employment,
housing, family, and
community
involvement
ƒ

To improve health by
addressing
substance use
(sobriety and relapse
prevention) and
physical and mental
health

ƒ

To reduce criminality
through supervision
and monitoring of
noncompliance,
reoffending, rearrest,
reconviction, and
reincarceration

ƒ

To achieve systems
change through
multiagency
collaboration and
case management
strategies

SVORI PROGRAM OVERVIEW
The federal guidance accompanying SVORI funding placed few
restrictions on the state agencies with respect to the design of
the individual SVORI programs. The primary restrictions placed
on local SVORI programs were an age limit—the programs were
required to target prisoners 35 and younger—and a
requirement for post-release community supervision. 6 Other
broad requirements were that the program should include three
phases (in-prison, supervised post-release, and postsupervision); provide holistic case management and service
delivery; improve participants’ quality of life and self-sufficiency
through employment, housing, family, and community
involvement; improve participants’ health by addressing
substance use and physical and mental health; and reduce
participants’ criminality through supervision and monitoring of
noncompliance. The programs also were encouraged to include
needs and risk assessments, reentry plans, transition teams,
community resources, and graduated sanctions (see Winterfield
et al., 2006). Because there was not a specified SVORI program
model, each program was locally designed, and the programs
varied considerably in approach, services provided, and target
populations.
Across the 52 adult programs, 24% were starting new
programs, while the remainder used the grant funds primarily
to fill service gaps (43%) or to expand existing services (33%).
Among the 12 adult impact sites however, 50% were starting
new programs. Most grantees received access to 10% of their
grant funds to use for planning and design in late 2002. Access
to full funding varied dramatically over the programs, with most
receiving full spending approval in 2003 but for others it was
2004 or later. When we surveyed program directors in 2005
(see below), 74% reported that their programs were fully
implemented.
We previously developed descriptions of each of the SVORI
programs (Lattimore et al., 2004) and provided an analysis of
the overall characteristics of SVORI programs, including
barriers to implementation (Lattimore et al., 2005). Here, we
focus on the types and variety of specific services that program

6

Some programs requested and received exemptions for one or both of
these requirements.

7

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

directors reported were available through their SVORI
programs.
The SVORI Multi-site Evaluation team surveyed all SVORI
program directors in 2005. 7 One question asked the program
directors to identify the primary focus of their programs. The
directors of the 52 adult programs reported the following 8 :

SVORI participants were
more likely to be
receiving all of the
services except for prerelease medical and
dental services.

ƒ

employment (42%)

ƒ

community integration (27%)

ƒ

substance use (14%)

ƒ

mental health (10%)

ƒ

education (2%)

ƒ

family (0%)

The program directors also reported on the percentage of
SVORI participants who were receiving each of 28 pre-release
and 30 post-release services or programs. 9 They also were
asked to estimate the proportion of individuals comparable to
SVORI participants who were receiving these services and
programs. Winterfield et al. (2006) presented an analysis of
these data that assigned these services/programs to one of five
“service bundles.” Exhibit 3 shows the mean proportion of
SVORI participants and non-SVORI comparisons estimated to
be receiving each specified service pre- and post-release. As
can be seen, the program directors reported that higher
proportions of SVORI participants were receiving all of the
services except for pre-release medical and dental services,
where the estimated mean proportion for non-SVORI was
slightly higher than SVORI (for medical, 79% SVORI and 83%
non-SVORI; for dental, 77% SVORI, 81% non-SVORI). It is
important to note, however, that for almost all of the services,
the range in reported values across all 52 sites was “none” to
“all” for both SVORI and non-SVORI individuals. In other words,
at least one program director reported that no individual
received a particular service, and at least one program director
reported that all individuals received the service.
7

The response rate was 100%.
The results for the adult impact sites differed somewhat. These 12
program directors identified community integration (50%),
employment (33.3%), and substance use (16.7%) as the primary
focus of their programs.
9
Response categories were 0%, 1%–25%, 26%–50%, 51%–75%,
76%–99%, and 100%.
8

8

Introduction — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 3. Mean proportion of offenders receiving pre- and post-release services, by group
(as reported by SVORI program directors)

Pre-Release
SVORI
Non-SVORI
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)

Service
Bundle 1: Coordination Services
Risk assessment
0.92 (0.23) 0.68 (0.42)
Needs assessment
0.92 (0.23) 0.74 (0.39)
Treatment/release plan development
0.92 (0.25) 0.64 (0.37)
Formal post-release supervision
N/A
N/A
Bundle 2: Transitional Services
Legal assistance
0.37 (0.41) 0.35 (0.40)
0.62 (0.41) 0.42 (0.38)
Assistance obtaining identification (e.g.,
driver’s license, Social Security card)
Assistance obtaining benefits and completing 0.46 (0.42) 0.29 (0.32)
applications (e.g., Medicaid, disability)
Financial support/emergency assistance
0.31 (0.41) 0.15 (0.23)
Peer support groups
0.46 (0.41) 0.23 (0.27)
One-on-one mentoring
0.40 (0.40) 0.13 (0.19)
Housing placements or referrals
0.56 (0.38) 0.35 (0.33)
Transportation
N/A
N/A
Bundle 3: Health Services
Comprehensive drug treatment programs
0.36 (0.33) 0.30 (0.25)
AA/NA
0.44 (0.36) 0.39 (0.32)
Counseling sessions
0.69 (0.38) 0.43 (0.35)
Mental health services
0.47 (0.37) 0.40 (0.33)
Anger management/violence counseling
0.61 (0.37) 0.41 (0.31)
Medical services
0.79 (0.35) 0.83 (0.32)
Dental services
0.77 (0.37) 0.81 (0.35)
Bundle 4: Employment, Education, and Skills Development Services
Education/GED/tutoring/literacy
0.61 (0.33) 0.55 (0.31)
Vocational training
0.38 (0.32) 0.32 (0.26)
Employment referrals/job placement
0.51 (0.43) 0.24 (0.27)
Resumé and interviewing skills development 0.67 (0.39) 0.34 (0.32)
Work-release program
0.22 (0.32) 0.16 (0.20)
0.65 (0.37) 0.37 (0.31)
Cognitive skills development/behavioral
programming
Life skills training
0.74 (0.35) 0.41 (0.33)
Bundle 5: Family Services
Domestic violence services
0.33 (0.38) 0.20 (0.23)
Parenting skills development
0.49 (0.39) 0.27 (0.28)
Family reunification
0.41 (0.38) 0.18 (0.23)
Family counseling
0.14 (0.27) 0.07 (0.09)

Post-Release
SVORI
Non-SVORI
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
0.90 (0.27)
0.89 (0.29)
0.92 (0.25)
0.93 (0.16)

0.68 (0.43)
0.64 (0.43)
0.63 (0.41)
0.72 (0.28)

0.17 (0.26)
0.58 (0.40)

0.12 (0.18)
0.31 (0.34)

0.55 (0.40)

0.30 (0.33)

0.57 (0.37)
0.39 (0.39)
0.31 (0.33)
0.58 (0.36)
0.55 (0.36)

0.25 (0.28)
0.13 (0.19)
0.08 (0.09)
0.29 (0.28)
0.24 (0.29)

0.31 (0.30)
0.45 (0.30)
0.64 (0.36)
0.41 (0.35)
0.42 (0.34)
0.35 (0.37)
0.26 (0.33)

0.24 (0.21)
0.39 (0.28)
0.37 (0.33)
0.25 (0.25)
0.24 (0.24)
0.20 (0.25)
0.16 (0.23)

0.38 (0.34)
0.35 (0.34)
0.73 (0.32)
0.67 (0.38)
0.13 (0.26)
0.52 (0.39)

0.21 (0.23)
0.20 (0.24)
0.38 (0.32)
0.27 (0.31)
0.08 (0.17)
0.30 (0.32)

0.55 (0.40)

0.26 (0.33)

0.30 (0.34)
0.37 (0.34)
0.37 (0.35)
0.20 (0.26)

0.13 (0.15)
0.18 (0.21)
0.19 (0.26)
0.12 (0.17)

AA=Alcoholics Anonymous, GED=general educational development, NA=Narcotics Anonymous, N/A=not applicable,
SD=standard deviation.
Values were calculated by taking the midpoint of the response categories reported by the 52 SVORI adult program
directors for each of the services (see footnote 9 on page 8).
Source: 2005 survey of SVORI program directors; data are from Tables 1 and 2 of Winterfield et al. (2006), pp. 6-7.

9

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

The pre-release services most commonly reported were needs
assessment (92% SVORI, 74% non-SVORI), risk assessment
(92% SVORI, 68% non-SVORI), treatment/release plan
development (92% of SVORI respondents, 64% of non-SVORI
respondents), medical services (79% SVORI, 83% non-SVORI),
dental services (77% SVORI, 81% non-SVORI), and life skills
training (74% SVORI, 41% non-SVORI).
The most highly provided post-release services reported were
formal post-release supervision (93% SVORI, 72% nonSVORI), treatment/release plan development (92% SVORI,
63% non-SVORI), risk assessment (90% SVORI, 68% nonSVORI), needs assessment (89% SVORI, 64% non-SVORI), job
referrals and placement (73% SVORI, 38% non-SVORI), and
resumé and interviewing skills development services (67%
SVORI, 27% non-SVORI).

Service bundle scores
range from 0 to 100 and
can be interpreted as the
average proportion of
services in a bundle
received by an average
program participant
(multiplied by 100).

As described in Winterfield et al. (2006), we subsequently
generated service bundle scores for each of the five pre-release
and five post-release bundles. 10 These scores were generated
by dividing the sum of the item scores within each bundle by
the number of items in the bundle and multiplying the result by
100 to get site-level scores. These site-level scores were then
averaged to obtain overall scores. The bundle scores can take
on values between 0 and 100. A score of 0 would mean that the
program directors indicated no one was to receive any of the
services/programs included in the bundle, whereas a score of
100 means that the program directors indicated that everyone
was to receive all services in the bundle. Interim values can be
interpreted as the average proportion of services in a bundle
received by the average program participant (multiplied by
100). However, these values can result from various scenarios.
Taking a simple two-service-item example: A score of 50
results if everyone receives one service and no one receives the
other OR if half receive both services. In other words, the
bundle score provides an average but does not provide
information on the distribution of services within the bundle to
individuals.

10

10

The midpoints of the categories shown in footnote 9 were used to
calculate the program director bundle scores (e.g., .13 for the 1%–
25% category.

Introduction — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI programs, overall,
were designed to provide
an increased level of
services and
programming to program
participants.

Results are shown in Exhibit 4. The ranges in values across
programs for the bundle scores were quite large for both SVORI
and non-SVORI. For example, at least one SVORI program
reported that no SVORI program participant received any prerelease transitional services. In addition, in some cases, the
level of services provided to non-SVORI comparisons (i.e., the
status quo) was quite high. At least one program provided all
pre-release coordination services to all comparable individuals
who were not in the SVORI program. However, the scores
clearly indicate that, overall, the SVORI programs were
designed to provide an increased level of services and
programming to program participants.

Exhibit 4. Service receipt bundle scores, by group, pre- and post-release (as reported by
SVORI program directors)

Service Bundle
Pre-Release Service Bundles
Coordination
Transitional
Health
Employment/education/skills
Family
Post-Release Service Bundles
Coordination
Transitional
Health
Employment/education/skills
Family

SVORI
Max

Mean

8.7
0.0
7.4
1.9
0.0

100.0
94.6
94.7
85.9
100.0

91.7
43.1
56.1
51.9
33.1

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

100.0
95.3
85.8
91.1
100.0

89.2
43.4
39.0
46.0
30.5

Min

Non-SVORI
Max

Mean

0.0
1.9
10.9
0.0
0.0

100.0
76.9
82.3
85.7
68.8

68.6
25.3
47.7
32.1
17.4

0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

100.0
75.0
71.4
85.7
75.0

63.2
19.1
24.8
22.1
14.7

Min

Source: Winterfield et al. (2006), Tables 3 and 4, pp. 10, 12.

The following sections describe characteristics of the adult male
respondents who participated in the pre-release interviews,
including demographics, pre-prison and in-prison experiences,
service needs, and receipt of services during the period of
incarceration.

11

Characteristics of
the SVORI and NonSVORI Comparison
Respondents
This section provides descriptive information about the 1,697
adult male SVORI and non-SVORI respondents interviewed in
the 12 adult impact sites. (Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A provides
the means, standard deviations, and t-statistics for the
variables discussed in this section.) The first subsection
provides demographic information, followed by information on
housing status and family and peers. The next subsection
provides information on pre-prison and current health, including
measures of physical and mental health and substance use. The
next to last subsection provides information on pre-prison
employment, sources of financial support, and in-prison work
experience. The final subsection describes the criminal justice
experiences of the respondents.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS
The men in the SVORI and non-SVORI samples were almost
exclusively U.S. born (100% and 98% of the SVORI and nonSVORI respondents, respectively) and spoke English as a first
language (98% and 97%, SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively).
In addition, as shown in Exhibit 5, more than half (57%) of the
SVORI respondents were black and 31% were white. 11 The
SVORI sample included a higher percentage of black men and a
11

Respondents were allowed to select all that applied. Individuals who
reported more than one race are coded here as “other,” which also
includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian or East Indian,
and Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander.

13

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

lower percentage of white men than the non-SVORI comparison
sample, which was 50% black and 37% white. Only 4% of both
groups identified themselves as Hispanic. 12
Exhibit 5. Demographic
characteristics of
respondents at time of
interview, by group

Variable
Race

SVORI

Black*

57%

50%

White*

31%

37%

Hispanic

4%

4%

Other race
Age

8%

9%

28.9

29.3

61%

58%

Age at interview (mean)

Non-SVORI

Education
12th grade/GED
*p < 0.05

The average age of respondents in both samples was about 29
years. As is evident from Exhibit 5, respondents in both groups
had substantial educational deficiencies. Well over one-third
(39% SVORI and 42% non-SVORI) had not completed 12th
grade or earned a GED.
Given the diversity in the states selected for the impact
evaluation, it is not surprising that we found that demographic
characteristics varied among the 12 sites. For example,
Exhibit 6 shows the average age at the time of the pre-release
interview for respondents by group and site. The overall mean
age was 29 years; however, average age ranged from a low of
22.6 years for Maine respondents to a high of 35.1 years for
Indiana non-SVORI respondents. 13 Only the average age
difference between groups for the Iowa respondents was
statistically significant (27.0 years for SVORI, 28.9 years for
non-SVORI).

12

Individuals are coded Hispanic if they chose “Hispanic, Latino or
Spanish,” regardless of whether they chose a race category.
13
Although the SVORI funding guidelines mandated that funds be used
for individuals 35 years or younger, many states requested and
received waivers of this requirement.

14

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI

25
Years

34.6
32.5

27.5
27.1

28.9
30.0

27.2
27.4

26.2
26.0

28.8
28.4

26.4
27.1

Non-SVORI
28.4
27.8

22.7
22.6

30

27.0
28.9

35

27.8
26.8

40

32.8
35.1

Exhibit 6. Age at time of
interview, by site and
group

20
15
10
5
0
IA*

IN KS ME MD MO NV OH OK PA SC WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within
site.

There were racial and
ethnic differences among
the state samples.

Race and ethnic differences across the state samples (and,
within a state, between SVORI and non-SVORI samples) were
more substantial. As we saw in Exhibit 5, SVORI respondents
were significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report being black (57% versus 50%) and significantly less
likely to report being white (31% versus 37%). Exhibit 7 shows
the percentages of each group by site who reported that they
were white or black. 14 There were considerable variations
among sites, however. For example, in Maryland, only 2% of
the SVORI respondents were white, whereas in Maine, 69% of
the SVORI respondents and 73% of the non-SVORI
respondents were white. Overall, where there were statistically
significant differences within a state, more SVORI respondents
than non-SVORI respondents reported that they were black.
This was true for 5 of the 12 sites—Kansas, Maryland, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and South Carolina. Furthermore, in three sites—
Maryland, Missouri, and Oklahoma—the proportion of white
SVORI respondents was significantly less than the proportion of
white non-SVORI respondents.

14

Respondents were also coded as Hispanic or other/multiracial—see
footnote 5.

15

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit 7. Race (white or black), by site and group

95%

White (SVORI)
White (Non-SVORI)
Black (SVORI)

44%
31%

39%

24%

30%

25%
27%

45%

49%
39%

37%

39%
19%

20%
20%
11%

9%
5%
2%

24%
26%

36%
23%

20%

55%

60%

59%
52%

56%

54%
52%

19%

35%

34%
32%

25%

40%

66%

70%
66%

Black (Non-SVORI)

43%

52%

58%

60%

61%

66%

69%
73%

80%

78%

81%

100%

0%
IA

IN

KS*

ME

MD**

MO**

NV

OH

OK**

PA

SC*

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site in the proportion of black
respondents.
**p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site in the proportion of black
respondents and in the proportion of white respondents.

There was also considerable state-level variation in educational
attainment, as can be seen in Exhibit 8. 15 In Iowa, more than
80% of respondents had either finished high school or obtained
a GED. Pennsylvania, Indiana, and Kansas also had high rates
of high school or GED completion. But in South Carolina,
Maryland, and Washington, less than half of the respondents
reported that they had a high school degree or GED. In only
one state was educational attainment significantly different
between SVORI and non-SVORI sample members: in Nevada,
significantly more SVORI respondents (79%) than non-SVORI
respondents (52%) reported that they had completed 12th
grade or earned a GED.

15

16

Respondents could have completed the GED during their current
incarceration. The respondents were asked whether they had
completed 12th grade or had received a GED at the time of the prerelease interview.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI
79%
74%
46%
47%

45%
48%

61%
51%

66%
58%

MD

52%

ME

40%

39%

40%
48%

58%

66%
50%

60%

79%

79%

70%
65%

80%

Non-SVORI

65%

100%

84%
89%

Exhibit 8. Completed
12th grade or obtained a
GED, by site and group

SC

WA

20%

0%
IA

IN

KS

MO

NV*

OH

OK

PA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within
site.

