Profile Updated:
Summary: This is an institution-based transitional services demonstration program, designed to be a short, intensive intervention, which could provide a greater number of individuals with reentry services at a lower cost. The program is rated Ineffective. Program participants showed a statistically significant higher rate of parole revocation and rearrests for new offenses, compared with comparison group participants. However, there were no significant differences in felony rearrest rates between groups. (Review the full program description).
| Title | Rating | Details | Outcome Category | Study(ies) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re-Arrest (Any Offense) | None | Wilson and colleagues (2005) found that participants in the Project Greenlight (GL) program had a higher number of new arrests for any offense, compared with the comparison group. At the 12-month follow up, 44 percent of GL participants experienced one or more new arrests, compared with 32 percent of the Upstate comparison group who did not receive any services. This difference was statistically significant. |
Crime/Delinquency; Multiple crime/offense types/recidivism | |
| Re-Arrest (Felonies) | None | There were no statistically significant differences between the GL program group and the Upstate comparison group in rearrests for felonies. |
Crime/Delinquency; Multiple crime/offense types/recidivism | |
| Parole Revocation | None | GL participants were more likely to have their parole revoked than were control group participants. At the 12-month follow up, 29 percent of GL participants had their parole revoked, compared with 17 percent of the Upstate comparison group. This difference was statistically significant. |
Justice Systems or Processes (depends on context of program) ; Processing of offenders |
Program Goals
Project Greenlight was an institution-based transitional services demonstration program that was piloted in New York State’s Queensboro Correctional Facility. The program was designed to be a short, intensive intervention that could serve a greater number of individuals with reentry services at a lower cost. The 8-week program concentrated on addressing key issues that face people when they transition from prison to the community, including housing, employment, and drug treatment.
Program Theory
Components of the Project Greenlight program were based on research that has identified principles that characterize effective correctional treatment programs. These principles are that treatment should address dynamic (criminogenic) factors; programs should employ cognitive–behavioral, skills-oriented, or multimodal treatment approaches; interventions should concentrate on the needs of participants, with higher risk persons receiving more intensive services; and interventions should be implemented appropriately (Wilson and Davis 2006).
Services Provided
Project Greenlight provided prerelease services and connected participants to community-based services, but there was no follow-up in the community. So they could participate in program services, inmates were transferred to the Queensboro Correctional Facility roughly 60 to 90 days before their scheduled conditional release date. The first week provided participants with an orientation that introduced them to each of the program components and to the staff. Program staff provided participants with the information they needed to find and keep a job, avoid drug and alcohol relapse, and make better decisions in all areas of their lives following release from prison. Programming was designed to be nonsequential, to accommodate people working at different levels, and to adjust services as new participants entered the program at different times.
One component of the program emphasized changing antisocial behaviors and thinking by providing cognitive–behavioral treatment. The Reasoning and Rehabilitation (R&R) program was adapted to run for 60 days, which is a shorter period than the program was originally designed for and a significant deviation from the program model. Job readiness training was provided, which included preparing for and conducting job interviews and guidance in workplace behavior. The program also aimed at strengthening the practical living skills of inmates. Sessions covered budgeting, time-management strategies, how to use public transportation, how to set up and use a bank account, and where to get emergency cash or noncash assistance when money is scarce. Finally, drug treatment concentrated on relapse prevention and substance abuse awareness. Those participants who could acknowledge their substance-use issues went to a relapse prevention group, where each person designed a relapse prevention plan and prepared to enter treatment upon release.
In addition, the program helped participants build social supports that would be available upon their release from prison. A community coordinator built a network of community-service providers, and participants were connected with the providers before their release. A family counselor and family specialist worked with the individuals and their families to address any remaining issues before release. Program participants were also introduced to parole officers and informed about parole supervision requirements so they could avoid parole-related problems.
Detailed release plans were created for each program participant, which captured what participants needed to do after they were released in areas of employment, education, community resources, family, and substance abuse. Participants worked on these plans with their case managers, who in turn discussed areas in the release plan with the parole officers who supervised the incarcerated persons in the community. The field parole officer could make changes to the plans as an incarcerated person’s circumstances changed after release.
Key Personnel
Project Greenlight program staff included corrections counselors, an institutional parole officer, an alcohol and substance abuse treatment team, corrections officers, a family reintegration specialist, a family counselor, a community coordinator, a job developer, an operations director, a project director, a project assistant, and field parole officers.
Additional Information: Negative Program Effects
An outcome evaluation (described below in Evaluation Methodology and Outcomes) compared Project Greenlight subjects with a group of inmates who received transitional services through a program that was already in operation at the Queensboro Correctional Facility and with a group of inmates in Upstate New York prisons who received no transitional services. Project Greenlight appears to have increased the rearrest and parole revocation rates of inmates who participated in the program, when compared with inmates who did not participate following release from prison.
Subgroup Analysis
Wilson and colleagues (2005) conducted subgroup analyses on age, education, ethnicity, and prior arrests. They found that in terms of program effect, the addition of control variables did not mediate the negative effect of the Project Greenlight (GL) program. In other words, age (e.g., being older or younger), level of education, ethnicity, and prior arrest history did not explain why GL participants were rearrested and had their parole revoked at higher rates, compared with comparison group participants.
These sources were used in the development of the program profile:
Brown, Brenner, Robin Campbell, James A. Wilson, Yury Cheryachukin, Robert C. Davis, Jean Dauphinee, Robert Hope, and Kajal Gehi. 2006. Smoothing the Path from Prison to Home: A Roundtable Discussion on the Lessons of Project Greenlight. New York, N.Y.: The Vera Institute of Justice.
Ritter, Nancy. 2006. “No Shortcuts to Successful Reentry: The Failings of Project Greenlight.” Corrections Today 68(7):94–97.
Wilson, James A. 2007. “Habilitation or Harm: Project Greenlight and the Potential Consequences of Correctional Programming.” NIJ Journal 257:2–7.
Wilson, James A., and Robert C. Davis. 2006. “Good Intentions Meet Hard Realities: An Evaluation of the Project Greenlight Reentry Program.” Criminology & Public Policy 5(2):303–38.
Wilson, James A. and Christine Zozula. 2011. “Reconsidering the Project Greenlight Intervention: Why Thinking About Risk Matters.” NIJ Journal 268:10–15.
Wilson, James A., and Christine Zozula. 2012. “Risk, Recidivism, and (Re)habilitation: Another look at Project Greenlight.” Prison Journal 92(2):203–30.
Following are CrimeSolutions-rated programs that are related to this practice:
This practice involves correctional programs that focus on the transition of individuals from prison into the community. Reentry programs involve treatment or services that have been initiated while the individual is in custody and a follow-up component after the individual is released. The practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
This practice includes programs that are designed to reduce recidivism among adults by improving their behaviors, skills, mental health, social functioning, and access to education and employment. They may become participants in rehabilitation programs during multiple points in their involvement with the criminal justice system. This practice is rated Promising for reducing recidivism among adults who have been convicted of an offense.
Evidence Ratings for Outcomes
|
|
Crime & Delinquency - Multiple crime/offense types |
Rating Process
Program Status
This program is Not Active.