Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 12:04 am
Time: 12:04 am
Results for prisoner reentry (u.s.)
24 results foundAuthor: City Policy Associates: United States Conference of Mayors Title: Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts In Cities: a 79-City Survey Summary: The pressure to provide effective programs in America’s cities to ease the reentry of ex-offenders has grown along with the nation’s prisoner population, but the current economic recession is forcing local governments and public and private organizations and agencies to reduce spending on programs and services, and is limiting the employment and other opportunities essential to ex-offenders’ successful reentry to their communities. In an effort to provide all members of The U.S. Conference of Mayors with current information on the status of cities’ prisoner reentry efforts, including their “best practices,” the Conference’s Ex-Offender Task Force surveyed mayors for basic information on approaches being taken in their cities to ease the reentry of ex-offenders and for descriptions of both their greatest reentry challenges and their most successful reentry initiatives. Information was provided by 79 cities of all sizes in all regions of the country – from cities as large as Los Angeles and Chicago, to one as small as Desert Hot Springs, California. Details: Washington, DC: United States Conference of Mayors, 2009. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 28, 2011 at: http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/REENTRYREPORT09.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.usmayors.org/pressreleases/uploads/REENTRYREPORT09.pdf Shelf Number: 122189 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Western, Bruce Title: From Prison to Work: A Proposal for a National Prisoner Reentry Program Summary: Around seven hundred thousand mostly low-income and minority men and women are released from prison each year. Returning to lives of low wages and high rates of unemployment, about two thirds will be rearrested within three years. I propose a national prisoner reentry program whose core element is up to a year of transitional employment available to all parolees in need of work. Transitional jobs are supplemented by substance-abuse treatment and housing after release, expanded work and educational programs in prison, and the restoration of eligibility for federal benefits for those with felony records. The program costs are offset by increased employment and reduced crime and correctional costs for program participants. By shifting supervision from custody in prison to intensive programs in the community, the national reentry program improves economic opportunity and reduces prison populations. Details: Washington, DC: The Brookings Institute, The Hamilton Project, 2008. 38p. Source: Internet Resource: Discussion Paper 2008-16: Accessed August 5, 2011 at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_prison_to_work_western/12_prison_to_work_western.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2008/12_prison_to_work_western/12_prison_to_work_western.pdf Shelf Number: 122303 Keywords: Ex-Offenders, EmploymentParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Wilkinson, Reginald A., ed. Title: Reentry Best Practices: Directors' Perspectives Summary: This compendium presents reentry best practices that were submitted by member agencies. The submissions are clustered into five substantive areas. They were: (1) Prison Programs; (2) Transitional Programs; (3) Mental Health/Substance Abuse Programs; (4) Community Supervision Strategies; and (5) Promising or Unique Services. Details: Middleton, CT: Association of State Correctional Administrators, 2004. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/2075/Reentry_Best_Practices_Publication-1.pdf?1296149357 Year: 2004 Country: United States URL: http://www.asca.net/system/assets/attachments/2075/Reentry_Best_Practices_Publication-1.pdf?1296149357 Shelf Number: 122320 Keywords: Community-based CorrectionsCorrectional ProgramsDrug Abuse TreatmentMental Health ServicesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Rehabilitation |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety Summary: One of the most vexing problems facing governors, legislators and corrections administrators across the United States is how to stop the inevitable movement of offenders from institution, to community, to institution, to community, ad infinitum (referred to as churners, see Lynch & Sabol, 2001; Hughes, Wilson, & Beck, 2001). For example, in 1997, there were 587,177 new prisoners admitted to state and federal institutions in this country. At the Same time, 528,848 prisoners were released from state and federal facilities across the country. Among new prison admissions, there were 189,765 offenders returned to prison as parole or other conditional release violators (approximately 40% of all new admissions in 1997). And among new prison releasees, it is estimated that about 40% (200,000) will be back in prison within three years for either new crimes or technical violations (Petersilia, 2000). Clearly, there is a subgroup of the federal and state prison population who appear to have integrated periods of incarceration into their lifestyle and life choices. What can and should the correction systems do to “target” these offenders for specialized services and controls to improve reintegration into the community? In the following report, we examine the offender targeting issue in detail, utilizing data gathered from our review of eight model Reentry Partnership Initiative Programs. We begin by discussing the range of target population criteria used in the eight model programs and then discuss the unique challenges presented by different types of offender typologies, such as repeat offenders, violent offenders, sex offenders, and drug offenders. Then we identify the relevant classification, treatment, and control issues that decision makers will have to address as they design and implement their own reentry processes that address the unique needs presented by different offender typologies. We conclude by highlighting the lessons learned from the current wave of WI models. Details: College Park, MD: University of Maryland, College Park, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 8, 2011 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196491.pdf Year: 2002 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/196491.pdf Shelf Number: 122323 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law Title: Finding the Key to Successful Transition from Jail or Prison to the Community. An Explanation of Federal Medicaid and Disability Program Rules Summary: Growing numbers of men and women with severe mental illnesses are in jail or prison. Many cycle through corrections facilities repeatedly, costing criminal justice systems and communities significant resources and causing great pain to themselves and their families. For people with serious mental illnesses, access to mental health and addiction services and to the income support that can pay for housing is generally through federal entitlement programs. Yet, whether because relevant federal rules are not well understood or because state implementation of them is problematic, many unnecessarily lose their federal entitlements while in jail or prison. Others who could qualify do not apply because they lack timely assistance from corrections staff or community mental health providers to file an application. Very few states and localities have adopted policies and procedures for assisting inmates with severe mental illnesses in claiming or maintaining federal benefits upon their release. Finding the Key describes the federal entitlements — income support through the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) programs, and health coverage under Medicaid and Medicare, which together can enable someone with a severe mental illness to transition successfully from jail or prison to community life. In it we also suggest ways for states, localities and advocates to improve the situation. Details: Washington, DC: Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 2009. 