HOUSING
More than 1 in 10
respondents reported that
they were primarily
homeless, living in a
shelter, or had no set
place to live during the 6
months prior to
incarceration.

During the 6 months prior to incarceration, the most common
housing situation reported by the respondents was living in a
house or apartment that belonged to someone else. Just under
half (46%) of both SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
primarily living in a house or apartment that belonged to
someone else. About one-third (35% SVORI and 32% nonSVORI) reported living primarily in their own house or
apartment. Finally, more than 1 in 10 (12%) of both SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents reported as their primary housing
situation that they were homeless, living in a shelter, or had no
set place to live.

FAMILY AND CHILDREN
Although about 40% of both groups reported that they were
either currently married or in a steady relationship (39%
SVORI, 40% non-SVORI), only small proportions reported being
married (9% and 10%, SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively).
Of those who reported that they were currently married or in a
steady relationship, 59% of SVORI respondents and 67% of
non-SVORI respondents said that they lived with that person
before incarceration.

17

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

About 60% of
respondents reported that
they were fathers of
minor children.
About three-quarters of
these fathers reported
that they were married or
in a steady relationship at
the time of the interview.
Nearly all fathers
required to pay child
support reported that they
owed back child support.

Exhibit 9. Percentages
of fathers reporting on
child care or child
support responsibilities,
by group

Most study participants from both groups (59% SVORI and
61% non-SVORI) reported having children under age 18.
Interestingly, about three-quarters of these fathers reported
that they were currently married or in a steady relationship
(77% SVORI and 74% non-SVORI). Furthermore, as can be
seen in Exhibit 9, about half of those with children under 18
indicated that they had primary care responsibilities for their
children (either with or without a partner) during the 6 months
prior to incarceration (47% of SVORI respondents and 49% of
non-SVORI respondents). Nearly one-third of the fathers (30%
SVORI and 32% non-SVORI) reported that they were required
to pay child support during the 6 months prior to incarceration,
and, of those, more than half reported that they had made the
court-ordered payments (59% SVORI and 56% non-SVORI).
Nearly all fathers required to pay child support reported that
they owed back child support (93% SVORI and 91% nonSVORI), and most of these respondents reported that they
owed more than $5,000 (62% and 55%, SVORI and nonSVORI, respectively). As is evident in Exhibit 9, SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents were similar on these family
background characteristics.

100%

80%

60%

93% 91%

SVORI
Non-SVORI
59% 56%
47% 49%

40%

30% 32%

20%

0%
Primary care
for children
3
under 18

Required to
pay child
3
support

Made
required
child support
b
payments

Owed back
child
b
support

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant
at the 0.05 level.
a
Of those with children under 18 years of age.
b
Of those required to pay child support.

18

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Nearly all SVORI and non-SVORI respondents (97% of both
groups) reported having people in their lives they considered to
be family. Respondents also reported that their family provided
an important source of emotional support (data not shown).
Nearly all respondents (88% of SVORI and 91% of non-SVORI)
agreed or strongly agreed that they felt close to their family
and wanted their family to be involved in their life (95% SVORI
and 96% non-SVORI).

About three-quarters of
respondents reported
having family members
who had been convicted
of a crime or
incarcerated.

Although they provided a substantial source of emotional
support for these men, family members also may have served
as a negative influence. As shown in Exhibit 10, about threequarters of both SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported
having family members who had been convicted of a crime or
incarcerated, and nearly three-quarters (72% SVORI and 74%
non-SVORI) reported having family members who had
problems with drugs or alcohol.

Exhibit 10. Criminal history and substance use of family and peers, by group

SVORI
100%

80%

Non-SVORI

75% 76%

75% 74%

72% 74%

Family who
have been
convicted

Family who
have been
incarcerated

Family with
drug or
alcohol
problems

83% 83%

81% 81%

82% 83%

Friends who
have been
convicted

Friends who
have been
incarcerated

Friends with
drug or
alcohol
problems

60%

40%

20%

0%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level.

19

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

A large majority of
respondents reported
having criminally
involved friends prior to
incarceration.

Similarly, the prevalence of illegal behavior and problems with
substance use among friends was also high. A large majority of
respondents reported having criminally involved friends prior to
incarceration. The majority of both SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported having friends prior to incarceration who
had been convicted of a crime (83% of both groups) or
incarcerated (81% of both groups). The respondents also
reported that, prior to incarceration, they had friends who had
problems with drugs or alcohol (82% SVORI and 83% nonSVORI).

SUBSTANCE USE AND PHYSICAL AND
MENTAL HEALTH
Respondents were asked a variety of questions about their preprison alcohol and drug use, as well as their substance abuse
treatment experiences. They were also asked about their
lifetime and current experiences with a variety of physical
illnesses. In addition, they were asked to respond to a series of
items that comprise three well-known scales—the SF-12
physical health scale, the SF-12 mental health scale, and the
SA-45 Global Severity Index (GSI) (Ware et al., 2002; Strategic
Advantages, 2000).
Substance Use and Treatment

Nearly all of the
respondents reported
having used alcohol and
drugs during their
lifetimes.

Self-reports on “ever
using” indicate somewhat
higher usage among the
non-SVORI respondents
for most drugs.

20

Nearly all of the respondents reported having used alcohol and
drugs during their lifetimes. The majority of both groups
reported using alcohol (96% SVORI and 97% non-SVORI), and
the average age of first use was about 14 years (13.7 and 13.6
for the SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).
Similarly, nearly all respondents in both groups reported having
used marijuana (92% SVORI and 94% non-SVORI), again
reporting a young age of first use (13.9 and 14.1 for the SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents, respectively). Exhibit 11 shows
responses for lifetime use for the most common drugs.
As can be seen, self-reports on “ever using” indicate somewhat
higher usage among the non-SVORI respondents for most
drugs. More than half of all respondents reported having used
cocaine (53% and 58% of the SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively), and nearly one-half reported having
used hallucinogens (43% and 49%, SVORI and non-SVORI,

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

respectively). Fewer respondents reported using other
substances. 16
Exhibit 11. Lifetime substance use, by group

92%
94%

Marijuana
53%
58%

Cocaine*
43%

Hallucinogens*

49%
26%
30%

Amphetamines

25%

Tranquilizers*

31%
24%

Pain relievers*

30%
18%
23%

Heroin*

18%
21%

Sedatives

16%
20%

Stimulants*

SVORI
Non-SVORI

15%
16%

Inhalants
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

There was considerable variability among the states with
respect to self-reports of ever using specific drugs. Exhibit 12
presents the percentages of respondents in each site and group
who reported ever using cocaine, heroin, and hallucinogens.
Only 22% of the Missouri SVORI respondents reported ever
using cocaine in comparison with 82% of the non-SVORI
respondents from Maine. Self-reported heroin use ranged from
a low of 3% (Missouri SVORI) to a high of 64% (Maine nonSVORI), whereas self-reported hallucinogen use ranged from
21% (Maryland SVORI) to 86% (Maine non-SVORI).

16

Less than 10% reported ever using methadone (6% and 9% for the
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively) or anabolic
steroids (2% for both the SVORI and non-SVORI respondents).

21

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Exhibit 12. Lifetime use
of cocaine, heroin, and
hallucinogens, by site
and group

Site
IA
IN
KS
ME
MD
MO
NV
OH
OK
PA
SC
WA

Cocaine
NonSVORI
SVORI
75%
65%
72%
67%
30%*
62%*
69%
82%
48%
52%
22%*
58%*
36%
50%
34%
50%
55%
54%
49%
59%
56%
53%
66%
60%

Heroin
NonSVORI
SVORI
14%
13%
17%
17%
9%
21%
49%
64%
49%
49%
3%*
26%*
5%*
16%*
11%
13%
7%
12%
12%
17%
7%
9%
38%
23%

Hallucinogens
NonSVORI
SVORI
68%
65%
47%
49%
48%
64%
83%
86%
21%*
36%*
56%
62%
48%
48%
38%
32%
62%
63%
39%
53%
22%*
31%*
76%
63%

* p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within
site.

In some sites, more nonSVORI than SVORI
respondents reported ever
using various types of
drugs.

About two-thirds of
respondents reported
having used one or more
illicit drugs during the 30
days prior to their
imprisonment.

22

There were only a few statistically significant differences
between SVORI and non-SVORI groups within site; in each
case, more non-SVORI than SVORI respondents reported ever
using various types of drugs. Specifically, non-SVORI
respondents in Kansas and Missouri were much more likely
than SVORI respondents in those states to report having used
cocaine, and non-SVORI respondents in Missouri and Nevada
were more likely than SVORI respondents in those states to
report heroin use. Finally, in Maryland and South Carolina, nonSVORI respondents were more likely than SVORI respondents
to report hallucinogen use.
Respondents were also asked about substance use during the
30 days prior to their current incarceration. About two-thirds of
both groups reported having used one or more illicit drugs
during the 30 days prior to their imprisonment (66% and 69%
for the SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).
Exhibit 13 shows that there were SVORI/non-SVORI differences
among the sites on this measure (differences between groups
within site are not statistically significant at the 0.05 level).
Reported use ranged from a high of 84% of non-SVORI
respondents in Maine to a low of 46% of SVORI respondents in
Pennsylvania.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI

46%
52%

72%

68%
62%

83%
82%

60%

58%
62%

79%

82%
69%

KS

60%

58%
68%

65%
68%

IN

77%
84%

73%
64%

80%

83%

Non-SVORI

100%
74%
76%

Exhibit 13. Substance
use during the 30 days
prior to incarceration,
by site and group

40%
20%
0%
IA

ME MD MO NV

OH OK PA SC WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant
at the 0.05 level.

Exhibit 14 compares the two groups’ reported use during the 30
days prior to incarceration for the most commonly reported
drugs. More than half of both SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported using marijuana; approximately onequarter of all respondents reported using cocaine.
Exhibit 14. Use of
specific substances
during the 30 days prior
to incarceration, by
group

52%
53%

Marijuana
22%
26%

Cocaine

Amphetamines

13%
14%

Pain relievers

11%
14%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

9%
9%

Hallucinogens
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant
at the 0.05 level.

23

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

More than half of
respondents had received
treatment for a substance
use or mental health
problem at some point
during their lifetime.

More than half of SVORI and non-SVORI respondents had
received treatment for a substance use or mental health
problem at some point during their lifetime (56% and 55% of
SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively). Of these, about onequarter had received treatment for alcohol abuse or
dependency (25% of SVORI respondents and 28% of nonSVORI respondents), and more than one-third reported that
they had received treatment for drug abuse or dependence
(42% SVORI and 34% non-SVORI). On average, those who had
received treatment had started a treatment program on more
than two separate occasions.
As shown in Exhibit 15, the percentage of respondents
reporting receiving treatment prior to prison varied
considerably across sites (but not within). Whereas less than
30% of Nevada respondents reported having previously
received treatment for alcohol and other drug (AOD) use, about
two-thirds of those in Iowa reported that they had participated
in AOD treatment prior to their current incarceration.

100%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

OK

41%
42%

33%
37%

OH

36%
28%

51%
50%
34%
32%

21%
28%

40%

44%

36%
33%

KS

57%

48%
50%

IN

45%

47%
48%

60%

58%

80%
67%
64%

Exhibit 15. Any
substance use treatment
prior to current
incarceration, by site
and group

20%

0%
IA

ME MD MO

NV

PA

SC WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant
at the 0.05 level.

24

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Physical Health
Overall, the study participants reported currently experiencing
few physical health problems. Most respondents rated their
current physical health as excellent or very good (65% of
SVORI and 63% of non-SVORI). The percentages of subjects in
each group who reported ever or currently having specific
diseases are shown in Exhibits 16 and 17.

Overall, the study
participants reported
currently experiencing
few physical health
problems.

Exhibit 16. Lifetime health problems, by group

20%
19%

Asthma
17%
16%

High blood pressure

15%
16%

Chronic back pain
6%
7%

Tuberculosis

5%
5%

Heart trouble

5%
6%

Arthritis
3%

Hepatitis B or C

5%
2%
2%

Diabetes

SVORI
Non-SVORI

1%
1%

HIV positive/AIDS
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

Asthma, high blood pressure, and chronic back pain were the
most commonly reported. Only 1% of the respondents reported
that they were HIV positive or had been diagnosed with AIDS,
whereas about 4% reported that they had been diagnosed with
hepatitis B or C. There were no statistically significant
differences in the reports of physical illnesses between the two
groups.

25

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit 17. Current health problems, by group

11%
10%

Asthma

9%
8%

High blood pressure

11%

Chronic back pain

13%
0%

Tuberculosis 0%
3%
3%

Heart trouble

5%
5%

Arthritis
3%

Hepatitis B or C*

5%

SVORI

1%
2%

Diabetes

Non-SVORI

1%
1%

HIV positive/AIDS
0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

Mental Health

There were no differences
between SVORI and nonSVORI respondents in
their general measures of
physical and mental
functioning and mental
health.

26

There were also no differences between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents in their scores on the four scales measuring
physical and mental functioning (the SF-12 scales) and mental
health (the SA-45 GSI and Positive Symptom Total [PST]).
Scores on the SF-12 physical health scale were above 50
(53.63 for SVORI respondents, 53.34 for non-SVORI
respondents). Furthermore, more than half of each group
responded that they had no limitations with respect to each of
the five items that constitute the physical health scale (59% of
SVORI respondents and 56% of non-SVORI respondents).
Scores on the SF-12 mental health scale were nearly 50 (48.93
for SVORI respondents, 48.51 for non-SVORI respondents).
Both groups scored less than 70 on the GSI, which has a range
of 45 to 225; higher scores indicate more psychopathology
(66.64 and 68.09 for the SVORI and non-SVORI respondents,
respectively). Average scores on the PST index were 13 for
both SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, meaning that

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

respondents reported experiencing, on average, 13 of the 45
symptoms included in the SA-45 during the 7 days prior to the
interview.

Non-SVORI respondents
were significantly more
likely than SVORI
respondents to indicate
symptoms of hostility and
psychoticism.

Exhibit 18. Average
scores on Brief
Symptom Inventory
subscales, by group

In addition to the GSI, the SA-45 includes subscales indicating
symptoms of specific psychopathologies. Of the nine subscales,
there were statistically significant differences for two
measures—in each case indicating that the non-SVORI
respondents were slightly worse on these measures than the
SVORI respondents. Results are shown in Exhibit 18. Scores on
these subscales could range from a low of 5 to a high of 25,
and all results were on the lower end of the range. Scores were
similar between groups for anxiety, depression, interpersonal
sensitivity, obsessive-compulsive disorder, paranoid ideation,
phobic anxiety, and somatization. Non-SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than SVORI respondents to indicate
symptoms of hostility (6.41 for SVORI respondents, 6.69 for
non-SVORI respondents) and psychoticism (6.58 for SVORI
respondents, 6.89 for non-SVORI respondents).

Measure
Anxiety scale
Depression scale
Hostility scale*
Interpersonal sensitivity scale
Obsessive-compulsive scale
Paranoid ideation scale
Phobic anxiety scale
Psychoticism scale*
Somatization scale

SVORI
7.42
8.31
6.41
7.50
8.12
8.84
6.42
6.58
7.05

Non-SVORI
7.67
8.45
6.69
7.60
8.17
8.85
6.56
6.89
7.16

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Depression was cited as
the most common reason
for the treatment.

As reported previously, more than half of SVORI and nonSVORI respondents had received treatment for a substance use
or mental health problem at some point during their lifetime
(56% and 55% of SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively). Of
those who reported that they had ever received mental health
treatment, depression was cited as the most common reason
for the treatment. About 20% of each group reported that they
had received care for depression or dysthymia (19% SVORI and
20% non-SVORI). Ten percent or more reported that they had
received treatment for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(12% of SVORI respondents and 13% of non-SVORI

27

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

respondents) or bipolar disorder (10% SVORI and 12% nonSVORI). Less than 10% reported that they were currently
receiving treatment for any mental health problem. Of those
who reported that they were currently receiving treatment, the
most common diagnoses were depression or dysthymia (6%
and 10%, SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively) and bipolar
disorder (5% and 6%, SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively).

Most respondents
described their mental
health status at the time
of the pre-release
interview as excellent or
very good.

Most respondents described their mental health status at the
time of the pre-release interview as excellent or very good
(52% SVORI and 49% non-SVORI). During their current period
of incarceration, 13% of SVORI respondents were prescribed
medication for emotional problems, and 22% felt they needed
treatment for mental health problems. The non-SVORI
respondents were significantly more likely to have been
prescribed medication for a mental or emotional problem while
incarcerated (19%) and to feel in need of treatment for mental
health problems (29%).

EMPLOYMENT HISTORY AND FINANCIAL
SUPPORT
This subsection covers the respondents’ employment history
prior to incarceration and describes additional sources of
financial support.
Employment History

Most subjects reported
having worked at some
time prior to
incarceration.

28

As shown in Exhibit 19, most subjects reported having worked
at some time prior to incarceration—89% of SVORI versus 92%
of non-SVORI—and about two-thirds of both groups reported
having a job during the 6 months prior to incarceration (64%
and 68%, SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively). Although these
differences are statistically significant (at 0.05 levels), they are
relatively small in magnitude.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 19. Employment
prior to incarceration,
by group

100%

89%

SVORI

92%

Non-SVORI
80%
64%

68%

60%
40%
20%
0%
Ever held job*

Held job in 6 months before
prison*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Some variation in the percentage of respondents who had
worked during the 6 months prior to entering prison was
evident across the 12 sites (Exhibit 20). More than 70% of
SVORI respondents in Iowa, Maine, and South Carolina
reported working during the 6 months prior to their
incarceration. In contrast, only about 40% of all respondents in
Washington reported working immediately prior to
incarceration. Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were not statistically significant at the 0.05 level in
any state.

