Indiana Prison Writers Workshop: Recidivism outcomes among participants

Images courtesy of the Indiana Department of Correction

Programs that help people learn and grow while in prison have long been an important strategy for reducing incarceration rates and supporting their success on their return home. The programs include college courses, life training skills, and creative arts initiatives that help individuals prepare for life after their release. They are active in over 30 states and operated by a mix of state departments of corrections, universities, and nonprofit organizations to support rehabilitation, personal growth, and successful reintegration into society. 

Although arts programs are popular in prisons, few have been carefully studied to understand their impact. Researchers from the Center for Health and Justice Research (CHJR) at the Indiana University Public Policy Institute partnered with the Indiana Prison Writers Workshop (IPWW) to investigate its impact on recidivism, meaning an individual’s return to prison for violating parole or probation rules or committing a new offense after serving a sentence in the Indiana Department of Correction.  

CHJR and IPWW estimated recidivism rates for IPWW participants and compared them to a matched sample of nonparticipants with similar demographic and case characteristics. This brief highlights the study’s key findings, offering practical suggestions for strengthening IPWW’s role in supporting rehabilitation and successful reentry. 

Key findings

  • Indiana Prison Writers Workshop (IPWW) data shows that technical violations—not new crimes—drive most returns to incarcerations: 20% of individuals return to the IDOC within one year of release and one-third within three years. 
  • Far fewer individuals return to incarceration due to new convictions: 4% of IPWW participants compared with 11% of nonparticipants in the first year, rising to 8% and 16% by the third year. 
  • IPWW has not yet demonstrated a measurable, statistically significant impact on recidivism, underscoring the need for ongoing evaluations as enrollment grows. 
  • Agencies and policymakers can improve program evaluation efforts through better-coordinated data systems, more complete participant records, and clear, standardized data-sharing guidelines. 
  • Adding measures of programming participation, conduct, well-being, and prosocial post-release outcomes will give agencies a more complete picture of reentry progress.