20p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 10, 2011 at: http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Bd6LW9BVRhQ%3d&tabid=104 Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.bazelon.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=Bd6LW9BVRhQ%3d&tabid=104 Shelf Number: 122350 Keywords: MedicaidMentally Ill OffendersPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Lattimore, Pamela K. Title: Prisoner Reentry Services: What Worked for SVORI Evaluation Participants? Summary: This report presents the results from a secondary analysis of data collected for a large multi-site evaluation of state and local reentry initiatives, the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI; see, e.g., Lattimore & Visher, 2009). These data include administrative recidivism data, as well as extensive, detailed information on background characteristics, including criminal and employment history and substance use; treatment and service needs; services and program receipt; and outcomes across multiple domains, including criminal justice, employment, health (including substance use and mental health), and housing. The original data were augmented with updates from administrative records for arrests and incarcerations and used to examine the questions of “what works, for whom, and for how long?” in prisoner reentry programs. In addition, a search of death records identified 55 individuals who participated in the original evaluation who had died as of spring 2011. RESEARCH SUBJECTS This report presents findings for more than 2,300 adult males, adult females, and juvenile males in multiple states who either participated in SVORI programs or were members of control or comparison groups between 2004 and 2007. The study participants had extensive criminal and substance use histories, low levels of education and employment skills, and high levels of need across a range of services (e.g., education, driver’s license, substance abuse treatment, and job training). Participants in SVORI programs received more services, on average, than comparison subjects. STUDY METHODS The original data were collected during interviews 30 days before and 3, 9, and 15 months after release. Data from state agencies and the National Crime Information Center documented post-release recidivism; the original data were augmented with additional years of post-release arrest and reincarceration data for adult subjects. Propensity score techniques were used to improve the comparability between the SVORI and non-SVORI groups. Weighted analyses examined the treatment effects of the receipt of specific services, as well as SVORI program participation. Costs analyses examined the costs savings for arrest and incarceration related expenses associated with services and reentry program participation. MAJOR FINDINGS The results suggest: Participation in SVORI programs was associated with longer times to arrest and fewer arrests after release for all three demographic groups during a minimum follow-up period of 56 months for the adults and 22 months for the juvenile males. For the adult males, SVORI program participation was associated with a longer time to reincarceration and also fewer reincarcerations, although the later result was not statistically significant (p = 0.18). For the adult females, the results were mixed and not significant. For the juvenile males, the results for reincarceration were in the right direction (i.e., less likelihood of reincarceration) but were not statistically significant. vi Individual change services were more likely to be beneficial and practical services detrimental with respect to the time to first arrest for the adult and juvenile male samples. Few effects were significant for the adult females. Once we controlled for 12 different types of services, there was a strong remaining effect of SVORI program participation on rearrest that was not identified in the previous work that had focused on a shorter follow-up period. SVORI program participation was associated with a $3,567 reduction in arrest-related costs over the fixed follow-up period for the adult males. Services oriented towards practical needs including reentry preparation, life skills programs, and employment services did not improve post-release non-recidivism outcomes for men, including housing, employment, and drug use outcomes. In some cases, these services appeared to be detrimental to successful reintegration. Services oriented toward individual change including substance abuse treatment, cognitive-focused programs, and education (e.g., general equivalency diploma [GED] classes) may have modest beneficial effects on non-recidivism outcomes. Educational services were most consistently associated with positive outcomes for the adult males. SVORI reentry program participation was associated with positive non-recidivism outcomes in some cases, over and beyond the effects of individual service items, particularly for the adult male sample. CONCLUSIONS Many of the specific services had no effect on housing, employment, substance use, or recidivism outcomes and in some cases the effect was actually deleterious rather than beneficial. There were significant effects of SVORI program participation on arrests following release, with SVORI program participation associated with a 14% reduction in arrests for the adult men, 48% reduction for the adult females, and 25% reduction for the juvenile males over the fixed follow-up periods. The results suggest the need for additional research into the sequencing and effects of specific and combinations of reentry services, with an understanding that some programs may be harmful if delivered at the wrong time or in the wrong way. The results also suggest that follow-up periods longer than 2 years may be necessary to observe positive effects on criminal behavior and criminal justice system interaction, as the strong effects observed at 56 months were not observed at 24 months after release when nonsignificant positive effects were observed. Observation for the longer follow-up periods may be particularly important for high-risk populations such as the populations studied here who had substantial criminal histories and who may have greater difficulty disengaging from past behaviors at release. Details: Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2012. 560p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 2, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238214.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238214.pdf Shelf Number: 125451 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry (U.S.)RecidivismSVORI (Serious and Violent Offender Reentry InitiaTreatment ProgramsViolent Offenders |