29

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

SVORI

72%
73%
63%
63%

71%
57%

38%
44%

47%

66%

64%
68%

56%
57%

67%
72%

74%
70%

48%

60%

67%

67%

80%

Non-SVORI

81%

82%

100%

72%

Exhibit 20. Employment
during the 6 months
prior to incarceration,
by site and group

40%

20%

0%
IA

IN

KS

ME MD MO NV

OH

OK PA

SC WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant
at the 0.05 level.

For those who worked during the 6 months prior to
incarceration, about three-quarters of respondents described
their most recent job as a permanent job (75% SVORI and
73% non-SVORI) for which they received formal pay
(Exhibit 21).

Exhibit 21.
Characteristics of
respondents’ jobs prior
to incarceration, by
groupa

SVORI
100%
80%

93%

Non-SVORI
75%

73%

74%

94%

72%

60%
40%
20%
0%
Held a permanent Worked for formal Worked more than
job
pay
20 hrs/wk
Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05
level.
a
Among respondents who worked during the 6 months prior to incarceration.

30

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Almost all who worked reported that they had worked more
than 20 hours a week, working an average of about 42 hours
(41.7 hours per week for SVORI respondents and 41.8 hours
per week for non-SVORI respondents). The SVORI respondents
reported a slightly higher average hourly rate of $10.91
compared with the average $10.13 reported by the non-SVORI
respondents.

When asked about the
longest they had ever
worked at one job since
they were 18, most
respondents reported less
than 2 years.

Although the majority described their most recent job as a
permanent job, many of the respondents who had worked
reported having had more than one job during the 6 months
prior to incarceration. More than one-third of the sample (35%
SVORI, 36% non-SVORI) reported having had two or more jobs
during the 6 months prior to incarceration. Furthermore, well
over one-third (35% SVORI, 38% non-SVORI) reported that
they worked at the job for 3 months or less. When asked about
the longest they had ever worked at one job since they were
18, most respondents reported less than 2 years (61% SVORI,
62% non-SVORI).
The jobs that respondents typically held were blue-collar jobs.
More than one-third of the respondents in both groups who had
been employed during the 6 months prior to incarceration
reported that the last job they had was as a laborer, which
includes construction workers, day laborers, landscapers, and
roofers (35% SVORI, 36% non-SVORI). About one-fifth of
respondents (22% of each group) had worked in the service
industry as cooks, waiters, janitors, cashiers, and dishwashers.
Many respondents also reported working as skilled craftsmen
(15% SVORI, 17% non-SVORI) or equipment operators (16%
SVORI, 13% non-SVORI). Few respondents reported having
professional or technical occupations or jobs as managers or
administrators (4% of each group).
Financial Support

Nearly half of the
respondents reported
supporting themselves
with income from illegal
activities during the 6
months prior to
incarceration.

The respondents were asked how they had supported
themselves, in addition to legal employment, during the 6
months prior to incarceration. Nearly half of the respondents
reported supporting themselves with income from illegal
activities (45% and 43% of SVORI and non-SVORI,
respectively). Another one-third received support from family
(32% and 31% of SVORI and non-SVORI, respectively). Fewer
reported receiving financial help from friends (16% of SVORI
respondents, 14% of non-SVORI respondents) or the

31

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

government (11% of SVORI respondents, 10% of non-SVORI
respondents).
Exhibit 22 shows the sources of financial support for SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents, disaggregated by their employment
status during the 6 months prior to incarceration. As shown in
the exhibit, within employment status there were relatively few
differences between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents with
respect to whether they reported receiving financial support
from each of the four sources.
Exhibit 22. Sources of income during the 6 months prior to incarceration, by employment
status and group

100%

Held job (SVORI)
Held job (Non-SVORI)

63%

No job (Non-SVORI)

63%

No job (SVORI)

80%

14%
6%

3%

19%

34%

35%
14%

8%

8%

16%

18%

20%

20%

12%

14%

32%

34%

31%

40%

31%

60%

0%
Family

Friends

Government

Illegal

Other*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI (Held Job) and non-SVORI (Held Job).

The most substantial difference between the reports of those
working and not working was in reports of support from illegal
activities. More than 60% of those who were not employed
during the 6 months prior to incarceration reported financial
support from illegal activities, compared with less than 40% of
those who reported working during that period. For both SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents, those who held a job prior to
incarceration were somewhat less likely than those who had no
job to receive financial support from friends, the government,
or other sources.

32

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

CRIMINAL HISTORY, VIOLENCE,
VICTIMIZATION, AND GANG INVOLVEMENT
This subsection describes respondents’ involvement with the
criminal and juvenile justice systems prior to incarceration and
outlines pre-incarceration perpetration of violence and
victimization. We also briefly describe respondents’ involvement
as gang members.
Criminal History

Respondents reported
considerable involvement
with the criminal justice
system prior to their
current incarceration.

Exhibit 23. Criminal
history of respondents,
by group

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents reported considerable
involvement with the criminal justice system prior to their
current incarceration (Exhibit 23). On average, the respondents
were 16 years old at the time of their first arrest and had been
arrested more than 12 times. In addition to their current term
of incarceration, most respondents had served a previous
prison term, with the non-SVORI group being significantly more
likely to report a prior prison term (83% of SVORI, 87% of nonSVORI). Also, the non-SVORI respondents reported significantly
more incarcerations, on average, than the SVORI group (1.20
for SVORI, 1.47 for non-SVORI).

Criminal History
Age at first arrest (mean)
Times arrested (mean)
Times convicted (mean)
Ever been previously incarcerated*
Times previously incarcerated (mean)*

SVORI
15.92
12.42
5.48
83%
1.20

Non-SVORI
16.03
13.14
5.70
87%
1.47

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

The two groups were similar in self-reported juvenile
detentions. Overall, about half (51% and 49% of the SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents, respectively) reported that they
had spent time in a juvenile correctional facility for committing
a crime. Of those who reported a juvenile detention, they had
been detained, on average, 3.5 times (3.58 times for SVORI,
3.49 times for non-SVORI).

33

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

About 40% of
respondents reported that
they were currently
serving time for a violent
crime.

Exhibit 24. Conviction
offenses for current
incarceration, by group

Exhibit 24 shows the conviction offense(s) that were reported
by the respondents. 17 About 40% of respondents reported that
they were currently serving time for a person/violent crime
(42% SVORI and 40% non-SVORI). About 25% reported a
property crime (24% and 27% of the SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively). SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
that their current incarceration was for a drug crime (36%
SVORI, 31% non-SVORI) and significantly less likely to report
that their current incarceration was for a public order crime
(17% SVORI, 22% non-SVORI). Public order offenses include
probation and parole violations; members of the non-SVORI
group were more likely to report that their current incarceration
was for a violation of probation or parole (27% and 35% of
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively).

40%

Person/Violent

42%
27%

Property

24%
31%

Drug*

36%

Non-SVORI
22%

Public order*

SVORI

17%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

17

34

Two percent of the SVORI and 1% of the non-SVORI respondents
reported that their conviction offense was “other.” This category
includes unspecified felonies, gang activity, and habitual offender
violations.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

More than two-thirds of
respondents reported
violent behavior prior to
incarceration.
Most also reported being
victims of violence.

Perpetration of Violence
During the 6 months prior to incarceration, more than twothirds of both SVORI and non-SVORI respondents (69% and
67%, respectively) reported violent behavior (including threats
of violence).
Victimization
Most respondents also reported being victims of violence. More
than half of the respondents (59% SVORI and 58% non-SVORI)
reported being victimized either through threats or use of
violence during the 6 months prior to incarceration.
Gang Membership
Very few respondents in both groups (5% of SVORI and 6% of
non-SVORI) reported being a member of a gang. Of the small
number of respondents in a gang, about half (53% of SVORI,
52% of non-SVORI) considered their gang to be family.

IN-PRISON EXPERIENCES
This subsection describes respondents’ in-prison experiences on
several dimensions, including sentence length, disciplinary
infractions, and in-prison victimization. This is followed by a
description of in-prison work and a discussion of interaction
with family during prison.
Sentence Length

SVORI respondents had
been incarcerated
significantly longer than
non-SVORI respondents.

At the time of the pre-release interview, SVORI respondents
had been incarcerated significantly longer than non-SVORI
respondents (an average of 2.8 years and 2.3 years,
respectively). The difference between these is due, primarily, to
statistically significant differences in 5 of the 12 sites, as can be
seen in Exhibit 25. In particular, in Kansas, Missouri, Nevada,
and Oklahoma, SVORI respondents had served, on average,
about 2 years longer than the non-SVORI respondents. In
Washington, SVORI respondents had been incarcerated for 1
year longer than non-SVORI respondents, on average.
Respondents in Maine reported the shortest lengths of stay of
slightly more than a year, whereas stays of about 2 years were
reported by most respondents in the remainder of sites, without
statistically significant differences in length of stay.

35

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Exhibit 25. Average
duration of incarceration
at time of interview, by
site and group

SVORI

4.6

5

3.8

2.6

3.1
2.7
1.5

2.3

2.1
2.3

2.6
2.1
1.3
1.4

1.8

2.2

2.0
2.2

2

2.1
1.9

Years

3

1.7

3.7
3.4

4

3.9

3.9

Non-SVORI

1

0
IA

IN KS* ME MD MO* NV* OH OK* PA SC WA*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within
site.

Disciplinary Infractions and Administrative Segregations
SVORI respondents also reported more disciplinary infractions
and administrative segregations than were reported by the
non-SVORI respondents. As shown in Exhibit 26, 64% of SVORI
respondents reported at least one disciplinary infraction,
compared with 57% of non-SVORI respondents. Fewer
respondents reported administrative segregation during the
current term of incarceration. These differences, although
statistically significant, are small and may simply reflect the
longer lengths of stay reported by the SVORI respondents. 18

18

36

Longer lengths of stay expose subjects to greater opportunity to
commit infractions and receive administrative segregation; in other
words, the period at risk is longer.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 26. Disciplinary
infractions and
administrative
segregations during
current incarceration, by
group

Infractions and Segregations
Disciplinary Infractions
None
One
More than one
Administrative Segregations
None
One
More than one

SVORI

Non-SVORI

35%
17%
47%

43%
17%
40%

55%
19%
26%

60%
18%
22%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

In-Prison Victimization

Slightly more than half of
all respondents reported
being victimized during
the current incarceration.

Slightly more than half of all respondents (55% and 54% of
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively) reported
being victimized during the current incarceration. This measure
includes both threat of violence (including someone threatening
to hit the respondent with a fist or anything else that could hurt
him or someone threatening to use a weapon on him) and
perpetration of violence (including someone throwing anything
at the respondent; pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping,
kicking, biting, hitting with a fist, or using a weapon on him; or
the respondent needing medical attention for violent acts
directed at him). The reported severity of victimization was low.
On a 36-point victimization scale, SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents scored an average of 2.7 and 2.9, respectively. 19
In-Prison Work

Nearly two-thirds of the
respondents said that they
had a job in the
institution where they
were incarcerated.

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents (63% of SVORI and 61%
of non-SVORI) said that they had a job in the institution where
they were incarcerated. On average, respondents with prison
jobs spent about 23 hours per week working (23.8 and 22.3
hours for SVORI and non-SVORI respondents, respectively). As
can be seen in Exhibit 27, respondents in South Carolina and
Pennsylvania were most likely to report working, and those in

19

Responses to six victimization items were coded 0 though 6, with
higher values indicating more frequent victimization. (Response
options ranged from “never” to “daily.”) The six items were
summed to create the in-prison victimization scale.

37

SVORI

100%

81%
82%

48%
40%

62%
69%

66%
58%

69%
52%
23%
30%

29%

40%

52%
44%

64%
54%

60%

56%

80%

65%
69%

Non-SVORI
71%
75%

Exhibit 27. Institutional
employment, by site and
group

90%
83%

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

20%
0%
IA

IN*

KS

ME MD MO NV

OH OK PA

SC WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Nevada were the least likely. A significant difference between
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents was observed only for
Indiana (56% and 29%, respectively).

Very few respondents
reported having a workrelease job.

Very few respondents reported having a work-release job. Only
3% of SVORI and 4% of non-SVORI respondents reported that
they were on work release. Those with work-release jobs
reported working more hours than those with institution jobs.
SVORI respondents reported working significantly more hours
than non-SVORI respondents (39.4 and 31.0 hours,
respectively). As shown in Exhibit 28, only in Pennsylvania did
more than 10% of the respondents participate in work
release. 20 For the remaining states, less than 10% (and usually
many fewer) reported having a work-release job.
Family

Most respondents
indicated that family
members served as an
important source of
emotional support during
incarceration.

Most respondents (97% of both groups) indicated that they had
people in their lives that they considered to be family and that
these family members served as an important source of
emotional support. A scale was created to represent the degree
of family emotional support that respondents felt at the time of
the pre-release interview. Respondents were asked the degree
to which they agreed with 10 statements about their
20

38

Most respondents in Pennsylvania were interviewed at a community
corrections center, where work-release jobs were common.

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

relationships with their family, such as “I have someone in my
family who understands my problems” and “I have someone in
my family to love me and make me feel wanted.”21 The items
were combined to create a scale with possible values ranging
from 0 to 30 and higher scores indicating higher levels of family
emotional support. There were no significant differences
between SVORI respondents and non-SVORI respondents on
this measure (21.63 for SVORI, 21.35 for non-SVORI).
Exhibit 28. Work-release
participation, by site
and group

29%

35%
SVORI

30%

Non-SVORI

25%
16%

20%

MO

OH

OK

PA

SC

3%

NV

0%
2%

2%
2%

6%

MD

2%
0%

ME

3%

5%
2%

4%

IA*

0%
2%

0%

0%

5%

6%
5%

10%

8%

15%

WA

Note: Values for IN and KS were 0%.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within
site.

Respondents were also asked about the frequency of contact
with family members and friends. Response options for each
type of contact ranged from “never” to “daily.” SVORI and nonSVORI respondents reported similar frequencies of contact with
their family members through phone calls or mail (Exhibit 29).
About 40% of both groups reported weekly phone or mail
contact with family members. Both SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported less frequent phone and mail contact with
friends. In-prison visits with family members were less frequent
than phone calls and mail. However, on average, SVORI
21

Response categories were “strongly agree,” “agree,” “disagree,” and
“strongly disagree.” Values of 0 through 3 were assigned to
response categories, with higher values representing greater family
emotional support. The values for each of the 10 items were
summed to create the family emotional support scale.

39

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

respondents received more visits from family members and
non-family members than the comparison group.
Exhibit 29. Frequency of
in-prison contact with
family members and
friends, by group

Form of
Contact
Phone Contact
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
Mail Contact
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily
In-Person Visits
Never
A few times
Monthly
Weekly
Daily

Contact with
Family Members
SVORI
Non-SVORI

Contact with Friends
SVORI
Non-SVORI

16%
15%
16%
38%
14%

18%
14%
16%
36%
16%

47%
16%
13%
16%
8%

52%
13%
11%
15%
9%

10%
17%
23%
41%
9%

9%
18%
21%
41%
10%

30%
19%
16%
30%
6%

36%
17%
16%
25%
6%

35%*
23%
17%
21%
3%

43%*
21%
18%
17%
2%

64%
16%
8%
10%
2%

71%
13%
6%
8%
1%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Respondents were also asked whether the amount of each type
of contact with family and friends was currently more, about
the same, or less than when they were first incarcerated (i.e.,
during the first 6 months of incarceration). Almost half of the
respondents in both groups reported that they had about the
same amount of contact with family and friends as they did
when they were first incarcerated (Exhibit 30). More
respondents reported having less contact, rather than more
contact, with family and friends than when they were first
incarcerated.

40

Respondent Characteristics — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 30. Amount of contact with family members and friends at time of interview
compared with contact when first incarcerated

More contact (SVORI)

100%

More contact (Non-SVORI)
About the same (SVORI)

80%

About the same (Non-SVORI)

26%

30%

54%
16%

20%

35%

36%

48%

17%

17%

32%

34%

46%

46%
21%

20%

40%

20%

47%

Less contact (Non-SVORI)

60%

55%

Less contact (SVORI)

0%
Phone contact

Mail contact

In-person visits

Note: Differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

41

Service Needs
It is well documented that most prisoners face a substantial
number of deficits (Travis and Visher, 2005; Petersilia, 2003).
The pre-release interviews provided an opportunity for the
respondents to identify the extent to which they needed a wide
range of specific services. 22 We asked questions about 28
different types of services and then grouped them into five
service categories or “bundles.” These bundles are
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ

services to help with the transition from prison to the
community;
health care services (including substance abuse and
mental health);
employment, education, and skills services;
domestic violence–related services; and
child-related services.

Analogous to service bundle scores developed with the program
director data (see page 11 and Exhibit 4), we developed service
need bundle scores from the prisoner interview data to
summarize needs in the domains of transitional, health,
employment/education/skills, domestic violence, and child
services. We generated these scores for each individual by
summing zero/one indicators for whether the individual did
not/did report needing each of the items within a bundle; we
then divided this sum by the number of items in the bundle.
(These items are listed by bundle in Exhibit A-3 in Appendix A
and presented bundle by bundle in the subsections below.) At
the individual respondent level, this bundle score can be

22

Responses were “a lot,” “a little,” or “not at all.” These were
subsequently recoded to “some” and “not at all.”

43

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

interpreted as the proportion of the bundle that the individual
reported needing. 23

SERVICE NEED BUNDLE SCORES
This subsection reviews the bundle scores for all SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents and then examines cross-site variation
for the individual service bundles.

The levels of expressed
need for employment,
education, and skills were
very high.

Exhibit 31 compares the service need bundle scores for all
SVORI and non-SVORI respondents. As can be seen, the levels
of expressed need for employment, education, and skills were
very high—on average, respondents reported needing nearly
three-quarters of all of the service items in the employment
bundle (average bundle scores of 75 for SVORI and 74 for nonSVORI). Respondents also expressed a high level of need for
the services and assistance contained in the transitional
services bundle. On average, respondents reported needing
nearly two-thirds of these services, which include financial
assistance, transportation, and obtaining a driver’s license and
other documentation (average scores of 64 for SVORI and 62
for non-SVORI).

