GOOD INTENTIONS MEET HARD REALITIES: AN EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT GREENLIGHT REENTRY PROGRAM

By J. Wilson, Robert C. Davis. 2006

173 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Clinical Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b0d2cf6b4913afa8576431a3d60b0ae585dc612f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Clinical Psychology

1. M. Berg
2. Beth m. Huebner
3. Joshua C. Cochran
4. Christy A. Visher

In Sociology and Political Science

1. M. Berg
2. N. Morani
3. N. Wikoff
4. S. Bratton
5. Beth m. Huebner
6. D. Linhorst
7. Joshua C. Cochran
8. R. Apel

Citations in the corpus

• Examining the Sources of Variation in Risk for Recidivism (2011, background): “Evidence from the evaluation of Project Greenlight suggests that short-term reentry programs designed for a wide range of offenders may actually increase the odds of failure, particularly when administered in the absence of comprehensive aftercare (Wilson & Davis, 2006).”
• Homelessness and Reentry (2014, background): “Based on interviews with parolees and program staff, Wilson and Davis (2006) conclude that there appeared to be few differences between Greenlight and traditional supervision along multiple dimensions including the number of shelter days utilized by both groups.”
• A Description of the Self-Identified Needs, Service Expenditures, and Social Outcomes of Participants of a Prisoner-Reentry Program (2011, background): “Additionally, when plans for reintegration are based on inmates’ self-identified, self-perceived needs, offenders generally experience a smoother transition into their communities (Belenko, 2006; Freeman, 2003; Hammett, 2001; Mellow & Christian, 2008; Sherman et al., 1997; Wilson & Davis, 2006).”
• Evaluating the Minnesota Comprehensive Offender Reentry Plan (MCORP): Results from a Randomized Experiment (2012, unknown): “…design problems (Smith & Suttle, 2008; Wilson & Davis, 2006), low dosage or short program duration (McGarrell et al., 2003; Smith & Suttle, 2008; Wilson & Davis, 2006), lack of administrative oversight (Smith & Suttle, 2008), poor program implementation (Wilson & Davis, 2006), and the absence…”