Author: Listwan, Shelley Johnson Title: The Prison Experience and Reentry: Examining the Impact of Victimization on Coming Home Summary: With the adoption of the Prison Rape Elimination Act in 2003, institutions around the country began developing policies and procedures related to the detection, prevention, and elimination of sexual victimization in prison. The research, however, was in its infancy and little was known regarding the context, severity, and impact of victimization on a variety of outcomes. This study explored the impact of emotional, physical, and/or sexual victimization on inmates who were returning to the community. Few, if any studies have explored the additive effect victimization may have on an already difficult transition period for offenders. The study hypothesized that victimization intensified mental health problems and criminal behavior. Recently released prisoners from twenty-two halfway houses and prisons in Ohio, were selected for this study. Standardized instruments were utilized to assess the inmates’ psychological status in various areas, including but not limited to post-traumatic cognitions, depression, anxiety, social support, coping, and criminality. The final analysis compared recidivism rates between those who report having been victimized and those who have reported not being victimization. The findings from this study have implications for policy and practice. For example, by examining patterns of victimization, administrators may be able to develop strategies towards identifying those at risk for victimization even in an inmate who has not come forward, thereby facilitating early, needed interventions. Early detection and intervention could significantly reduce the negative impact of victimization on inmates. Additionally, this study provides support for expanding the types of services provided to incarcerated individuals, both in the institution and after release. It is important that practitioners identify and comprehend the impact that victimization can have on reentry, short- and long-term. Details: Kent, OH: Institute for the Study and Prevention of Violence, Kent State University, 2012. 175p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 13, 2012 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238083.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/238083.pdf Shelf Number: 125609 Keywords: Prison Rape Elimination ActPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Prisoner Sexual AssaultRape in PrisonRecidivismSexual Victimization, Prisoners |
Author: Bazemore, Gordon Title: A Civic Justice Corps: Community Service as a Means of Reintegration Summary: Rarely considered in re-entry programs is the role of community service as a means of reintegration. We argue for the creation of a “Civic Justice Corps”; a program for parolees to return to the community in the spirit of service. A CJC would benefit both offenders and communities by allowing for “earned redemption”—enabling offenders to repair the harm caused by their crimes and regain community trust. Service may foster positive identity change leading to reduced recidivism and civic commitment, while also providing an opportunity for parolees to reestablish community social ties, leading to permanent housing and employment. We make the case for a CJC as well as review the research on the correctional use of community service. Details: Unpublished paper, 2005. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 11, 2012 at: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Year: 2005 Country: United States URL: http://www.cjcj.org/files/bazemore.pdf Shelf Number: 125987 Keywords: Community ServiceOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) partnered with the Urban Institute (UI) to develop and test an innovative, comprehensive model for effective jail-to-community transition. Designed to address the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding jail reentry, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative and TJC model advance systems-level change through collaborative and coordinated relationships between jails and local communities to address reentry. Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, and improved individual reintegration outcomes are the overarching goals of the TJC model. Two pilot sites, Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, Kansas, were invited to be learning sites implementing the TJC model in September 2008, with four additional learning sites—Davidson County, Tennessee; Kent County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Orange County, California—selected to join them in August 2009. The TJC initiative provided all six sites with intensive, targeted technical assistance to implement the key elements of the model, and each was engaged in a systems change evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. The primary objective of the cross-site systems change evaluation was to test the viability of the TJC model and to document factors which facilitated or inhibited its successful implementation. In doing so, the initiative sought to expand the knowledge base regarding effective jail transition practice. The implementation and systems change evaluation will be followed by an outcome and sustainability analysis commencing in 2012. A participatory action research framework guided the cross-site implementation and systems change evaluations. Evaluation activities supported measurement of systems change and generated relevant and timely information for the sites that would inform planning and implementation, as well as promote monitoring and sustainability. Evaluation-related technical assistance focused on building site capacity for self-assessment and outcome analysis activities; a performance measurement framework formed the core of the initiative’s strategy to build local capabilities for ongoing self-assessment. Regular stakeholder interviews, site visits, analysis of administrative data, and multiple waves of stakeholder survey data informed the evaluation and this report. This report examines implementation of the TJC model across the six learning sites, including key activities, site accomplishments and challenges, and lessons learned both about the TJC model and the technical assistance provided. Key findings from the implementation and cross-site systems change evaluations are presented, following a brief overview of the TJC model and description of the sites’ TJC strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 126649 Keywords: Jail InmatesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Willison, Janeen Buck Title: Process and Systems Change Evaluation Findings from the Transition from Jail to Community Initiative Summary: In 2007, the National Institute of Corrections (NIC) partnered with the Urban Institute (UI) to develop and test an innovative, comprehensive model for effective jail-to-community transition. Designed to address the unique challenges and opportunities surrounding jail reentry, the Transition from Jail to Community (TJC) initiative and TJC model advance systems-level change through collaborative and coordinated relationships between jails and local communities to address reentry. Enhanced public safety, reduced recidivism, and improved individual reintegration outcomes are the overarching goals of the TJC model. Two pilot sites, Denver, Colorado, and Douglas County, Kansas, were invited to be learning sites implementing the TJC model in September 2008, with four additional learning sites—Davidson County, Tennessee; Kent County, Michigan; La Crosse County, Wisconsin; and Orange County, California—selected to join them in August 2009. The TJC initiative provided all six sites with intensive, targeted technical assistance to implement the key elements of the model, and each was engaged in a systems change evaluation conducted by the Urban Institute. The primary objective of the cross-site systems change evaluation was to test the viability of the TJC model and to document factors which facilitated or inhibited its successful implementation. In doing so, the initiative sought to expand the knowledge base regarding effective jail transition practice. The implementation and systems change evaluation will be followed by an outcome and sustainability analysis commencing in 2012. A participatory action research framework guided the cross-site implementation and systems change evaluations. Evaluation activities supported measurement of systems change and generated relevant and timely information for the sites that would inform planning and implementation, as well as promote monitoring and sustainability. Evaluation-related technical assistance focused on building site capacity for selfassessment and outcome analysis activities; a performance measurement framework formed the core of the initiative’s strategy to build local capabilities for ongoing self-assessment. Regular stakeholder interviews, site visits, analysis of administrative data, and multiple waves of stakeholder survey data informed the evaluation and this report. This report examines implementation of the TJC model across the six learning sites, including key activities, site accomplishments and challenges, and lessons learned both about the TJC model and the technical assistance provided. Key findings from the implementation and cross-site systems change evaluations are presented below, following a brief overview of the TJC model and description of the sites’ TJC strategies. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 143p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 24, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412670-Process-and-Systems-Change-Evaluation-Findings.pdf Shelf Number: 126789 Keywords: Corrections - Community PartnershipsJailsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program Implementation |
Author: Fontaine, Jocelyn Title: Impact of Family-Inclusive Case Management on Reentry Outcomes: Interim Report on the Safer Return Demonstration Evaluation Summary: This interim report details the first two years of the Urban Institute’s evaluation of the family-inclusive case management component of the Safer Return Demonstration—a reentry program based in Chicago’s Garfield Park neighborhood. The report presents the logic of the case management model and summarizes family members and formerly incarcerated persons experiences and perceptions, based on interviews and focus groups. In general, family members were highly supportive of returning prisoners and, despite a typically disadvantaged socioeconomic status, provided substantial material support to their returning family members, particularly housing. The implications of these findings for the Demonstration and reentry planning are discussed. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 2, 2012 at: http://www.urban.org/publications/412408.html Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/publications/412408.html Shelf Number: 126853 Keywords: Community-Based ProgramsFamilies of Ex-OffendersFamily-Based Case ManagementHousingPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Safer Return Demonstration |
Author: Sandwick, Talia Title: Making The Transition: Rethinking Jail Reentry in Los Angeles County Summary: Jail and prison reentry services are designed to help people who are released into the community and are associated with lower rates of repeat criminal activity and reincarceration as well as improved public safety. However, providing reentry programs in corrections settings is challenging—particularly in jails, where stays are typically short and turnover is high. In 2010, with support from The California Endowment, the Vera Institute of Justice partnered with the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and community-based organizations to assess reentry services for people leaving the L.A. County Jail. Vera researchers examined existing services, analyzed their strengths and weaknesses, and recommended changes that could increase the efficacy of interventions. Details: New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2013. 130p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/making-the-transition-technical-report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.vera.org/sites/default/files/resources/downloads/making-the-transition-technical-report.pdf Shelf Number: 127635 Keywords: Jail InmatesJailsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Scroggins, Jennifer Rhiannon Title: Gender, Social Ties, And Reentry Experiences Summary: A great deal of research has been conducted on factors associated with successful prisoner reentry. However, except for a few studies on women's reentry, most studies have failed to examine the role of parolees' social ties in contributing to reentry outcomes. Additionally, most studies on prisoner reentry only focused on male parolees, and few addressed the influence of gender on reentry experiences. Thus, my goal in this dissertation is to understand the influence of gender on male and female parolees' social ties, and how the resources their ties provide shape their reentry experiences. My dissertation research examines men and women’s strong- and weak-tie relationships and the resources available to them via their relationships to understand how these resources shape their reentry experiences. Study data, which were collected from indepth interviews with fifty men and women under parole supervision, showed that they underwent many changes in their strong- and weak-tie relationships during and after incarceration. Shifts toward closer and more positive relationships with families and the addition of pro-social weak-tie relationships resulted in more tangible and intangible resources that were considered by the men and women as important to their reentry success. Data analysis showed that the relationship patterns experienced by the men and women in the present study were largely consistent with gendered relationship patterns described in the literature, but that patterns of resource availability from their social ties were less consistent with those described in the literature. Findings from the study suggest the influence of gender on men and women's social ties, as reflected in different patterns of strong-tie relationships experienced prior to, during, and after incarceration, and also reveal some similarities between men and women with regard to increases in the number of weak-tie relationships with various pro-social individuals after incarceration. By showing the significant role of social ties, especially strong-ties, in providing tangible and intangible resources to parolees upon their release from prison, this study provides support for social control theory and highlights the importance of helping ex-offenders develop and maintain positive social ties with pro-social individuals to enhance the availability of resources necessary for successful reentry. Details: Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, 2012. 273p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed February 26, 2013 at: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2645&context=utk_graddiss Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://trace.tennessee.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2645&context=utk_graddiss Shelf Number: 127725 Keywords: Family TiesFemale OffendersGenderPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Social Capital |