Exhibit 31. Service need
bundle scores across
service bundles, by
group

Employment/education/life skills
services

75
74
64
62

Transitional services
46
48

a
Child servicesa

31
34

Health services*

SVORI

7
8

Domestic violence services
0

Non-SVORI
20

40

60

80

100

a

Among those who reported having minor children.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

23

44

Program-level bundle scores of service delivery were developed using
reports from SVORI program directors, as shown in Exhibit 4 (see
Winterfield et al., 2006). Data from the pre-release interview were
used to develop individual-level bundle scores for each respondent.

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Respondents with children also reported needing, on average,
about half of the services included in the child-related services
bundle (46% for SVORI, 48% for non-SVORI). On average,
SVORI respondents reported needing fewer health services than
the non-SVORI respondents (31% for SVORI, 34% for nonSVORI). Relatively few respondents felt the need for domestic
violence services.
The following subsections provide additional information on the
individual bundles, including differences among sites and
groups with respect to specific needs.

TRANSITIONAL SERVICES
Prior to release, nearly all SVORI and non-SVORI respondents
(99% of both groups) reported needing at least some
transitional services to address immediate needs upon release,
such as financial, public, or legal assistance; a place to live;
various identification documents; transportation; health
insurance; and access to emergency resources, such as clothing
and food. Exhibit 32 displays the percentages of respondents
who reported needing these types of services. Overall, nearly
half or more of all respondents reported needing each of these
transitional services.

Exhibit 32. Self-reported
need for specific
transitional services, by
group

86%
82%
83%
81%
75%
73%
72%
71%

Financial assistance*
Driver's license
Public health care insurance
Transportation
60%
55%
60%
61%
55%
56%
52%
54%
49%
46%
45%
48%

Access to clothing/food*
Mentor
Documents for employment
Public financial assistance
Place to live
Legal assistance
0%

25%

50%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

75%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

45

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

General financial
assistance was the most
commonly reported
transitional need.

Several of these immediate and basic needs were related to
financial assistance. Indeed, general financial assistance was
the most commonly reported transitional need (86% of SVORI
respondents, 82% of non-SVORI respondents), and more than
half reported that they needed financial assistance from the
government (52% SVORI, 54% non-SVORI). More than threequarters reported needing health care insurance.
There were substantial proportions reporting needing basic
services, including housing and access to clothing and food.
Approximately 30 days prior to release, nearly half of all
respondents reported needing a place to live after release (49%
of SVORI respondents, 46% of non-SVORI respondents). SVORI
respondents were more likely than non-SVORI respondents to
report that they needed access to clothing and food at release
(60% SVORI, 55% non-SVORI).

The need for a driver’s
license was the second
highest transitional need
reported.

The need for a driver’s license was the second highest
transitional need reported (83% of SVORI respondents, 81% of
non-SVORI respondents). In addition, more than half of all
respondents reported needing other identification documents
necessary for obtaining employment and securing public
benefits, such as a birth certificate, Social Security card, and
photo identification card (55% SVORI, 56% non-SVORI).
Transportation was also reported as another critical and
immediate need for offenders returning to the community (72%
SVORI, 71% non-SVORI) in order to get to one’s housing unit,
make appointments in the community to obtain services and
identification documents, apply for benefits, or interview for
jobs.
The other two items included in this set of services are the
need for a mentor and the need for legal assistance. More than
60% of respondents indicated that they needed a mentor (60%
SVORI, 61% non-SVORI). Almost half of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents also reported needing legal assistance of some
kind (45% SVORI, 48% non-SVORI).
As explained above, the service need bundle score at the
individual respondent level can be interpreted as the proportion
of services in the bundle that the individual reported needing.
Respondents generally expressed a high level of need for the
services and assistance included in the transitional services
bundle, with average bundle scores of 64 for SVORI
respondents and 62 for non-SVORI respondents.

46

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Averaging these bundle scores for SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents in each site provides a measure of the average
proportion of services in the bundle that respondents in a site
reported needing. Thus, these bundle scores provide a
convenient means for assessing and comparing across the sites
the levels of need expressed by respondents.
Exhibit 33 shows the transitional services bundle scores by
group and site. As can be seen, there is variability among the
sites on this measure.
Exhibit 33. Average service need bundle scores for the transitional services bundle, by site
and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

75
67 67

60

57

67 66

65

63

60

66
60

74

72

69

68

64 65

63
58

55

65

62

57

55

40

20

0
IA

IN

KS

ME*

MD

MO

NV

OH

OK*

PA

SC

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

The scores range from a low of 55 for the non-SVORI
respondents in Maine and Nevada to a high of 75 for the nonSVORI respondents in Ohio. Because this bundle includes 10
items, the groups at the lower end of the range reported
needing, on average, about 5.5 of these 10 transitional
services; at the upper end, they reported needing about 7.5 of
the 10 services. The within-site difference between SVORI and
non-SVORI respondents in their need for transitional services

47

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

was statistically significant in two sites: Maine and Oklahoma.
In both cases, SVORI respondents reported a greater number
of needs than non-SVORI respondents.

HEALTH SERVICES
The majority of
respondents reported
needing some health
services.

Exhibit 34. Self-reported
need for specific health
services, by group

Respondents’ perceived needs regarding health services are
shown in Exhibit 34. The majority of both SVORI (79%) and
non-SVORI (80%) respondents reported needing some kind of
health services. More than half of both groups (56% of SVORI
respondents, 57% of non-SVORI respondents) reported
needing medical treatment.

56%
57%

Medical treatment
37%
43%

AOD treatment*

36%
38%

Anger management program

22%
29%

Mental health treatment*

SVORI
4%
4%

Support group for abuse victims
0%

Non-SVORI
25%

50%

75%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

More than one-third of both groups reported needing AOD
treatment, with reported need significantly higher among the
non-SVORI respondents (37% SVORI, 43% non-SVORI). The
non-SVORI group was also significantly more likely to report
needing mental health treatment than were SVORI respondents
(22% SVORI, 29% non-SVORI). More than one-third of
respondents (36% of SVORI, 38% of non-SVORI) reported
needing an anger management program. Very few of the
respondents reported needing a support group for victims of
abuse (4% of both groups).
Looking again at the bundle scores for this category (see
Exhibit 31), respondents generally reported needing about onethird of the health services, with SVORI respondents needing a

48

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

smaller proportion of services in the bundle (average bundle
scores of 31 for SVORI respondents and 34 for non-SVORI
respondents). The difference was driven primarily by higher
reports of need for mental health and substance abuse
treatment services by the non-SVORI respondents (as shown in
Exhibit 34).
Exhibit 35, the health services need bundle scores by group and
site, shows some variability among the groups.
Exhibit 35. Average service need bundle scores for the health services bundle, by site and
group

100
SVORI
Non-SVORI
80

60
50

37

40

38 37
32

29

35

38
32

36

32 33
26

35
29

33
28

34
29

31

36

34

32
28

20

0
IA*

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO*

NV

OH

OK

PA

SC

WA*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

Seventeen of the 24 groups needed, on average, about onethird of the health services in the bundle. Bundle scores ranged
from 26 for Missouri SVORI respondents to 50 for Washington
SVORI respondents. In three states, the SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents reported significantly different levels of need for
health services. The Iowa SVORI respondents reported
significantly lower need scores than their non-SVORI
counterparts (29 for SVORI, 37 for non-SVORI). Similar levels

49

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

of need were reported in Missouri, where SVORI respondents
reported less overall need than non-SVORI respondents
(average scores of 26 for SVORI, 36 for non-SVORI). In
contrast, in Washington, SVORI respondents reported higher
levels of health services need than non-SVORI respondents
(average scores of 50 for SVORI and 36 for non-SVORI).

EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION/SKILLS
SERVICES
Nearly all respondents
reported needing some
kind of employment,
education, or skills–
related services to
prepare them for release.

Exhibit 36. Self-reported
need for specific
employment, education,
and skills services, by
group

Although most members of both groups had previous
employment experience, nearly all respondents (99%) reported
needing some kind of employment, education, or skills–related
services to prepare them for their return to the community.
As shown in Exhibit 36, most SVORI respondents (80%)
reported needing a job after release—slightly more than nonSVORI respondents (76%). SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
needing job training (82% SVORI, 76% non-SVORI). These
differences may be due to SVORI program participation
heightening the participants’ awareness of the need for
employment services.

94%
92%

More education

82%
76%

Job training*

80%
76%

Job

75%
73%

Life skills

71%
68%

Money management skills

64%
69%

Change criminal attitudes*

64%
64%

Work on personal relationships
0%

25%

50%

75%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

50

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Almost all SVORI (94%) and non-SVORI (92%) respondents
reported that they needed additional education. Three-quarters
of both groups (75% SVORI, 73% non-SVORI) reported
needing to learn life skills, and almost as many (71% SVORI,
68% non-SVORI) reported needing money management skills.

The majority of
respondents recognized
that some aspect of their
own behavior needed to
change to improve their
lives after release.

The majority of respondents recognized that some aspect of
their own behavior needed to change to improve their lives
after release. About two-thirds (64% of SVORI respondents,
69% of non-SVORI respondents) reported that they needed to
change their attitudes related to criminal behavior. In addition,
almost two-thirds (64% of both groups) reported needing to
work on their personal relationships.
As explained above (see discussion of Exhibit 31), the service
need bundle scores for the employment/education/skills bundle
are very high—on average, respondents reported needing about
three-quarters of all of the seven service items in the
employment bundle (average scores of 75 for SVORI and 74 for
non-SVORI).
Exhibit 37 shows the employment/education/skills services
need bundle scores by site and group. As can be seen, the
scores ranged from a low of 64 for Pennsylvania SVORI
respondents to a high of 83 for Washington SVORI
respondents, suggesting greater levels of need among the
Washington respondents. This can be interpreted to mean that,
on average, the Pennsylvania SVORI respondents reported
needing about four and a half of the services, whereas the
Washington SVORI respondents reported needing almost six of
the seven services. Within each site, there were no statistically
significant differences between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents.

51

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit 37. Average service need bundle scores for the employment/education/skills
services bundle, by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

77 77

83

81

79
74

76 77

76

75
67

69

77

75

78 79

77

79
74 75

74

70

68
64

60

40

20

0
IA

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO

NV

OH

OK

PA

SC

WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES
Very few respondents
reported needing
domestic violence
services.

Respondents were asked about their need for two types of
domestic violence services—batterer intervention programs and
domestic violence support groups—which were combined into a
domestic violence services bundle. Very few respondents
reported needing these services—about 10% of the
respondents reported needing either of these two types of
programming. Only 8% of each group reported needing a
batterer intervention program. The SVORI respondents were
significantly less likely than the non-SVORI respondents to
report needing a domestic violence support group (6% SVORI,
9% non-SVORI).
Exhibit 38 shows the bundle scores by site and group for
domestic violence services. Domestic violence services bundle
scores were extremely low (3 to 14), reflecting the very small
fraction of subjects who reported needing either of the two

52

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

services included in this bundle. None of the SVORI/non-SVORI
differences were statistically significant.
Exhibit 38. Average service need bundle scores for the domestic violence services bundle,
by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

40

20

4

6

9

9

9

9

9
4

3

14

12

9

8
3

5

5

5

8

9 10

8
4

10

5

0
IA

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO

NV

OH

OK

PA

SC

WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

CHILD SERVICES
Respondents who had minor children (slightly more than 60%
of respondents) were asked about their need for support with
their children, and these items were assigned to the child
services bundle.

A majority of fathers
reported needing some
kind of child-related
service.

A majority of SVORI and non-SVORI respondents had minor
children, and about half of those with minor children were
involved in primary care responsibilities (either alone or with a
partner) before being incarcerated. Most SVORI (83%) and
non-SVORI fathers (85%) reported needing some kind of childrelated service. As shown in Exhibit 39, among the 995 fathers
with minor children, more than half (60% SVORI, 63% nonSVORI) reported needing help developing parenting skills, and

53

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

about two-fifths (39% for both SVORI and non-SVORI) reported
that they would need child care assistance after release. Nearly
half of SVORI (45%) and non-SVORI (48%) fathers with minor
children reported needing to make child support payments for
their children. Finally, almost all (88% SVORI, 86% nonSVORI) of the fathers who owed back child support reported
needing modifications in their child support debt.
Exhibit 39. Self-reported
need for specific child
services, by group

60%

Parenting skills

63%
39%
39%

Child care (when released)

35%

M odification of custody

38%

SVORI
45%
48%

Child support payments

Non-SVORI
88%

Modification in child support debt*

86%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

* Of those who owed back child support.

On average, parents reported needing about half of the services
included in the child services bundle (average scores of 46 for
SVORI and 48 for non-SVORI).
Exhibit 40 shows the child services bundle scores by site and
group. As can be seen, there is some variability among the
groups, and, with the exception of the domestic violence bundle
scores, the child services bundle scores reflect a lower level of
expressed need than that of the previously discussed bundles.
Child services bundle scores ranged from 36 for Ohio SVORI
respondents to 59 for Iowa non-SVORI respondents. In
addition, Iowa SVORI respondents reported less need for child
services than their non-SVORI counterparts (average scores of
44 for SVORI and 59 for non-SVORI).

54

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 40. Average service need bundle scores for the child services bundle, by site and
group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

59

60

59
55
49

55

57

48 49

52

50

47

44
39

40

37

55 55

52

49

49 49
44 44

40
36

20

0
IA*

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO

NV

OH

OK

PA

SC

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

LEVELS OF NEED ACROSS SERVICES
SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were similar
on most measures and
reported high need across
the spectrum of services.

SVORI and non-SVORI respondents were similar on most
measures and reported high need across the spectrum of
services (see Exhibit A-3 in Appendix A). Specifically, as shown
in Exhibit 41, most SVORI respondents commonly reported
needing more education (94%), financial assistance (86%), a
driver’s license (83%), job training (82%), and a job (80%).
Three-quarters (75%) also reported needing public health care
insurance and life skills training. Of those services, non-SVORI
respondents were significantly less likely than SVORI
respondents to report needing financial assistance or job
training. 24

24

SVORI respondents may be more likely to report needing services
than non-SVORI respondents because of extensive needs
assessments they may have received as part of their participation
in SVORI, which may have increased awareness of need.

55

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Exhibit 41. Most
commonly reported
service needs, by group

94%
92%

Education

86%
82%

Financial assistance*
Driver's license

83%
81%

Job training*

82%
76%
80%
76%

Job
Public health care insurance

75%
73%

Life skills

75%
73%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

When asked for their top two service needs, more than onethird of respondents mentioned needing a job after release
(38% SVORI, 36% non-SVORI). About one-quarter (24%
SVORI, 25% non-SVORI) listed needing a driver’s license as
one of their top two needs. The next four needs mentioned by
the most respondents as one of their top two included more
education (18% of both groups), job training (17% SVORI,
14% non-SVORI), financial assistance (15% SVORI, 16% nonSVORI), and a place to live when released (15% SVORI, 16%
non-SVORI).

Respondents reported
needing more than half of
all the service items.

In addition to the service bundles described in the above
subsections, we also created an “all services” bundle, which
captures the level of overall need across all services (individual
items are in Exhibit A-3). On average, the respondents reported
needing more than half of all the service items (average score
of 55 for both SVORI and non-SVORI).
There is relatively little variability across the sites in terms of
the overall service bundle scores, as can be seen in Exhibit 42.
The modal score across the 24 group-site pairs was 52, which
was generated for 4 of the 24 groups, and the median was 55.
In general, the groups reported needing 50% to 60% of all of
the service items. None of the within-site differences between
the SVORI and non-SVORI groups was significant at the 0.05
level.

56

Service Needs — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 42. Average service need bundle scores for all services, by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80
66

60

56

59

57

61

58 57
53

52

55
50

56 57
52

53 53

55

60

59
52

52

54

54 55

40

20

0
IA

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO

NV

OH

OK

PA

SC

WA

Note: Within-site differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are not significant at the 0.05 level.

57

Service Receipt
The previous section demonstrated the high levels of expressed
need for a wide variety of services—particularly those services
that are critical to moving from prison to the community,
including those associated with basic transitional needs (e.g.,
housing, transportation, and employment). The SVORI
programs were intended to increase access to the services and
programs that address these and other needs. In the
Introduction, we presented information from the 2005 survey of
SVORI program directors that suggested that their programs
were providing a variety of services to SVORI program
participants, particularly in the transitional and
employment/education/skills domains.
In this section, we present results from the pre-release
interviews that provide another insight into the delivery of
services and programs for our incarcerated respondents. These
interviews were conducted between July 2004 and November
2005 so individuals would have received pre-release services
and programming during the first 1 to 2 years of SVORI
program development and implementation.
Service receipt bundle scores were calculated analogous to the
calculations of the service need bundle scores: the number of
“yes” responses to items in a bundle was divided by the
number of bundle items and multiplied by 100. Individual
bundle scores were averaged to get site-level scores, which
were averaged to get overall scores. Child services receipt
bundle scores were generated only for those respondents who
reported having children under the age of 18. In addition to the
bundles introduced when we discussed service needs, we
include a sixth bundle of service coordination items.

59

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

SERVICE RECEIPT BUNDLE SCORES
SVORI programs were
successful in greatly
increasing access to a
wide range of services
and programming.

Exhibit 43. Service
receipt bundle scores
across service bundles,
by group

Exhibit 43 shows the service receipt bundle scores for all SVORI
and non-SVORI respondents and clearly demonstrates that
SVORI programs were successful in greatly increasing access to
a wide range of services and programming. On average, SVORI
respondents reported receiving about 60% of the items in the
coordination bundle, which includes assessments and reentry
planning. In comparison, non-SVORI respondents reported
receiving only about one-third of the services in the bundle. For
the remainder of the service bundles, all respondents reported
receiving, on average, less than 40% of the bundle items, with
SVORI respondents significantly more likely to report receipt of
more of the services in a bundle.

