ArticleHealth & justice2025
Outcomes of a community sector model of reintegration for people with complex needs: a mixed-methods study.
Article in Health & justice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRe-incarceration rates for people leaving prison in Australia are high, particularly so for those experiencing complex needs including mental health and substance use issues, cognitive disability and homelessness. Effective models of reintegration for this group are needed to reduce incarceration and improve health and wellbeing.
objectiveThis article reports on the outcomes of a mixed-methods evaluation of the Community Restorative Centre’s (CRC) model of intensive casework support for people with complex needs exiting prison in New South Wales, Australia.
methodsThe evaluation took a mixed-methods approach to assessing the effectiveness of CRC’s model of reintegration support which included five studies: (1) an interrupted time series analysis of 483 clients over an 11-year period to examine changes in custody and court outcomes following engagement with CRC; (2) a comparative interrupted time series analysis of 246 CRC clients vs. a de-identified comparison group of 567 individuals that did not receive CRC support; (3) a cost-benefit analysis of criminal justice vs. CRC program costs; (4) analysis of client health and well-being survey data; and (5) semi-structured interviews with 26 individuals including CRC clients (n = 14) and CRC staff (n = 12).
resultsAfter participating in CRC programs, contact with the criminal justice system reduced significantly, including a 66% reduction in days in custody, a 63% reduction in new custody episodes, and a 62% reduction in proven offences. The comparative analysis estimated savings of $10–16 million in criminal justice costs for each annual cohort of new clients. Well-being survey data analysis indicated that clients were consistently managing drug use, self-care, relationships and resources over the time of engagement with CRC. Qualitative interviews highlighted that meeting people’s basic welfare, housing and health needs was fundamental, as was the model of support (flexible, outreach, relational and long-term) and the workers’ approach (respectful, non-judgemental, compassionate, consistent).
conclusionsAn intensive, flexible, outreach model of community sector reintegration support that meets the basic welfare, housing and health needs of people with complex needs exiting prison can significantly reduce their contact with the criminal justice system and produce economic benefits for government.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.