Author: Normandin, Heidi Title: Looking Beyond the Prison Gate: New Directions in Prisoner Reentry Summary: The iron law of incarceration is that nearly all prisoners come back—to their families and communities. In FY 2006, over 14,500 prisoners were released from Wisconsin prisons. This means that the population returned to society last year was similar in size to Bayfield County, the city of Menomonie, or the combined student bodies of UW-Stevens Point and UW-Green Bay. After being behind bars an average of 10 years, many prisoners have difficulty with the most basic requirements of life outside prison, such as finding a steady job, locating housing, and reestablishing positive relationships with family and friends. This report examines the latest evidence on how reentry policy can keep the public safe by better preparing prisoners for their inevitable return. The first chapter is written by Jeremy Travis, president of the John Jay College of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York. Sentencing policy in the United States has changed dramatically in the last 30 years. During this time, U.S. incarceration rates quadrupled (largely due to drug offenses) and corrections budgets have become the second fastest growing state expenditure. More offenders entering prison means that more prisoners will eventually leave and return to their families and communities. Yet returning prisoners face a number of challenges in their family relationships, work, health, and housing. Many have a low level of human capital; for example, the longest that half of them have held a job is two years. Two-thirds of released prisoners end up being rearrested for a new offense within three years, and one-quarter are returned to prison for a new conviction. To turn these numbers around, new policy directions include a) reinventing supervision by front-loading services to ex-prisoners during the first six months after their release, the time they are most likely to commit a new crime, and b) establishing reentry courts to provide appropriate sanctions and incentives for successful reintegration. The next chapter on designing reentry programs is written by Edward Latessa, professor and division head in the Division of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati. Successful prisoner reentry programs have garnered public support because of their potential to reduce recidivism and save taxpayer dollars. To be effective, reentry programs must apply the four principles of effective corrections interventions. First, programs should be targeted to high-risk offenders. Placing low-risk offenders in intensive programs might actually increase their recidivism rates. Second, programs should focus on crime-producing factors such as antisocial attitudes and substance abuse. Boot camp programs are ineffective because they target factors unrelated to crime, model aggressive behavior, and bond criminals together. Third, programs should use a cognitive-behavioral approach, which has been shown to reduce reoffenses by an average of 10%. This actionoriented approach teaches prisoners new skills through modeling, practice, and reinforcement. Fourth, for model programs to be effective, implementation must closely replicate the original design; poorly implemented programs can do more harm than good. Given budget deficits, other states may follow Oregon’s lead in requiring all programs for offenders to be evidence-based. The third chapter by Christina Carmichael and Jere Bauer, Jr. of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau describes prisoner reentry programs in Wisconsin. The reentry process begins at the time of sentencing. For felony offenses, except those punishable by life imprisonment, felons receive a bifurcated sentence. The judge specifies the time to be spent in (a) prison and (b) the community on extended supervision. Reentry services assist prisoners in transitioning back into the community through programs provided to inmates in prison and to offenders under community supervision who need assistance with housing, job readiness, and access to services. As of July 2007, Wisconsin correctional institutions had 22,729 inmates, and community corrections served 55,879 offenders on probation and 17,084 on parole or extended supervision. Upon admission, an assessment identifies the offender’s individual needs for services such as cognitive intervention, education, employment training, medical care, and sex offender treatment. For example, almost half of adult inmates lack a high school diploma or GED and, when admitted, about two thirds have alcohol and drug abuse problems. The portion of inmate spending allocated to reentry programming is not available; however, $123.7 million is spent for probation, parole, and extended supervision in the community and $24.8 million to purchase community services for offenders. The Family Impact Seminars encourages policymakers to consider how families are affected by problems and whether policies would be more effective if families were part of the solution. This report details a number of ways that families are affected by prisoner reentry. In the U.S., two-thirds of female inmates and one-half of male inmates are parents. When one parent is incarcerated, the children left behind are at risk of unhealthy development. The remaining family members also face financial stress and strain from the separation. When prisoners return home, the family can be central to the reentry process. Of course, not all families are in a position to help or want to help. Yet in one study, 90% of former prisoners “agreed” or “strongly agreed” that their family had been supportive in the first few months after their release. Former prisoners who felt that their family was a source of support had more success finding a job and staying off drugs. In fact, continuing contact with family members during and following incarceration can reduce recidivism and foster reintegration. As critical as this support is, it often comes at a price for families, many of whom are fragile. For families to serve as a cornerstone of successful prisoner reentry, policies should take family needs into account. For example, policymakers could enact programs that strengthen families who, in turn, will support the returning prisoner. Policymakers could also examine the state’s statutes, policies, and practices that may interfere with successful prisoner reentry and disadvantage their families. Some of these are summarized in a table prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Corrections. Corrections agencies could improve visitation policies; make it easier to maintain phone, video, or Internet contact; and expand the definition of family to allow visitation by girlfriends or boyfriends who are sometimes raising the prisoner’s children. Schools, youth organizations, and agencies that serve families could take into account the special challenges families face when a parent or partner enters into or returns from prison. Details: Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin - Madison, 2008. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: 26th Wisconsin Family Impact Seminar: Accessed March 18, 2013 at: http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis26report.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis26report.pdf Shelf Number: 128004 Keywords: Ex-OffendersFamilies of InmatesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Draper, Laura Title: Lessons Learned: Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy Summary: Law enforcement officers across the country report that they repeatedly encounter and arrest the same individuals in their jurisdictions. In many areas, recidivism rates remain stubbornly high—with more than 60 percent of individuals leaving prison reincarcerated within a few years after their release. Although many police agencies already have the building blocks to help make prisoner reentry safer and more successful, law enforcement professionals often lack the practical guidance to implement a comprehensive and effective initiative. The Council of State Governments Justice Center (CSG Justice Center) joined with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) on a national project to learn in detail how agencies create a reentry strategy or enhance an existing effort. The project team selected four “learning sites” to receive technical assistance from national experts. In