60

Coordination services

33
29

Transitional services

17
25
20

Health services
Employment/education/life skills
services

30
16
11

a
Child servicesa

SVORI

6

Non-SVORI

8

Domestic violence services

4

0

20

40

60

80

100

Note: All differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are significant at p < 0.05.
a
Among those who reported having minor children.

The following subsections provide additional detail on the items
within individual service receipt bundles. This is followed by a
review of the service receipt bundle scores, where we find
considerable variability among the sites.

COORDINATION SERVICES
The use of needs assessments and the coordination of services
were integral to the concept of the SVORI programs—both as
defined by the federal funders and as described by the SVORI
programs—in order to ensure that identified needs were met

60

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI respondents were
much more likely to
report that they received
coordination services
than were non-SVORI
respondents.

with appropriate services and programming. For example, in
response to our 2005 program director survey, 90% of the
adult program directors said that they were attempting to
provide all needed services to participants rather than focusing
on a specific service or set of services.
Exhibit 44 shows the proportion of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents who reported receiving each of the five
coordination services. SVORI respondents were much more
likely to report that they received coordination services than
were non-SVORI respondents. (All differences are statistically
significant at the 0.05 level.)

Exhibit 44. Self-reported
receipt of specific
coordination services,
by group

66%

Release planning

31%
66%

Case manager

40%
63%

Needs assessment

45%
57%

Reentry plan

24%
49%

Release needs assessment

23%

0%

25%

50%

SVORI
Non-SVORI
75%

100%

Note: p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI
within site.

The overall levels of
service receipt, however,
were low.

The overall levels of service receipt, however, were
substantially less than 100%. 25 For example, only 66% of
SVORI respondents said that they had met with a case
manager—the same percentage that said that they had
“worked with anyone to plan for release.” 26 About two-thirds of
SVORI respondents (63%) said that they had received a needs
assessment, and only 49% said that they had received a needs
assessment specifically for release. Only 57% of the SVORI
respondents said that they had developed a reentry plan.

25

It should be noted that individuals still had an average of 30 days
before they were released, during which time they might have
received services that are not reflected here.
26
Two of the sites, Indiana and Maryland, were post-release programs
and did not have an explicit SVORI in-prison phase.

61

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Exhibit 45 shows the cross-site variability in the provision of
coordination services, as reported by our respondents. Service
bundle scores ranged from 15 for non-SVORI respondents in
South Carolina to 93 for SVORI respondents in Iowa. The
average score of 93 for the SVORI respondents in Iowa
indicates that most of these individuals received case
management, assessments, and release/reentry planning. A
number of other SVORI programs were also highly successful in
providing most of these services to their participants. Although
the South Carolina SVORI program score of 48 was less than
some other programs, it represents a more than threefold
increase over the bundle score of 15 for non-SVORI
respondents in South Carolina that suggests case management
and reentry planning are not part of the usual pre-release
experience for South Carolina prisoners. In other states,
however, the average non-SVORI bundle scores were
approximately 50, suggesting that there is some assessment,
case management, and reentry planning as part of the status
quo.
Exhibit 45. Average service receipt bundle scores for the coordination services bundle, by
site and group

100

93

SVORI

90

Non-SVORI

87

80

74
69

60

69

52

52

54

51

57

54
48

44
40

45

43

40
29

30

28

27

23

20

20

15

0
IA*

IN

KS*

ME

MD*

MO*

NV*

OH*

OK

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

62

PA*

SC*

WA

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

TRANSITIONAL SERVICES
For all but one of the
transitional services,
SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely
than non-SVORI
respondents to report that
they had received the
service.

Transitional services are programs and assistance that help
individuals prepare for returning to the community, including
assistance finding housing and transportation. Exhibit 46 shows
responses about 30 days prior to release for the 12 transitional
services included in this bundle. For all but one of the
transitional services, SVORI respondents were significantly
more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report that they
had received the service. Again, however, the levels are less
than 100%. The most commonly reported item was attending a
program to prepare for release (75% of SVORI compared with
51% of non-SVORI respondents) or attending classes to
prepare for release (65% and 37% of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively).

Exhibit 46. Self-reported receipt of specific transitional services, by group

75%

Release preparation programs*

51%
65%

Release preparation classes*

37%
41%

Help with documents*

26%
28%

Help finding a place to live*

13%
22%

Help getting a driver's license*

8%
21%

Help accessing clothing/food banks*

11%
20%

Mentoring*

8%
19%
12%
14%
11%
13%
9%
13%
4%
12%
8%

Help finding transportation*
Help accessing public financial assistance
Help accessing public health care*
Help accessing financial assistance*
Help obtaining legal assistance*
0%

20%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

40%

60%

80%

100%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Less than half of SVORI respondents (41%) reported that they
had received help obtaining documents that would be needed
for employment, and only about one-quarter of SVORI
respondents reported that they had received help finding a

63

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

place to live (28%) or help getting a driver’s license (22%).
About one-fifth (21%) of SVORI respondents said that they had
received information to help them access resources in the
community, such as clothing or food banks.
In general, however, 20% or less of the SVORI respondents
indicated that they had received mentoring (20%), help finding
transportation (19%), help accessing public financial assistance
(14%), help accessing financial assistance (13%), help
accessing public health care (13%), and help obtaining legal
assistance (12%). Among these less frequently received
services (with the exception of help accessing public financial
assistance), the SVORI respondents were significantly more
likely than the non-SVORI respondents to report receiving this
help.
Cross-site variation in the reports of receipt of services for the
transitional services bundle can be seen in Exhibit 47. Again,
SVORI respondents in most sites reported receiving
significantly more of the services than did the non-SVORI
respondents.
Exhibit 47. Average service receipt bundle scores for the transitional services bundle, by
site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

58

40

38

40

35

29

20

19

18

19

20
15

10

31 31

28

11

10

11

13

MO*

NV*

26

23

20

18

16
10

0
IA*

IN*

KS*

ME

MD

OH*

OK

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

64

PA

SC*

WA*

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Average scores ranged from 10 to 58, suggesting that, in some
sites, respondents received on average only about 1 of the 12
services, while in others they received as many as 7 services.
Among the groups who reported receiving low levels of
transitional services, the most commonly reported were
programs or classes to prepare them for release (data not
shown).

HEALTH SERVICES
SVORI respondents were
much more likely than
non-SVORI respondents
to report that they had
received treatment for
substance abuse.

SVORI respondents were
less likely to report
receiving mental health
treatment for emotional
problems.

Respondents from both groups were almost equally likely to
report receiving any medical treatment (58% SVORI, 55% nonSVORI). Exhibit 48 shows the proportion of each group who
reported receiving each of the different types of medical
services. SVORI respondents were much more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report that they had received any
treatment for AOD—48% of SVORI respondents compared with
38% of non-SVORI respondents—and that they had received
specific substance abuse treatment services, such as Alcoholics
Anonymous/Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA), drug education,
and information on accessing substance abuse treatment in the
community. SVORI respondents were also more likely to report
having been given information on how to access mental and
physical health care after release. Furthermore, SVORI
respondents were more likely to report that they had received
preventive medical services or medical treatment for a physical
health problem and had participated in anger management
classes.
SVORI respondents were, however, less likely to report
receiving mental health treatment for emotional problems. 27
Very few respondents in either group reported that they had
participated in groups designed to help victims of abuse—
although SVORI respondents were about twice as likely as nonSVORI respondents (7% versus 3%) to indicate that they had
attended programs for abuse victims.

27

Non-SVORI respondents were more likely to report needing mental
health treatment. As noted in the Service Needs section, 29% of
non-SVORI respondents versus 22% of SVORI respondents said
that they needed mental health treatment.

65

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Exhibit 48. Self-reported
receipt of specific health
services, by group

58%
55%

Any medical treatment
39%
33%
37%
31%

Medical treatment for physical health*
Preventive medical services*
Dental services
Rx medications for physical health
Info on accessing health care*
Any MH treatment*
Individual MH counseling
Group MH counseling
Info on accessing MH care*
Any AOD treatment*
AA/NA*
Drug education*
Group AOD counseling
Individual AOD counseling
Residential AOD treatment
Methadone
Detox
Info on accessing AOD treatment*
Anger management program*
Victims' group for abuse*

50%
47%
37%
34%
26%
15%
16%
20%
9%
11%
4%
4%
24%
13%
48%
38%
34%
28%
39%
26%
25%
21%
14%
14%
11%
10%
1%
0%
2%
2%
43%
33%
34%
26%
7%
3%

0%

25%

50%

SVORI
Non-SVORI

75%

100%

Note: AA=Alcoholics Anonymous, AOD=alcohol and other drugs, MH=mental
health, NA=narcotics anonymous, Rx=prescription.
*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Exhibit 49 shows the health services bundle scores by site and
group. Scores ranged from 13 to 40. Differences in scores were
driven primarily by the receipt of services other than medical
treatment (data not shown). SVORI respondents were more
likely than non-SVORI respondents to report receiving AOD
treatment or anger management programs in 9 of the 12 sites
(data not shown). Alternatively, non-SVORI respondents in six
sites were more likely than SVORI respondents to report
receiving mental health treatment (data not shown).

66

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 49. Average service receipt bundle scores for the health services bundle, by site and
group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

40

37

40
28
19 21

20

23 22

35

32

27

31
22

20
15 15

28

26

24

23

22 20

17

15

13

0
IA*

IN

KS

ME

MD

MO*

NV*

OH

OK

PA

SC*

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

EMPLOYMENT/EDUCATION/SKILLS
SERVICES
About three-fourths (74%) of respondents reported they had
received some kind of employment, education, or skills–related
service while incarcerated. SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
having received at least one of the services in the employment/
education/skills services bundle (79% SVORI, 68% nonSVORI). As shown in Exhibit 50, SVORI respondents were also
significantly more likely to report having received each of the
services included in the employment/education/skills bundle.
The most frequently reported type of service was educational
services, with 53% of SVORI respondents and 43% of nonSVORI respondents reporting that they had received
educational services while incarcerated. Just over half (52%) of
SVORI respondents reported having received training on how to
change their attitudes related to criminal behavior, compared
with roughly one-third (36%) of non-SVORI respondents. In
addition, SVORI respondents were twice as likely as non-SVORI

67

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

respondents to report that they had received life skills training
(42% SVORI, 21% non-SVORI) and assistance with personal
relationships (25% SVORI, 13% non-SVORI), and three times
as likely to report that they had received assistance with money
management (24% SVORI, 8% non-SVORI).
Exhibit 50. Self-reported
receipt of specific
employment, education,
and skills services, by
group

Employment/Education/Skills Services
Received any employment services*
Participated in employment readiness
program*
Participated in job training program*
Talked to potential employer*
Given advice about job interviewing*
Given advice about answering
questions about criminal history*
Given advice about how to behave on
the job*
Given names of people to contact in
community to find a job*
Put together a resume*
Received any educational services*
Received money management services*
Received other life skills training*
Received assistance with personal
relationships*
Received training to change criminal
behavior attitudes*

SVORI
37%

Non-SVORI
19%

23%
17%
15%
32%

9%
4%
6%
14%

30%

13%

31%

13%

27%
24%
53%
24%
42%

24%
10%
43%
8%
21%

25%

13%

52%

36%

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI.

Respondents were also asked about a variety of services
related to finding employment in the community following their
release from incarceration. Almost two-fifths (37%) of SVORI
respondents received any employment services, compared with
about one-fifth (19%) of non-SVORI respondents. Close to onethird of SVORI respondents reported that they had been given
advice about job interviewing (32%), how to behave on the job
(31%), or answering questions from potential employers about
their criminal history (30%), while only about one out of every
seven non-SVORI respondents (14%) had been given interview
advice and one out of every eight (13%) had been given advice
regarding job behavior or answering questions about criminal
history. In addition, roughly one-fourth of SVORI respondents
reported they had put together a resumé (24%) or had
participated in employment readiness programs (23%) while

68

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

incarcerated, compared with one-tenth of non-SVORI
respondents.
Exhibit 51 shows the employment/education/skills services
receipt bundle scores by site and group.
Exhibit 51. Average service receipt bundle scores for the employment/education/skills
services bundle, by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

74

60
49

48
40

40
31

31
22

20

22

20
10

12

12

13 13

15

26

25

20

19

16

13

14
9

7

0
IA*

IN*

KS*

ME

MD

MO*

NV*

OH

OK

PA

SC*

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

Scores ranged from a low of 7 for SVORI respondents in Maine
to a high of 74 for SVORI respondents in Iowa. In other words,
SVORI respondents in Iowa received, on average, three-fourths
of all the services in the employment/education/ skills bundle.
In 8 of the 12 sites, SVORI respondents had higher
employment/education/skills services receipt bundle scores
than non-SVORI respondents, and in 5 of those sites (Iowa,
Kansas, Missouri, Nevada, and South Carolina), the differences
in bundle scores between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents
were statistically significant. Non-SVORI respondents’
employment/education/skills services receipt bundle scores
were higher than those of SVORI respondents in three sites,

69

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

and in one of the three sites (Indiana), non-SVORI respondents
had significantly higher receipt bundle scores than SVORI
respondents.
Although SVORI respondents, on average, reported receiving a
greater proportion of services in the employment/education/
skills bundle than did non-SVORI respondents in most sites, the
service receipt bundle scores for all 24 groups were relatively
low compared with their service need bundle scores, which
ranged from 64 to 83 (see discussion on pages 48–49).

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SERVICES
Domestic violence services included two programs—a batterer
intervention program and a domestic violence support group.
Overall, 5% of the SVORI and 3% of the non-SVORI
respondents reported participating in a batterer intervention
program, while 11% and 6% of the SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively, reported that they had participated
in domestic violence support groups.

Participation in domestic
violence services was
extremely rare.

70

As can be seen in Exhibit 52, in most sites and for both groups,
participation in domestic violence services was rare. The
highest bundle scores were obtained in Nevada and Missouri
with scores of 24 and 15 for SVORI respondents, respectively.
In Nevada, the score of 24 reflects the 38% of SVORI
respondents who reported participating in domestic violence
support groups and the 10% of SVORI respondents who
reported participating in batterer intervention programs (data
not shown). In contrast, in Missouri, all of the SVORI
respondents who received domestic violence programs reported
participating in a domestic violence support group and none
reported participating in batterer intervention (data not shown).

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit 52. Average service receipt bundle scores for the domestic violence services bundle,
by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

40
24

20

15

12 11
2

5

4

4
0

1

12
7

4

3

MD

MO*

3

3

1

2

9

2

9
4

7

1

0
IA

IN

KS

ME

NV*

OH

OK

PA

SC*

WA

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

CHILD SERVICES
Reports of programming to help with child-related matters were
also rare across all of the sites. As shown in Exhibit 53, the
child service receipt bundle scores for SVORI respondents
ranged from 13 to 56, whereas the values for non-SVORI
respondents ranged from 10 to 33. Only respondents from the
Iowa SVORI program had a score greater than 50 (56), which
implies that a participant received slightly more than half of the
services. The level of service receipt reported by SVORI
participants was more than double the 24 for the non-SVORI
respondents. Average service receipt among SVORI
respondents was also more than double that reported by nonSVORI respondents in three other sites—Kansas, Missouri, and
Nevada—and almost double in South Carolina. The most
commonly reported child-related programs reported to have
been received in these two programs were parenting classes
and assistance finding child care (data not shown).

71

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit 53. Average service receipt bundle scores for the child services bundle, by site and
group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

56

41

39

40

40
31 33

31
24

20

23
13

22
15

18

22
16

14

17

27

25
20

19

20

15
10

0
IA*

IN*

KS*

ME

MD

MO*

NV*

OH*

OK

PA

SC*

WA*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

LEVELS OF RECEIPT ACROSS SERVICES
Exhibit A-4 (Appendix A) shows the proportion of each group
who reported that they had received each of the 55 services
included in the six service receipt bundles. Overall, the SVORI
respondents were much more likely to report receiving most of
these services than the non-SVORI respondents.
Specifically, as shown in Exhibit 54, most SVORI respondents
commonly reported participating in programs to prepare for
release (75%), meeting with a case manager (66%), working
with someone to plan for release (66%), taking a class
specifically for release (65%), and receiving a needs
assessment (63%). SVORI respondents were significantly more
likely to report receiving these services. Overall, for most
(93%) of the services, SVORI respondents were more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report having received the
service (see Exhibit A-3). For three-quarters of the services,
SVORI respondents were significantly more likely than nonSVORI respondents to report they had received the service
while incarcerated. Non-SVORI respondents were more likely

72

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

than SVORI respondents to report they had received only four
of the pre-release services, and for only one of these services
(any mental health treatment) was the difference in service
receipt between the two groups significant.

Exhibit 54. Most
commonly reported
services received, by
group

Participated in programs to prepare for
release

75%
51%
66%

Met with case manager

40%
66%

Worked with anyone to plan for release

31%
65%

Took class specifically for release

SVORI

37%
63%

Received needs assessment

Non-SVORI

45%
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Note: All differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are significant at p < 0.05.

Overall, SVORI
respondents reported
receiving almost onethird of the service items,
in contrast to non-SVORI
respondents, who
reported receiving about
one-fifth of the services.

Similar to the “all services” need bundle, we also created an “all
services” receipt bundle, which captures the level of overall
service receipt across all 55 services. Overall, SVORI
respondents reported receiving almost one-third of the service
items, in contrast to the non-SVORI respondents, who reported
receiving about one-fifth of the services (average service
bundle scores of 29 for SVORI and 18 for non-SVORI).
Based on program director survey responses and site visits to
the adult impact sites, we expected to observe considerable
variability in the delivery of services to the SVORI participants.
Additionally, because the types and amounts of services
provided on a routine basis to prisoners vary considerably
across correctional systems, we also expected to observe
considerable variation in the services delivered to our nonSVORI respondents who were receiving “treatment as usual”
while in prison. Exhibit 55 shows the service receipt bundle
scores across all services by site and group and clearly
demonstrates that the self-reported receipt of services while in
prison did, in fact, vary among respondents.