addition to receiving assistance, the sites would in turn inform project staff and other jurisdictions about elements of reentry for which they found solutions to common challenges. The lessons learned from that work and subsequent information-gathering efforts formed the foundation for this report. The four law enforcement agencies selected as learning sites—the Las Vegas (Nevada) Metropolitan Police Department, Metropolitan (District of Columbia) Police Department, Muskegon County (Michigan) Sheriff’s Department, and White Plains (New York) Police Department—each had reentry strategies that addressed key aspects of a successful reentry program. The project also benefitted from the work conducted on a previously published guide the Justice Center developed in partnership with the COPS Office and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF) for law enforcement professionals and reentry partners. Planning and Assessing a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy was crafted to serve as a starting point for police officials to direct and assess progress on reentry. That guide helped agencies identify areas of weakness or issues that created implementation challenges. The learning sites project was launched to take agencies to the next level by providing detailed recommendations for overcoming some of these commonly experienced obstacles to program implementation. The rich information gleaned from practitioners’ experiences at the learning sites (and beyond) is summarized in this report. The major challenges the agencies face can be grouped into three categories: collaboration, program terms, and data collection and analysis. In an effort to address these, this report provides information on the following recommendations, grounded in advice from law enforcement professionals and their partners on the front lines of reentry. Details: New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2013. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 6, 2013 at: http://reentrypolicy.org/documents/0000/1687/Law_Enforcement_Lessons_Learned.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://reentrypolicy.org/documents/0000/1687/Law_Enforcement_Lessons_Learned.pdf Shelf Number: 128302 Keywords: PartnershipsPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Jannetta, Jesse Title: Transition from Prison to Community Initiative: Process Evaluation Final Report Summary: The National Institute of Corrections (NIC) launched the Transition from Prison to the Community (TPC) initiative in 2001, recognizing the need to provide states with support and guidance in developing an effective reentry system to help prisoners prepare for their release, navigate their transition back to the community, and overcome short- and long-term barriers to reintegration. Along with its cooperative agreement partners, NIC developed the TPC model, a comprehensive model for a systems approach to transition from prison that would incorporate the lessons of evidence-based practice, emphasize the importance of collaboration and a unified vision throughout the reentry continuum, and provide a practical framework to guide corrections agencies and their non-correctional partners in efforts to advance reentry practices. The TPC model was first implemented in a group of eight states from 2001 to 2009. In 2009, NIC and its cooperative agreement partner the Center for Effective Public Policy (CEPP) selected six states to receive a second round of TPC technical assistance; Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming. In order to assist jurisdictions in implementing the TPC model, CEPP organized TPC implementation into a ten-step organizational change process necessary to fully implement TPC: 1. Create and charter teams 2. Develop a clear vision and mission 3. Develop a work plan 4. Understand current policy, practice, populations, and resources 5. Align with evidence-based practice 6. Conduct a gaps analysis 7. Identify targets of change 8. Develop an implementation plan 9. Execute, monitor, adjust, and correct 10. Evaluate TPC work in all six sites unfolded consistent with this framework and TPC technical assistance provision was structured around it. The Urban Institute (UI) conducted an implementation evaluation of this second phase of the TPC initiative. The evaluation included a process evaluation to tell the story of TPC in each state, including whether implementation proceeded as designed, the range of activities pursued, factors that facilitated or inhibited TPC implementation, lessons learned, and a systems change analysis to examine the effect of TPC on each state’s reentry system and operations including changes in policy, procedures and processes. The evaluation drew upon stakeholder interviews, direct observation, document review, and review of performance measurement data. It was clear that system changes occurred in the TPC sites. Regardless of the state of transition practice when the six states joined TPC, at the beginning of building a reentry system or with a strong system in place, advancing in accordance with the TPC model created opportunities for focus and system improvement. All six states developed or modified collaborative structures to oversee reentry, including policy teams with executive-level leadership and implementation teams to oversee the details of key changes, and stakeholders in each state described enhanced collaboration around reentry. Kentucky, Tennessee implemented risk/needs assessment, Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming worked to improve their use of existing assessment tools, and Minnesota and Texas planned for implementing new assessment tools to improve their process. All states worked to determine the quality and evidence basis of institutional and community programming. And each state worked to better understand current client-level practice, and measure and monitor reentry performance. Cross-site observations from the process evaluation include: TPC Structure and Collaboration It was important to have many people in the core agencies working on TPC who understand the big picture. Turnover in key positions is inevitable, and occurred in all TPC states. Without a network of people who understood and had ownership of the state’s reentry work, a change in a linchpin position could delay the effort for months. Even successful collaborative efforts experience growing pains. The early stages of building a collaborative effort were often characterized by stakeholder frustration with the pace of the initiative and the perception that it was unfocused. However, these frustrations generally abated (without necessarily disappearing completely) over the course of the initiative as common goals were developed and concrete accomplishments were realized. Establishing a clear charter and defining roles within a TPC effort helps partners engage. A clear charter for the collaborative bodies driving the transition work provided valuable focus to TPC work and made the initiative more transparent to external stakeholders. Securing buy-in from line staff requires special attention. Stakeholders described resistance to change from line staff arising from several sources. TPC states dealt with these challenges in a variety of ways, including focusing on staff recognition, building staff skills, general education, reporting results of reentry efforts, and empowering staff to access leadership and innovate. Middle managers have a vital role to play. TPC leaders felt that middle management in corrections agencies, meaning those directly supervising line staff, were a crucial group to engage in the TPC change process. Their influence on staff and ability to directly support or impede transition practice and transmit (or not) the message that reentry was a priority made them a critical determinant of whether desired system changes were fully executed. Dedicating staff to the change effort makes a difference. Staff dedicated to managing a change process to support transition had a tremendous impact on processes in several states. A person or team able to devote substantial, consistent attention to the TPC effort helped maintain momentum, organization, and focus in the effort. Everyone needs to own reentry. Many of the TPC states identified the need to ensure that all correctional staff, as well as community partners, felt an obligation to facilitate reentry. Establishing reentry-specific units or staff positions facilitated reentry progress in many ways, but stakeholders noted that there was a risk that other staff would feel less ownership over reentry, believing that it belonged to reentry staff. Systems change work requires patience. When asked directly what advice they would give peers in other states seeking to make changes along the lines of the TPC model, many stakeholders stressed the importance of patience with the process and recognizing that changing systems takes a long time. Implementing Systems of Integrated Case Management Assessment of criminogenic risk and need, and a case plan based on the results are the backbone of the transition effort. Once these tools were implemented and automated, it allowed for both evidence-based and consistent work at the client level, and provided vital information regarding the distribution of risk and need across the reentry population necessary for resource allocation and strategic planning decisions. Implementing assessment is just the first step. While putting a valid risk/needs assessment into place was a substantial achievement, TPC stakeholders emphasized the need to ensure that those assessments were being done correctly, consistently, and were being used to build case plans and direct individuals to the appropriate programs. Providing information and training on how to use assessment results increases buy-in to a risk and need-driven reentry system. TPC stakeholders stressed the importance of ensuring that everyone expected to utilize assessment information understood what that information meant and how it could be used. They felt that when this was done properly, assessments were recognized by staff as valuable tools for effective correctional work and decision-making. States grappled with losing program staff. Staff reductions reduced the capacity to deliver programming in a number of TPC states, and reductions in supervision staff in some states had similar effects. Minimal social service infrastructure in many rural areas is a major challenge. Rural reentry posed a difficulty in the participating states, particularly due to the scarcity of community-based treatment and program providers, the distance between them, and the absence of transportation infrastructure. Placing new requirements on staff must be balanced with removing responsibilities. States needed to seek ways to reduce workload to make room for new practices, as well as to create time for offender engagement, motivation enhancement, and positive reinforcement. Iowa, for example, is planning to simplify its case plan for this reason. Assessing Practice and Measuring Performance Capacity to draw and analyze data is limited and overtaxed. TPC states experienced challenges related to both the design of their data systems and lacking staff or sufficiently-skilled staff to retrieve data or conduct analyses using the systems. Gauging the content of line-level practice requires special effort. Every state in TPC needed to conduct activities to determine what was occurring with transition practice at the line level. There is an ongoing need to check and monitor practice at this level to ensure that policy changes are reflected in practice, but also to learn from line-level practice and innovation to guide policy improvements. Data integration is hugely beneficial when it is achieved, but requires upfront investment. Differences in data systems for institutional corrections and field supervision made it difficult to measure progress. Creating integrated data systems is a resource-intensive undertaking, but states that had done so believed it to be tremendously valuable. Measurement questions are strategic questions. It was not possible to define the correction measures to track TPC process until there was clarity at the strategic level of the initiative regarding what should be measured and why. Only once the strategic questions were answered was it possible to move to the technical questions regarding what was possible to extract from the data systems, or what data system modifications might be needed to track progress. Both performance measurement and performance management are important. Gathering measures of transition performance was difficult, and the full benefit of doing so was not realized unless there was a process for the consistent review of those measures to assess progress and identify issues. Tennessee’s Joint Offender Management Plan (JOMP) process was a good model of the regular review of data as part of a systems change process. Disseminating evidence of success builds support for the reentry effort. Summarizing and publicizing evidence of reentry success, both internally within partnering agencies and publicly, helped substantiate progress and increase buy-in at all levels of partnering organizations, as well as solicit support from elected leaders and the public. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center, 2012. 104p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 4, 2013 at: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/412690-Transition-from-Prison-to-Community-Initiative-Process-Evaluation-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128656 Keywords: Offender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Program ImplementationTransition from Prison Program |
Author: Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research Title: Halfway from Prison to the Community: From Current Practice to Best Practice Summary: With the growing emphasis on reentry readiness, federal, state, and local correctional agencies have developed reentry strategies that rely to varying degrees on “halfway” residential facilities, called “residential reentry centers” (RRCs) in this report. Some states (e.g., California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania), in addition to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, release a significant proportion of their offenders through RRCs. Indeed, untold millions are spent annually by government agencies on reentry services provided by RRCs. These services are often purchased through contracts between correctional agencies and private providers. As a whole, little is known about RRCs or the contracting process that funds them. There is no national database for these facilities. For this reason, strikingly little is known about who is providing the services; what these facilities do or are supposed to do; how much is spent on them; how correctional agencies contract for services and monitor performance; how many people they serve; how reentry performance is measured and reported; or whether these reentry intermediaries work in terms of reducing recidivism or lowering correctional costs. The Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research at Rutgers University, with funding from the Langeloth Foundation and the National Institute of Mental Health, convened three roundtables from August to November 2012, to explore a variety of issues related to halfway house models and operations through a dialogue among researchers, policymakers, advocates, and practitioners. The dialogue was guided by a series of commissioned papers prepared by leading experts and presentations by representatives of RRCs. This report provides a framework and a set of guidelines for the structure, implementation, and evaluation of RRCs. What was most clear from Roundtable discussions and the review of the research is: the performance of RRCs, in general, has not reached its potential. The central issue, and the one addressed in this report, is how to move from current practice to best practice. Details: New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Behavioral Health Services & Criminal Justice Research, 2013. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 6, 2013 at: http://cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Halfway_house_RRC_Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://cbhs-cjr.rutgers.edu/pdfs/Halfway_house_RRC_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 128672 Keywords: Halfway HousesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)PrivatizationResidential Reentry Centers |