73

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit 55. Average service receipt bundle scores for all services, by site and group

100

SVORI
Non-SVORI

80

60

56

41

39

40

40
33
31

24

20

23
13

15

18

22

31
22

16 14

17

27

25
20

20

19

15
10

0
IA*

IN*

KS*

ME

MD

MO*

NV*

OH*

OK

PA

SC*

WA*

*p < 0.05 for test of significant difference between SVORI and non-SVORI within site.

The bundle scores for SVORI respondents ranged from 13 to
56, whereas the scores for non-SVORI respondents ranged
from 10 to 33. Only respondents from the Iowa SVORI program
reported receiving more than 50% of the services (average
score of 56), more than double the score of the non-SVORI
respondents (24). Average service receipt among SVORI
respondents was also more than double that reported by nonSVORI respondents in three other sites—Kansas, Missouri, and
Nevada—and almost double in South Carolina.
The average proportion of services reported having been
received by SVORI respondents in some sites was lower than
the average proportion of services reported received by nonSVORI respondents in other sites—reflecting the differences in
the status quo levels of services across sites that served as a
starting point for SVORI program development. SVORI
respondents in 7 of the 12 sites reported receiving significantly
more services than their non-SVORI counterparts. In four sites,
there was not a significant difference in reported service
receipt, and, in one site, the SVORI respondents reported
receiving significantly fewer services, on average, than the non-

74

Service Receipt — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

SVORI respondents. As mentioned earlier, Indiana and
Maryland were post-release programs that did not explicitly
incorporate additional services SVORI participants prior to
release from incarceration. In addition, Pennsylvania’s SVORI
program, although not solely a post-release program, was not
designed to provide additional services, other than enhanced
case management, during the in-prison phase.

75

Conclusions
This report presents findings from the 1,697 pre-release
interviews conducted with adult males in the 12 adult program
impact sites studied as part of the SVORI multi-site evaluation.
These interviews were conducted between July 2004 and
November 2005, as the first of four waves of interviews with
SVORI program participants and comparison subjects. The prerelease interviews provide information on the characteristics of
study respondents, including their criminal history and preincarceration substance use, as well as detailed data on their
need for and receipt of services and programs.
This section provides a summary description of respondent
characteristics and their service needs and receipt, discusses
the comparability of the two study groups, and assesses the
implications of the findings with respect to the potential for
successful reentry. The section concludes with a discussion of
future reports.

CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
The respondents were about 29 years of age, on average, and
the majority reported their race as black. Less than 40%
reported that they were currently married or in a steady
relationship, although more than 60% reported that they were
the fathers of minor children. Prior to their current
incarceration, most reported that they had lived in a house or
apartment that belonged to someone else. Only about one-third
reported that they had lived in their own house or apartment,
and 12% reported that they were homeless, living in a shelter,
or had no set place to live during the 6 months prior to their
current incarceration. About three-quarters of the respondents
reported that they had family members who had been
incarcerated or who had alcohol or drug problems. Similarly,

77

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

more than 80% reported that, prior to their incarceration, they
had friends who had been incarcerated or had drug or alcohol
problems.
Overall, the study participants reported being physically
healthy, with most reporting that their health did not limit their
current physical activities. Additionally, few study participants
reported currently experiencing physical health problems. The
most commonly reported problem—by about 12% of the
respondents—was chronic back pain, followed by asthma
(about 11%) and high blood pressure (about 9%). The
percentages of respondents reporting currently experiencing
these conditions were about half the rates reporting that they
had ever had these conditions. Reported levels of tuberculosis,
heart trouble, hepatitis B or C, and arthritis were less than 5%,
while only 1% of the respondents reported being diagnosed HIV
positive or with AIDS. Indicators of mental health functioning
and symptomology suggest that, overall, the study participants
were functioning at about the same level as the general U.S.
population and, although some symptoms of mental health
problems were reported, a large majority of the respondents
did not have severe mental health problems. In addition, most
respondents rated their mental health status as excellent or
very good. More than 55% of the respondents reported that
they had received treatment for a mental health or substance
use problem—the most common reasons for this treatment
were drug abuse or dependence (about 40%), alcohol abuse or
dependence (about 25%), and depression (about 20%).
Nearly all of the respondents reported having used alcohol and
marijuana during their lifetime, and more than half reported
having used cocaine. Reported age at first use for these two
substances was about 14 years. A substantial proportion—more
than 40%—reported ever having used hallucinogens, while
fewer reported using amphetamines, tranquilizers, pain
relievers, heroin, sedatives, stimulants, and inhalants.
Overall, the respondents reported limited educational
attainment and spotty employment histories, working primarily
as laborers or service workers. About 60% of the respondents
reported completing 12th grade or earning a GED. While 90%
of the respondents reported having worked at some point, only
about two-thirds reported that they had worked during the 6
months preceding their current incarceration. Of these, more

78

Conclusions — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

than one-third reported that they had had two or more jobs
during that period.
The respondents reported lengthy criminal histories, beginning
with a first arrest at the average age of 16 and an average of
12 arrests. About half of respondents had served time in
juvenile detention facilities, and about 85% had served a prior
prison sentence. About 40% of respondents reported that they
were currently serving time for a violent offense; fewer
respondents reported that their current offenses included
property, drug, or public order offenses. At the time of the
interviews, SVORI respondents reported that they had been
incarcerated an average of 2.8 years compared with an average
of 2.3 years reported by the non-SVORI respondents.

SERVICE NEEDS
Respondents reported high levels of need—particularly for
transitional services and services related to employment,
education, and skills development. Of the 10 items included in
the transitional service needs bundle, at least 45% of the
respondents reported that they would need each of the items
once they were released. More than 80% reported needing
financial assistance and a driver’s license once they were
released, while about 75% said that they would need public
health care insurance. Transportation was also identified as a
need by about 70% of the respondents. Access to food and
clothing banks, a mentor, documents for employment, and
public financial assistance were identified as needs by between
50% and 60%. Between 45% and 50% reported needing legal
assistance or a place to live.
Nearly all of the respondents (99%) reported needing at least
one of the six education/employment/skills services, and most
respondents reported needing at least three-quarters of the
items. The highest expressed need was for more education
(more than 90%), while nearly 80% said that they would need
a job upon release. Help learning money management and
other life skills was identified as needed by nearly threequarters of all respondents, while nearly two-thirds said they
needed to change their attitudes related to criminal behavior or
work on their personal relationships.
The majority reported needing health services post release,
with nearly 60% reporting that they would need medical

79

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

treatment or physical health care, about 40% reporting that
they would need AOD treatment, and about 25% reporting that
they would need mental health treatment.
Very few of the respondents reported needing either of the two
domestic violence services—batterer intervention programs or
domestic violence support groups. Of the 995 fathers who were
interviewed, more than 60% said they needed help developing
parenting skills, and about 40% said they would need help with
child care post release.
Although reported needs were similar for the SVORI and nonSVORI respondents, there were substantial differences in
reports of the services received during incarceration. These
differences in service receipt are explored more fully in the
following subsection.

SERVICE RECEIPT
SVORI programs were successful in greatly increasing access to
a wide range of services and programming—although overall
levels of service receipt were less than 100%. Programs were
particularly effective in increasing coordination services,
approximately doubling or more than doubling the proportion of
individuals receiving release planning, needs assessment,
release-related needs assessment, reentry plan development,
and assignment of a case manager.
SVORI respondents were also significantly more likely than
non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received the 12
transitional services. Again, however, the levels are less than
100%. The most commonly reported item was attending a
program to prepare for release (75% of SVORI compared with
51% of non-SVORI respondents) or attending classes to
prepare for release (65% and 37% of SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents, respectively).
Respondents from both groups were almost equally likely to
report receiving medical treatment (58% SVORI, 55% nonSVORI). However, SVORI respondents were much more likely
than non-SVORI respondents to report that they had received
treatment for AOD and that they had received specific
substance abuse treatment services, such as AA/NA, drug
education, and information on accessing substance abuse
treatment in the community. SVORI respondents were also

80

Conclusions — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

more likely to report having been given information on how to
access mental and physical health care after release. SVORI
respondents were, however, less likely to report receiving
mental health treatment for emotional problems—consistent
with the finding that non-SVORI respondents were more likely
to report needing mental health treatment.
About three-fourths (74%) of respondents reported they had
received some kind of employment, education, or skills–related
service while incarcerated. SVORI respondents were
significantly more likely than non-SVORI respondents to report
having received at least one of the services in the employment/
education/skills services bundle. Respondents were also asked
about services related to finding employment in the community
following their release from incarceration. Almost two-fifths
(37%) of SVORI respondents received employment services,
compared with about one-fifth (19%) of non-SVORI
respondents.
Very few respondents reported participating in either a batterer
intervention program or a domestic violence support group.
Reports of programming to help with child-related matters were
also rare across all of the sites. The most commonly reported
child-related programs reported to have been received in these
two programs were parenting classes and assistance finding
child care.
In general, SVORI respondents reported receiving more prerelease services than did non-SVORI respondents. This finding
supports the conclusion that the SVORI programs were
successful in significantly increasing the level of services and
programming provided to participants.

COMPARABILITY OF SVORI AND NONSVORI RESPONDENTS
The impact evaluation findings hinge on the comparability of
the two evaluation study groups—those who participated in
SVORI programs and the non-SVORI respondents who were
identified as comparison subjects for this evaluation. Only two
sites—Iowa and Ohio—randomly assigned individuals to their
SVORI programs; for the remainder of the sites, the evaluation
team worked with the local program staff to identify
appropriate populations from which to identify comparison
subjects. The goal of this exercise was to find groups of

81

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

subjects who were similar to those participating in SVORI
programs and to have local staff in the sites (usually individuals
working with agency management information systems)
provide lists of these individuals to the evaluation team during
the first wave of interviews. If we were successful in identifying
comparable non-SVORI respondents, we would expect to find
few differences between the groups on variables that measured
characteristics prior to the time at which assignment to SVORI
could be made. For our interview data, this expectation refers
to variables measuring pre-incarceration characteristics.
In the “Characteristics” section, we thoroughly discussed the
characteristics of the respondents and provided comparisons of
the average values for the SVORI and non-SVORI groups.
Exhibit A-2 in Appendix A provides the means, standard
deviations, and t-statistics for many of these variables. In this
subsection, we focus our discussion on the handful of variables
for which statistically significant differences between the two
groups were identified. 28
Exhibit 56 lists the variables where the differences between
groups were statistically significant at the.05 level. Those
participating in SVORI programs were somewhat less likely to
be white and somewhat more likely to be black. Non-SVORI
respondents were more likely to report that they were born
outside of the United States, but very few subjects in either
group were not native born. Although about 38% of both the
SVORI and non-SVORI groups reported currently being in a
steady relationship or married, those in the non-SVORI group
were more likely than the SVORI respondents to report that
they had lived with that person prior to the current
incarceration.
Responses differed on three of the employment measures,
although the differences were small. Non-SVORI respondents
were more likely than SVORI respondents to report ever having
a job (92% versus 89%) and to have been employed during the
6 months prior to incarceration (68% versus 64%). The nonSVORI respondents were also more likely to have reported that
they supported themselves by “other” means during the 6
months prior to incarceration (10% versus 7%).

28

82

Here, statistical significance is defined by a two-tailed test at α =
0.05.

Conclusions — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

As can be seen in Exhibit 56, 12 of the 25 variables for which
statistically significant differences were observed were AOD
measures. Non-SVORI respondents were somewhat more likely
than SVORI respondents to report having ever used a drug and
somewhat more likely to report having tried more types of
drugs. In contrast, the groups differed on reports of drug use
during the 30 days prior to incarceration on only one drug—
with non-SVORI respondents who reported ever using sedatives
more likely than similar SVORI respondents to report sedative
use during the 30 days prior to incarceration.
Exhibit 56. Statistically significant differences between SVORI and non-SVORI respondents

Variable
Demographic Characteristics
Race: White
Race: Black
Born in United States
Before prison, live with person with whom currently in
steady relationship/married
Employment
Ever held a job
Employed during 6 months prior to incarceration
How supported self 6 months prior to incarceration: Other
Alcohol and Drugs
Age last time you drank alcohol if no use 30 days prior to
incarceration
Number of drugs used lifetime
Ever used tranquilizers
Ever used stimulants
Ever used pain relievers
Ever used methadone
Ever used hallucinogens
Ever used cocaine
Ever used heroin
Number of drugs used 30 days prior to incarceration
Used sedatives 30 days prior to incarceration
Age first used amphetamines
Criminal History
Duration of incarceration at baseline (years)
Conviction offense: Drug crime
Conviction offense: Public order crime
Currently serving time for parole violation
Ever in jail/prison for more than 24 hours at one time
Number of times sent to prison

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

1,697
1,697
1,697
670

0.31 (0.46)
0.56 (0.50)
1.00 (0.07)
0.59 (0.49)

0.37 (0.48)
0.50 (0.50)
0.98 (0.13)
0.67 (0.47)

1,696
1,696
1,693

0.89 (0.31)
0.64 (0.48)
0.07 (0.25)

0.92 (0.27)
0.68 (0.47)
0.10 (0.30)

479

24.18 (7.41)

25.66 (7.86)

1,697
1,695
1,696
1,695
1,695
1,695
1,694
1,695
1,697
333
473

3.39 (2.78)
0.25 (0.43)
0.16 (0.36)
0.24 (0.43)
0.06 (0.24)
0.43 (0.50)
0.53 (0.50)
0.18 (0.38)
1.37 (1.56)
0.31 (0.46)
17.10 (3.76)

3.84 (2.93)
0.31 (0.46)
0.20 (0.40)
0.30 (0.46)
0.09 (0.29)
0.49 (0.50)
0.58 (0.49)
0.23 (0.42)
1.58 (1.75)
0.43 (0.50)
18.47 (4.81)

1,697
1,687
1,687
1,694
1,694
1,434

2.76 (2.46)
0.36 (0.48)
0.17 (0.37)
0.23 (0.42)
0.83 (0.38)
1.45 (1.82)

2.26 (2.63)
0.31 (0.46)
0.24 (0.43)
0.31 (0.46)
0.87 (0.33)
1.69 (2.05)

SD = standard deviation.
Note: All differences between SVORI and non-SVORI are significant at p < 0.05.

83

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

The observed differences in criminal history include non-SVORI
respondents being more likely to have reported that they were
currently serving time for a parole violation—31% versus 23%,
respectively. This finding is consistent with the higher
proportion of non-SVORI respondents reporting that their
conviction offense(s) included a public order crime, including
parole violation offenses (if they are charged as an offense).
Similarly, the measures of prior incarcerations were higher for
non-SVORI than SVORI respondents, again perhaps reflecting
the initial incarceration that preceded the current incarceration
for the violation. The shorter length of stay at interview may
also be related to a return for a parole violation.

IMPLICATIONS
Given that we examined hundreds of variables, the relatively
few differences found suggest that our strategy to identify
comparison subjects was largely successful. However, because
race, employment, offense type, and substance use are often
linked to recidivism, the outcome analyses will control for these
differences.
Service receipt was the one area in which substantial and
significant differences between SVORI and non-SVORI
respondents were observed. Such a finding was expected, of
course, because the intent of the SVORI funding is to increase
prisoner access to needed services and programming.

FUTURE REPORTS
Other publications from this evaluation will present results from
the pre-release interviews with women and juvenile males.
Over the course of the next year, the evaluation team will
report on findings from post-release interviews, which focused
on reentry experiences and outcomes on a variety of domains,
including employment, housing, substance use, criminal
behavior, physical and mental health, and family and
community integration.

84

References
Lattimore, P.K., S. Brumbaugh, C. Visher, C.H. Lindquist, L.
Winterfield, M. Salas, and J. Zweig (2004). National
Portrait of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry
Initiative (RTI Report 8805). Research Triangle Park,
NC: Research Triangle Institute.
Lattimore, P.K., C.A. Visher, L. Winterfield, C. Lindquist, and S.
Brumbaugh (2005). Implementation of Prisoner Reentry
Programs: Findings from the Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative Multi-site Evaluation. Justice
Research and Policy, 7(2):87–109.
Lindquist, C. (2005). Reentry Research in Action:
Implementation of SVORI Programs. Research Triangle
Park, NC: RTI International.
http://www.svorievaluation.org/documents/reports/RRI
A-Implementation.pdf
Petersilia, J. (2003) When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and
Prisoner Reentry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Strategic Advantages, Inc. (2000). Symptom Assessment-45
Questionnaire (SA-45). New York: Multi-Health Systems
Inc.
Travis, J. and Visher, C. eds. (2005). Prisoner Reentry and
Crime in America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Ware, J.E., Jr., M. Kosinski, D.M. Turner-Bowker, and B.
Gandek (2002). How to Score Version 2 of the SF-12®
Health Survey (with a Supplement Documenting Version
1). Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
Winterfield, L., and S. Brumbaugh (2005). Reentry Research in
Action: Characteristics of Prisoner Reentry Programs for
Juveniles. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
http://www.svorievaluation.org/documents/reports/RRI
A-Juvenile Program Characteristics Report.pdf

85

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation

Winterfield, L., and C. Lindquist (2005). Reentry Research in
Action: Characteristics of Prisoner Reentry Programs.
Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International.
http://www.svorievaluation.org/documents/reports/RRI
A-Program Characteristics Report.pdf
Winterfield, L., P.K. Lattimore, D.M. Steffey, S.M. Brumbaugh,
and C.H. Lindquist (2006). The Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative: Measuring the Effects on
Service Delivery. Western Criminology Review, 7(2):3–
19.

86

Appendix A. Data Tables
Exhibit A-1. Adult male case disposition—Wave 1 (pre-release)

TOTAL ALL CASES

Case Disposition—Eligible Cases
Completed
Interview completed
Released Early
R released prior to Wave 1 interview
Refused
Final refusal by R, guardian or other
Access Denied
Access to R denied by prison
Other Non-Interview
R absconded
Private setting not available
R deceased
Language barrier--Spanish
Language barrier--Other
Physically/mentally incapable
Other non-interview
TOTAL ELIGIBLE CASES

Case Disposition—Ineligible Cases
Ineligible Cases
R transferred to non-study facility
R releasing to non-study area
R not releasing during data collection
period
Date of release unknown
Case fielded incorrectly
R ineligible to participate
Site dropped from study
Other ineligible
TOTAL INELIGIBLE CASES

SVORI
N
%
1406
43.92%

Non-SVORI
N
%
1795
56.08%

SVORI
% of
Eligible
N
SVORI

Non-SVORI
% of
Eligible
N
NS

All Cases
N
%
3201
100.00%
All Cases

N

% of
Eligible

863

73.70%

834

59.87%

1697

66.19%

169

14.43%

369

26.49%

538

20.98%

126

10.76%

166

11.92%

295

11.51%

6

0.51%

8

0.57%

14

0.55%

2
2
1
1
0
1
0
1171

0.17%
0.17%
0.09%
0.09%
0.00%
0.09%
0.00%
100.00%

3
1
0
5
1
2
1
1393

0.22%
0.07%
0.00%
0.36%
0.07%
0.14%
0.07%
100.00%

5
3
1
6
1
3
1
2564

0.20%
0.12%
0.04%
0.23%
0.04%
0.12%
0.04%
100.00%

SVORI
% of
Ineligible
N
SVORI

Non-SVORI
% of
Ineligible
N
NS

All Cases

N

% of
Ineligible

21
7

8.94%
2.98%

56
37

13.93%
9.20%

77
41

12.09%
6.44%

100

42.55%

92

22.89%

192

30.14%

2
5
86
4
10
235

0.85%
2.13%
36.60%
1.70%
4.26%
100.00%

25
158
12
18
4
402

6.22%
39.30%
2.99%
4.48%
1.00%
100.00%

32
163
98
28
6
637

5.02%
25.59%
15.38%
4.40%
0.94%
100.00%

A-1

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group

Characteristic
Demographics and Housing
Age at incarceration
Age at pre-release (Wave 1) interview
White
Black
Hispanic
Multiracial/other
Born in United States
English is primary language
Homeless/shelter/no set place to live prior
to incarceration
Employment History
Ever held a job
Employed during 6 months prior to
incarceration
Source of support 6 months prior to
incarceration: Family
Source of support 6 months prior to
incarceration: Friends
Source of support 6 months prior to
incarceration: Government
Source of support 6 months prior to
incarceration: Illegal income
Source of support 6 months prior to
incarceration: Other
Last job: Hours worked per week
Last job: Hourly salary
Last job: Was permanent
Last job: Received formal pay
Last job: Health insurance provided
Completed 12th grade or GED/other high
school equivalent
Currently in school
Ever served in the military
Family and Peers
Married
Involved in steady relationship 6 months
prior to incarceration
Currently married or in steady relationship
Lived with spouse/partner before
incarceration

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

1697
1697
1694
1694
1694
1694
1697
1697

26.13 (7.49)
28.89 (7.14)
0.32 (0.46)
0.57 (0.50)
0.04 (0.20)
0.08 (0.27)
1.00 (0.07)
0.98 (0.13)

27.06 (7.41)
29.30 (7.48)
0.37 (0.48)
0.50 (0.50)
0.04 (0.20)
0.09 (0.29)
0.98 (0.13)
0.97 (0.16)

−2.57
−1.17
−2.30
2.74
−0.13
−0.89
2.59
1.59

1695

0.12 (0.33)

0.12 (0.33)

0.18

1696

0.89 (0.31)

0.92 (0.27)

−2.21

1696

0.64 (0.48)

0.68 (0.47)

−2.04

1693

0.32 (0.47)

0.31 (0.46)

0.15

1693

0.16 (0.37)

0.14 (0.35)

1.40

1693

0.11 (0.31)

0.10 (0.30)

0.48

1693

0.45 (0.50)

0.43 (0.50)

0.99

1693

0.07 (0.25)

0.10 (0.30)

−2.14

1107
1083
1117
1120
1094

41.72 (13.86)
10.91 (8.51)
0.75 (0.43)
0.74 (0.44)
0.37 (0.48)

41.76 (14.07)
10.13 (6.87)
0.73 (0.44)
0.72 (0.45)
0.34 (0.47)

−0.04
1.67
0.65
0.64
0.93

1695

0.61 (0.49)

0.58 (0.49)

0.88

1697
1697

0.15 (0.35)
0.05 (0.22)

0.13 (0.34)
0.05 (0.21)

0.83
0.39

1697

0.09 (0.28)

0.10 (0.30)

−1.05

1693

0.68 (0.47)

0.69 (0.46)

−0.28

1690

0.39 (0.49)

0.40 (0.49)

−0.33

670

0.59 (0.49)

0.67 (0.47)

−2.15

t-statistic

(continued)

A-2

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Family and Peers (continued)
Have any living children
Number of children (only respondents with
children)
Number of children (respondents with and
without children)
Have child(ren) under 18
Primary care responsibilities for any
children under 18 6 months prior to
incarceration
Number of children under 18 supported 6
months prior to incarceration
Required to pay child support 6 months
prior to incarceration
Made court-ordered child support payments
6 months prior to incarceration
Court order for support changed while
incarcerated
Owe back child support
Dollar amount of back child support owed
State has forgiven/decreased back child
support
Have people in life that are considered
family
Have a family member who has been
convicted of a crime
Have a family member who has been in a
correctional facility
Have a family member who has had
problems with drugs/alcohol
Family emotional support scale (0–30: >
more support)
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
been convicted of a crime
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
been in a correctional facility
Had a friend (before incarceration) who has
had problems with drugs or alcohol
Physical and Mental Health
Physical health scale (>better)
Mental health scale (>better)
Received treatment for mental health
problem prior to this incarceration
Global Severity Index (45–225: >worse)
Positive Symptom Total (0–45: >worse)

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

1684

0.62 (0.49)

0.64 (0.48)

−0.88

1056

2.22 (1.63)

2.29 (1.60)

−0.65

1684

1.37 (1.67)

1.46 (1.69)

−1.07

1684

0.59 (0.49)

0.61 (0.49)

−0.59

1009

0.47 (0.50)

0.49 (0.50)

−0.59

527

1.17 (1.18)

1.19 (1.18)

−0.23

1007

0.30 (0.46)

0.32 (0.47)

−0.56

312

0.59 (0.49)

0.56 (0.50)

0.51

283

0.26 (0.44)

0.27 (0.44)

−0.01

301

0.93 (0.25)
9127.02
(11281.27)

0.91 (0.29)
10728.93
(12558.94)

0.73

253

0.05 (0.21)

0.09 (0.28)

−1.21

1697

0.97 (0.16)

0.97 (0.17)

0.27

1574

0.75 (0.43)

0.76 (0.43)

−0.22

1602

0.75 (0.44)

0.74 (0.44)

0.21

1591

0.72 (0.45)

0.74 (0.44)

−0.99

1615

21.63 (4.87)

21.35 (4.71)

1.18

1540

0.83 (0.37)

0.83 (0.37)

−0.07

1556

0.81 (0.39)

0.81 (0.39)

0.03

1572

0.82 (0.39)

0.83 (0.38)

−0.42

1673
1673

53.63 (9.23)
48.93 (10.54)

53.34 (9.19)
48.51 (10.65)

0.64
0.80

1693

0.24 (0.43)

0.25 (0.44)

−0.52

1697
1697

66.64 (21.43)
12.62 (9.77)

68.09 (23.07)
13.33 (10.07)

−1.34
−1.47

234

t-statistic

−1.03

(continued)

A-3

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Physical and Mental Health (continued)
Anxiety Scale (5–25: >worse)
Depression Scale (5–25: >worse)
Hostility Scale (5–25: >worse)
Interpersonal Sensitivity Scale (5–25:
>worse)
Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (5–25:
>worse)
Paranoid Ideation Scale (5–25: >worse)
Phobic Anxiety Scale (5–25: >worse)
Psychoticism Scale (5–25: >worse)
Somatization Scale (5–25: >worse)
No physical health-related limitations
Ever had asthma
Currently have asthma
Receiving treatment for asthma
Taking prescription for asthma
Ever had diabetes
Currently have diabetes
Receiving treatment for diabetes
Taking prescription for diabetes
Ever had heart trouble
Currently have heart trouble
Receiving treatment for heart trouble
Taking prescription for heart trouble
Ever had high blood pressure
Currently have high blood pressure
Receiving treatment for high blood pressure
Taking prescription for high blood pressure
Ever had arthritis
Currently have arthritis
Receiving treatment for arthritis
Taking prescription for arthritis
Ever had chronic back pain
Currently have chronic back pain
Receiving treatment for chronic back pain
Taking prescription for chronic back pain
Ever had tuberculosis
Tuberculosis is currently active
Ever diagnosed as being HIV positive or
having AIDS

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

1696
1696
1697

7.42 (2.90)
8.31 (3.94)
6.41 (2.52)

7.67 (3.18)
8.45 (3.84)
6.69 (2.88)

−1.75
−0.76
−2.11

1691

7.50 (3.30)

7.60 (3.55)

−0.62

1697

8.12 (3.67)

8.17 (3.66)

−0.25

1697
1697
1695
1697
1697
1697
1690
175
175
1696
1693
24
24
1695
1687
53
53
1695
1664
143
144
1697
1696
85
85
1697
1697
205
205
1695
1692

8.84 (3.66)
6.42 (2.32)
6.58 (2.38)
7.05 (2.78)
0.59 (0.49)
0.20 (0.40)
0.11 (0.31)
0.48 (0.50)
0.48 (0.50)
0.02 (0.15)
0.01 (0.11)
0.91 (0.30)
0.91 (0.30)
0.05 (0.23)
0.03 (0.17)
0.36 (0.49)
0.36 (0.49)
0.17 (0.38)
0.09 (0.29)
0.73 (0.45)
0.71 (0.46)
0.05 (0.23)
0.05 (0.21)
0.13 (0.33)
0.13 (0.33)
0.15 (0.35)
0.11 (0.32)
0.14 (0.35)
0.18 (0.39)
0.06 (0.23)
0.00 (0.00)

8.85 (3.74)
6.56 (2.74)
6.89 (2.59)
7.16 (3.04)
0.56 (0.50)
0.19 (0.39)
0.10 (0.30)
0.58 (0.50)
0.61 (0.49)
0.02 (0.13)
0.02 (0.12)
0.77 (0.44)
0.69 (0.48)
0.05 (0.22)
0.03 (0.18)
0.36 (0.49)
0.39 (0.50)
0.16 (0.37)
0.08 (0.27)
0.65 (0.48)
0.61 (0.49)
0.06 (0.23)
0.05 (0.23)
0.22 (0.42)
0.24 (0.43)
0.16 (0.37)
0.13 (0.33)
0.14 (0.35)
0.12 (0.33)
0.07 (0.25)
0.00 (0.03)

−0.04
−1.12
−2.61
−0.82
1.20
0.40
0.33
−1.32
−1.64
0.75
−0.49
0.89
1.29
0.49
−0.54
0.02
−0.24
0.70
0.80
1.09
1.25
−0.28
−0.71
−1.17
−1.41
−0.84
−0.93
0.05
1.24
−0.97
−1.00

1697

0.01 (0.08)

0.01 (0.10)

−0.60

t-statistic

(continued)

A-4

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Physical and Mental Health (continued)
Receiving treatment for HIV/AIDS
Taking prescription for HIV/AIDS
Ever had hepatitis B or C
Currently have hepatitis B or C
Receiving treatment for hepatitis B or C
Taking prescription for hepatitis B or C
Wear glasses or corrective lenses
Need eye glasses
Currently use a hearing aid
Need a hearing aid
Ever received care for mental health or
alcohol/drug problems
Ever received care for: Alcohol
abuse/dependence
Ever received care for: Anxiety
Ever received care for: Attention deficit
hyperactivity disorder
Ever received care for: Bipolar disorder
Ever received care for: Conduct disorder
Ever received care for:
Depression/dysthymia
Ever received care for: Drug
abuse/dependence
Ever received care for: Obsessivecompulsive disorder
Ever received care for: Oppositional defiant
disorder
Ever received care for: Posttraumatic stress
disorder
Ever received care for: Phobia (social or
specific)
Ever received care for: Schizophrenia
Ever received care for: Other
problem/diagnosis
Did not receive care for problem/no
diagnosis
Currently receiving treatment: Alcohol
abuse/dependence
Currently receiving treatment: Anxiety
disorder
Currently receiving treatment: Attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

14
14
1691
1689
60
60
1697
1238
1697
1690

0.83 (0.41)
0.67 (0.52)
0.03 (0.18)
0.03 (0.16)
0.23 (0.43)
0.14 (0.35)
0.27 (0.45)
0.22 (0.41)
0.00 (0.05)
0.02 (0.15)

0.88 (0.35)
0.88 (0.35)
0.05 (0.22)
0.05 (0.21)
0.11 (0.31)
0.05 (0.23)
0.26 (0.44)
0.22 (0.42)
0.01 (0.08)
0.05 (0.21)

−0.20
−0.90
−1.61
−2.25
1.27
1.00
0.34
−0.10
−1.17
−2.54

1696

0.56 (0.50)

0.55 (0.50)

0.32

925

0.25 (0.44)

0.28 (0.45)

−0.87

925

0.06 (0.23)

0.07 (0.26)

−0.88

925

0.12 (0.33)

0.13 (0.33)

−0.31

925
925

0.10 (0.30)
0.03 (0.18)

0.12 (0.33)
0.04 (0.19)

−1.23
−0.34

925

0.19 (0.39)

0.20 (0.40)

−0.32

925

0.42 (0.49)

0.34 (0.48)

2.33

925

0.01 (0.12)

0.02 (0.12)

−0.10

925

0.01 (0.11)

0.00 (0.07)

1.36

925

0.03 (0.18)

0.02 (0.15)

0.66

925

0.01 (0.08)

0.01 (0.11)

−1.08

925

0.04 (0.21)

0.05 (0.21)

−0.18

925

0.18 (0.39)

0.18 (0.38)

0.12

925

0.17 (0.38)

0.15 (0.36)

0.97

783

0.07 (0.25)

0.10 (0.29)

−1.38

783

0.02 (0.14)

0.03 (0.17)

−0.94

783

0.01 (0.09)

0.03 (0.16)

−1.98

t-statistic

(continued)

A-5

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Physical and Mental Health (continued)
Currently receiving treatment: Bipolar
disorder
Currently receiving treatment: Conduct
disorder
Currently receiving treatment:
Depression/dysthymia
Currently receiving treatment: Drug
abuse/dependence
Currently receiving treatment: Obsessivecompulsive disorder
Currently receiving treatment: Oppositional
defiant disorder
Currently receiving treatment: Posttraumatic
stress disorder
Currently receiving treatment: Phobia
(social or specific)
Currently receiving treatment:
Schizophrenia
Currently receiving treatment: Other
problem/diagnosis
Currently not receiving treatment for any
condition
Doctor prescribed medication for
emotional/psychological problem during
this incarceration
Received the prescribed medication
Any victimization (6 months prior to
incarceration)
Victimization severity prior to incarceration
(0–30: >worse)
Any victimization (during incarceration)
Victimization severity during incarceration
(0–36: >worse)
Substance Use
Ever drank any type of alcoholic beverage
Age at first drink
Used alcohol 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age at last drink if no alcohol 30 days prior
Ever used drugs
Number of drugs used in lifetime
Used drugs 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Number of drugs used 30 days prior to this
incarceration

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

783

0.05 (0.21)

0.06 (0.24)

−0.69

783

0.01 (0.07)

0.01 (0.09)

−0.47

783

0.06 (0.23)

0.10 (0.29)

−2.10

783

0.10 (0.31)

0.09 (0.28)

0.90

783

0.00 (0.00)

0.01 (0.09)

−1.74

783

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

783

0.01 (0.11)

0.01 (0.10)

0.31

783

0.00 (0.05)

0.00 (0.05)

−0.01

783

0.04 (0.19)

0.03 (0.18)

0.15

783

0.05 (0.22)

0.06 (0.24)

−0.68

783

0.72 (0.45)

0.67 (0.47)

1.48

1697

0.13 (0.34)

0.19 (0.39)

−3.23

268

0.95 (0.23)

0.96 (0.21)

−0.33

1696

0.59 (0.49)

0.58 (0.49)

0.61

1696

3.87 (5.61)

3.75 (5.49)

0.47

1696

0.55 (0.50)

0.54 (0.50)

0.47

1696

2.71 (3.64)

2.88 (4.05)

−0.93

1696
1616

0.96 (0.19)
13.71 (3.85)

0.97 (0.17)
13.64 (3.76)

−0.80
0.34

1693

0.68 (0.47)

0.67 (0.47)

0.43

479
1697
1697

24.18 (7.41)
0.94 (0.24)
3.39 (2.78)

25.66 (7.86)
0.96 (0.21)
3.84 (2.93)

−2.11
−1.67
−3.26

1696

0.66 (0.48)

0.69 (0.46)

−1.56

1697

1.37 (1.56)

1.58 (1.75)

−2.63

t-statistic

(continued)

A-6

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Substance Use (continued)
Used drugs other than marijuana and
steroids 30 days prior to this incarceration
Ever used sedatives
Age first used sedatives
Used sedatives 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used sedatives
Ever used tranquilizers
Age first used tranquilizers
Used tranquilizers 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used tranquilizers
Ever used stimulants
Age first used stimulants
Used stimulants 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used stimulants
Ever used pain relievers
Age first used pain relievers
Used pain relievers 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used pain relievers
Ever used methadone
Age first used methadone
Used methadone 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used methadone
Ever used anabolic steroids
Age first used anabolic steroids
Used anabolic steroids 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used anabolic steroids
Ever used marijuana
Age first used marijuana
Used marijuana 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used marijuana
Ever used hallucinogens
Age first used hallucinogens
Used hallucinogens 30 days prior to this
incarceration

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

1696

0.42 (0.49)

0.47 (0.50)

−1.92

1695
328

0.18 (0.39)
17.62 (4.24)

0.21 (0.41)
17.13 (4.45)

−1.63
1.02

1693

0.06 (0.23)

0.09 (0.29)

−2.88

205
1695
461

22.48 (5.32)
0.25 (0.43)
17.93 (4.34)

24.12 (7.09)
0.31 (0.46)
18.47 (5.04)

−1.86
−2.86
−1.22

1691

0.08 (0.28)

0.13 (0.33)

−2.86

285
1696
298

22.79 (5.62)
0.16 (0.36)
16.66 (4.09)

23.04 (6.47)
0.20 (0.40)
17.05 (4.77)

−0.35
−2.31
−0.75

1696

0.07 (0.25)

0.09 (0.29)

−1.84

165
1695
454

21.05 (5.30)
0.24 (0.43)
18.21 (4.96)

22.84 (6.91)
0.30 (0.46)
18.53 (5.59)

−1.88
−2.78
−0.64

1693

0.11 (0.31)

0.14 (0.34)

−1.97

251
1695
132

23.38 (5.46)
0.06 (0.24)
23.71 (8.24)

24.67 (7.15)
0.09 (0.29)
23.10 (6.62)

−1.61
−2.28
0.47

1695

0.02 (0.13)

0.02 (0.13)

−0.28

103
1696
30

26.95 (8.63)
0.02 (0.13)
17.94 (4.54)

26.27 (7.36)
0.02 (0.13)
19.50 (3.20)

0.43
0.27
−1.07

1696

0.00 (0.00)

0.00 (0.00)

30
1695
1568

18.94 (5.32)
0.92 (0.27)
13.94 (3.15)

21.79 (4.04)
0.94 (0.24)
14.14 (3.33)

−1.63
−1.25
−1.24

1694

0.52 (0.50)

0.53 (0.50)

−0.76

675
1695
784

23.33 (7.20)
0.43 (0.50)
17.16 (3.45)

23.61 (6.72)
0.49 (0.50)
17.58 (3.95)

−0.53
−2.51
−1.59

1694

0.09 (0.28)

0.09 (0.29)

−0.30

t-statistic

(continued)

A-7

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

Characteristic
Substance Use (continued)
Age last used hallucinogens
Ever used cocaine
Age first used cocaine
Used cocaine 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used cocaine
Ever used heroin
Age first used heroin
Used heroin 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used heroin
Ever used amphetamines
Age first used amphetamines
Used amphetamines 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used amphetamines
Ever used inhalants
Age first used inhalants
Used inhalants 30 days prior to this
incarceration
Age last used inhalants
Received alcohol/drug treatment before this
incarceration
Current Incarceration and Criminal Historya
Duration of incarceration at Wave 1
interview (years)
Wave 1 conviction offense(s) category:
Person/violent crime
Robbery
Assault
Lethal crime
Sex offense
Other person/violent crime
Wave 1 conviction offense(s) category:
Property crime
Burglary
Theft
Car theft
Fraud/forgery
Other property crime

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

626
1694
935

20.92 (4.07)
0.53 (0.50)
19.39 (5.32)

21.56 (5.35)
0.58 (0.49)
19.52 (4.90)

−1.69
−2.09
−0.39

1694

0.22 (0.42)

0.26 (0.44)

−1.77

528
1695
343

24.65 (7.31)
0.18 (0.38)
20.90 (6.13)

24.62 (6.95)
0.23 (0.42)
21.34 (5.62)

0.04
−2.59
−0.68

1695

0.08 (0.27)

0.09 (0.28)

−0.83

206
1692
473

26.19 (8.70)
0.26 (0.44)
17.10 (3.76)

24.75 (6.65)
0.30 (0.46)
18.47 (4.81)

1.30
−1.86
−3.47

1690

0.13 (0.33)

0.14 (0.34)

−0.55

251
1694
267

22.58 (5.97)
0.15 (0.36)
15.83 (3.91)

23.74 (6.49)
0.16 (0.37)
15.76 (3.34)

−1.45
−0.63
0.16

1693

0.01 (0.10)

0.01 (0.08)

0.71

252

18.06 (4.87)

17.34 (4.17)

1.26

1696

0.42 (0.49)

0.41 (0.49)

0.42

1697

2.76 (2.46)

2.26 (2.63)

4.10

1688

0.42 (0.49)

0.40 (0.49)

0.92

1688
1688
1688
1688
1688

0.15 (0.36)
0.19 (0.39)
0.04 (0.21)
0.05 (0.22)
0.03 (0.18)

0.13 (0.33)
0.16 (0.36)
0.03 (0.17)
0.07 (0.25)
0.06 (0.24)

1.28
1.88
1.68
−1.51
−2.46

1688

0.24 (0.43)

0.27 (0.44)

−1.35

1688
1688
1688
1688
1688

0.11 (0.31)
0.08 (0.28)
0.03 (0.16)
0.02 (0.15)
0.04 (0.20)

0.12 (0.32)
0.08 (0.27)
0.03 (0.18)
0.05 (0.21)
0.05 (0.21)

−0.71
0.43
−0.55
−2.52
−0.50

t-statistic

(continued)

A-8

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

SVORI
Characteristic
N
Mean (SD)
Current Incarceration and Criminal Historya (continued)
Wave 1 conviction offense(s) category:
1,688
0.36 (0.48)
Drug crime
Drug dealing/manufacturing
1,688
0.21 (0.41)
Drug possession
1,688
0.22 (0.41)
Other drug offense
1,688
0.01 (0.11)
Wave 1 conviction offense(s) category:
1,688
0.17 (0.37)
Public order crime
Wave 1 conviction offense(s) category:
1,688
0.02 (0.13)
Other crime
Current incarceration for probation or parole
1,695
0.27 (0.44)
violation
Current incarceration for probation violation
1,695
0.05 (0.22)
Current incarceration for parole violation
1,695
0.22 (0.41)
Parole violation: Technical violation
459
0.59 (0.49)
Parole violation: New crime
459
0.42 (0.49)
Age at first arrest
1,685
15.92 (4.78)
Number of lifetime arrests
1,586
12.42 (11.45)
Number of lifetime convictions
1,658
5.48 (6.05)
Number of lifetime convictions/age at
1,658
0.21 (0.24)
incarceration
Ever locked up in a juvenile correctional
1,696
0.51 (0.50)
facility for committing a crime
Number of times in juvenile lockup (only
833
3.58 (3.89)
those who reported ever being locked up)
Number of times in juvenile lockup (all
1,680
1.82 (3.30)
respondents)
Ever been in jail/prison more than 24 hours
1,694
0.83 (0.38)
at one time
Number of times sent to prison (only those
1,434
1.45 (1.82)
who reported ever having been in prison)
Number of times sent to prison (all
1,688
1.20 (1.74)
respondents)
Any disciplinary infractions during this
1,694
0.65 (0.48)
incarceration
One disciplinary infraction during this
1,694
0.17 (0.38)
incarceration
Two or more disciplinary infractions during
1,694
0.47 (0.50)
this incarceration
Placed in administrative segregation during
1,692
0.45 (0.50)
this incarceration

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

0.31 (0.46)

2.36

0.15 (0.36)
0.21 (0.41)
0.01 (0.10)

3.34
0.65
0.16

0.22 (0.42)

−2.92

0.01 (0.10)

1.21

0.35 (0.48)

−3.71

0.06 (0.25)
0.29 (0.45)
0.64 (0.48)
0.37 (0.48)
16.03 (5.09)
13.14 (11.39)
5.70 (6.26)

−1.42
−3.18
−1.05
1.03
−0.47
−1.25
−0.73

0.22 (0.25)

−0.25

0.49 (0.50)

1.07

3.49 (3.64)

0.35

1.69 (3.07)

0.86

0.87 (0.33)

−2.42

1.69 (2.05)

−2.35

1.47 (1.99)

−2.97

0.56 (0.50)

3.50

0.17 (0.37)

0.36

0.40 (0.49)

3.17

0.40 (0.49)

2.41
(continued)

A-9

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-2. Respondent characteristics, by group (continued)

SVORI
Characteristic
N
Mean (SD)
Current Incarceration and Criminal Historya (continued)
Current gang member
1,688
0.05 (0.21)
Considers gang to be family
92
0.53 (0.51)
Relatives are members of the gang
92
0.55 (0.50)
Any perpetration of violence (6 months
1,697
0.69 (0.46)
prior to incarceration)
a

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

0.06 (0.24)
0.52 (0.50)
0.58 (0.50)

−1.45
0.05
−0.26

0.67 (0.47)

0.80

Results for W1 Conviction Offenses may not sum to 100% because some respondents reported multiple conviction
offenses

GED=general educational development, SD=standard deviation.

A-10

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-3. Proportion of respondents who reported needing specific services, by group

Service
Transitional Services
Legal assistance
Financial assistance
Public financial assistance
Public health care insurance
Mentor
Documents for employment
Place to live
Transportation
Driver’s license
Access to clothing/food banks
Health Services
Medical treatment
Mental health treatment
AOD treatment
Victims’ group for abuse
Anger management program
Employment/Education/Skills Services
Job
Job training
More education
Money management skills
Life skills
Work on personal relationships
Change attitudes on criminal behavior
Domestic Violence Services
Batterer intervention program
Domestic violence support group
Child Services
Child support payments
Modification of child support debt
Modification of child custody
Parenting skills
Child care

N

SVORI
Mean (SD)

Non-SVORI
Mean (SD)

t-statistic

1690
1696
1695
1693
1695
1697
1695
1696
1697
1696

0.45 (0.50)
0.86 (0.35)
0.52 (0.50)
0.75 (0.43)
0.60 (0.49)
0.55 (0.50)
0.49 (0.50)
0.72 (0.45)
0.83 (0.38)
0.60 (0.49)

0.48 (0.50)
0.82 (0.39)
0.54 (0.50)
0.73 (0.45)
0.61 (0.49)
0.56 (0.50)
0.46 (0.50)
0.71 (0.46)
0.81 (0.39)
0.55 (0.50)

-1.38
2.61
-0.94
1.19
-0.37
-0.15
1.32
0.59
1.02
2.30

1696
1693
1696
1697
1694

0.56 (0.50)
0.22 (0.42)
0.37 (0.48)
0.04 (0.20)
0.36 (0.48)

0.57 (0.50)
0.29 (0.45)
0.43 (0.50)
0.04 (0.20)
0.38 (0.48)

-0.19
-3.09
-2.64
0.22
-0.82

1696
1696
1697
1696
1690
1694
1693

0.80 (0.40)
0.82 (0.39)
0.94 (0.24)
0.71 (0.45)
0.75 (0.43)
0.64 (0.48)
0.64 (0.48)

0.76 (0.43)
0.76 (0.43)
0.92 (0.27)
0.68 (0.47)
0.73 (0.44)
0.64 (0.48)
0.69 (0.46)

1.94
2.62
1.23
1.38
0.96
0.15
-2.12

1694
1695

0.08 (0.27)
0.06 (0.24)

0.08 (0.27)
0.09 (0.28)

-0.02
-2.23

995
276
1002
1009
1007

0.45 (0.50)
0.88 (0.33)
0.35 (0.48)
0.60 (0.49)
0.39 (0.49)

0.48 (0.50)
0.86 (0.35)
0.38 (0.49)
0.63 (0.48)
0.39 (0.49)

-1.04
0.48
-0.97
-1.11
0.08

SD=standard deviation.

A-11

Pre-release Characteristics and Service Receipt among
Adult Male Participants in the SVORI Multi-site Evaluation
Exhibit A-4. Proportion of respondents who reported receiving specific services, by group

Variable Label
Coordination Services
Received needs assessment
Received release-specific needs assessment
Met with case manager
Developed reentry plan
Worked with anyone to plan for release
Transitional Services
Participated in programs to prepare for release
Took class specifically for release
Received legal assistance
Received assistance accessing financial assistance
Received assistance accessing public financial assistance
Received assistance accessing public health care
assistance
Received mentoring services
Received assistance obtaining documents
Received assistance finding transportation
Received assistance finding place to live
Received assistance getting driver’s license
Received assistance accessing clothing/food banks
Health Services
Received any medical treatment
Received dental services
Received preventive medical services
Received medical treatment for physical health problems
Received prescription medicine
Received information on accessing physical health care
in community
Received any mental health treatment for emotional
problems
Received individual counseling for mental/emotional
problems
Received group counseling for mental/emotional
problems
Received information on accessing mental health care in
community
Received any AOD treatment
Participated in Alcoholics Anonymous/Narcotics
Anonymous
Participated in drug education
Received group counseling for AOD problems
Received individual counseling for AOD problems

N

SVORI

NonSVORI

t-statistic

1690
1678
1694
1663
1695

0.63 (0.48) 0.45 (0.50)
0.49 (0.50) 0.23 (0.42)
0.66 (0.47) 0.40 (0.49)
0.57 (0.50) 0.24 (0.43)
0.66 (0.48) 0.31 (0.46)

7.43
11.61
11.05
14.69
15.22

1696
1695
1697
1697
1696

0.75 (0.43)
0.65 (0.48)
0.12 (0.32)
0.13 (0.34)
0.14 (0.35)

0.51 (0.50)
0.37 (0.48)
0.08 (0.27)
0.04 (0.19)
0.11 (0.31)

10.64
11.89
2.38
7.11
1.81

1695 0.13 (0.34)

0.09 (0.29)

2.46

1697
1693
1696
1697
1696
1696

0.20 (0.40)
0.41 (0.49)
0.19 (0.39)
0.28 (0.45)
0.22 (0.41)
0.21 (0.41)

0.08 (0.27)
0.26 (0.44)
0.12 (0.32)
0.13 (0.33)
0.08 (0.27)
0.11 (0.32)

6.92
6.66
4.30
7.82
8.46
5.54

1691
1696
1687
1690
1690

0.58 (0.49)
0.50 (0.50)
0.37 (0.48)
0.39 (0.49)
0.37 (0.48)

0.55 (0.50)
0.47 (0.50)
0.31 (0.46)
0.33 (0.47)
0.34 (0.47)

1.55
1.38
2.36
2.55
1.38

1696 0.26 (0.44)

0.15 (0.36)

5.37

1675 0.16 (0.36)

0.20 (0.40)

-2.17

1675 0.09 (0.29)

0.11 (0.31)

-0.92

1674 0.04 (0.20)

0.04 (0.19)

0.22

1687 0.24 (0.43)

0.13 (0.34)

5.65

1696 0.48 (0.50)

0.38 (0.48)

4.44

1696 0.34 (0.48)

0.28 (0.45)

3.01

1696 0.39 (0.49)
1696 0.25 (0.43)
1696 0.14 (0.35)

0.26 (0.44)
0.21 (0.41)
0.14 (0.35)

5.58
1.76
0.08
(continued)

A-12

Appendix A — SVORI Adult Male Pre-release Report

Exhibit A-4. Proportion of respondents who reported receiving specific services, by group
(continued)

Variable Label
Health Services (continued)
Received residential treatment for AOD problems
Received methadone
Received detox
Participated in groups for victims of abuse
Participated in anger management program
Employment/Education/Skills Services
Received any employment services
Participated in employment readiness program
Participated in job training program
Talked to potential employer
Given advice about job interviewing
Given advice about answering questions about criminal
history
Given advice about how to behave on the job
Given names of people to contact in community to find
job
Put together a resume
Received any educational services
Received money management services
Received other life skills training
Received assistance with personal relationships
Received training to change criminal behavior attitudes
Domestic Violence Services
Participated in batterer intervention programs
Participated in domestic violence support groups
Child Services
Received assistance making child support payments
Received assistance modifying child support debt
Received assistance modifying child custody
Participated in parenting classes
Received assistance finding child care

N

SVORI

NonSVORI

t-statistic

1690
1695
1696
1696
1696

0.11 (0.32) 0.10 (0.30)
0.00 (0.07) 0.01 (0.08)
0.02 (0.13) 0.02 (0.15)
0.07 (0.25) 0.03 (0.16)
0.34 (0.48) 0.26 (0.44)

1.01
-0.38
-0.81
4.02
3.88

1696
1693
1696
1696
1696

0.37 (0.48)
0.23 (0.42)
0.17 (0.38)
0.15 (0.35)
0.32 (0.47)

0.19 (0.39)
0.09 (0.28)
0.04 (0.20)
0.06 (0.23)
0.14 (0.35)

8.71
8.06
9.16
6.37
9.01

1695

0.30 (0.46)

0.13 (0.34)

8.53

1696

0.31 (0.46)

0.13 (0.34)

9.12

1695

0.27 (0.44)

0.13 (0.33)

7.37

1696
1697
1696
1693
1697
1697

0.24 (0.43)
0.53 (0.50)
0.24 (0.43)
0.42 (0.49)
0.25 (0.43)
0.52 (0.50)

0.10 (0.30)
0.43 (0.50)
0.08 (0.27)
0.21 (0.41)
0.17 (0.37)
0.36 (0.48)

8.01
4.06
9.28
9.84
4.32
6.76

1696
1697

0.05 (0.22)
0.11 (0.31)

0.03 (0.18)
0.06 (0.23)

1.44
3.91

1009
310
1009
1011
1010

0.07 (0.25) 0.02 (0.14)
0.22 (0.42) 0.11 (0.31)
0.04 (0.19) 0.02 (0.15)
0.25 (0.43) 0.15 (0.36)
0.08 (0.27) 0.03 (0.16)

3.70
2.77
1.29
4.04
3.73

AOD=alcohol and other drugs.

A-13

 

 

Prison Profiteers - Side
Advertise Here 2nd Ad
Prison Profiteers - Side