Author: D'Amico, Ron Title: Evaluation of the Second Chance Act (SCA) Demonstration 2009 Grantees: Interim Report Summary: This report presents the results from an implementation study of 10 grantees awarded Second Chance Act (SCA) adult demonstration grants to improve reentry services for adult offenders. The implementation study was designed to learn how the 10 grantees operated their SCA projects. During site visits to each grantee lasting two to three days each, study team members interviewed program administrators, case managers, probation and parole officers (POs), fiscal and MIS staff members, and SCA service providers, asking questions about project management and service delivery. They also conducted focus groups with program participants, observed project services, and reviewed selected case files. These site visits largely took place in the spring and summer of 2012. The grantees included state departments of corrections, county sheriff's offices, county health agencies, and other public agencies. Each SCA project targeted medium to high-risk adult offenders and enrolled participants, variously, well before release, just before release, or just after release. Case management, involving needs-based service planning and service coordination, was the focal point of project services across all 10 sites. Depending on the site, case managers were (specialized) POs or employees of municipal departments or nonprofit organizations. Other SCA services included education and training, employment assistance, substance abuse treatment, mental health services, cognitive behavioral therapy, pro-social services, housing assistance, and other supportive services. These services were provided either directly by the case managers, through formal agreements with service providers (often including payment for services rendered), or through unfunded informal referrals to community agencies. The direct service model provided tailored services to participants, but required case managers to have specialized expertise and, for this reason, was used sparingly. The formal partnership model ensured priority access to services that participants needed but was costly. The informal partnership model provided participants with access to a wide array of community services but often without close coordination with the SCA project itself. Each grantee used all three of these service delivery models. The grantees faced numerous challenges in developing strong projects, stemming partly from the intrinsic difficulty in serving offenders and partly due to the challenge of designing and implementing evidence-based reentry programming. These challenges included: - needing substantial ramp-up time to operate smoothly, - needing to train case managers (especially those without a social service background) on needs-based service planning, and - coordinating partner services. The SCA projects that overcame these challenges created strong foundations for sustainable systems change. They: - gained considerable experience in needs-based service planning and in coordinating pre-release and post-release services, - strengthened partnerships between various government and community-based agencies, and - came to embrace a rehabilitative philosophy to reentry that, in some cases, represented an important cultural shift. An impact study that uses a random assignment design is separately underway, and results from it will be provided in a separate report. Details: Oakland, CA: Social Policy Research Associates, 2013. 113p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 2, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243294.pdf Shelf Number: 129915 Keywords: Case ManagementParoleesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Evans, Douglas N. Title: The Debt Penalty: Exposing the Financial Barriers to Offender Reintegration Summary: Financial debt associated with legal system involvement is a pressing issue that affects the criminal justice system, offenders, and taxpayers. Mere contact with the criminal justice system often results in fees and fines that increase with progression through the system. Criminal justice fines and fees punish offenders and are designed to generate revenue for legal systems that are operating on limited budgets. However, fines and fees often fail to accomplish this second goal because many offenders are too poor to pay them. To compound their financial struggles, offenders may be subject to other financial obligations, such as child support payments and restitution requirements. If they do not pay their financial obligations, they may be subject to late fees and interest requirements, all of which accumulate into massive debt over time. Even if they want to pay, offenders have limited prospects for meaningful employment and face wage disparities resulting from their criminal history, which makes it even more difficult to pay off their debt. An inability to pay off financial debt increases the possibility that offenders will commit new offenses and return to the criminal justice system. Some courts re-incarcerate offenders simply because they are unable to settle their financial obligations. Imposing financial obligations and monetary penalties on offenders - a group that is overwhelmingly indigent - is not tenable. States often expend more resources attempting to recoup outstanding debt from offenders than they are able to collect from those who pay. This report explores the causes and effects of perpetual criminal debt and offers solutions for encouraging ex-offender payment. Details: New York: John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2014. 28p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 9, 2014 at: http://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/debtpenalty.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://jjrec.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/debtpenalty.pdf Shelf Number: 133631 Keywords: Criminal FeesCriminal FinesCriminal Justice DebtFinancial SanctionsOffender FinancesPrisoner Reentry (U.S.) |
Author: Taxman, Faye S. Title: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers Summary: Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) are designed to facilitate the transition from prison to the community, and many often serve as halfway back facilities for offenders who have difficulties when placed on community supervision. During this transitional period, the RRCs assist offenders in securing housing and employment as well as continuing in appropriate treatment and other programs to address criminogenic needs. Monographs available at this website are: "Executive Overview: What Works in Residential Reentry Centers" by Faye S. Taxman, Jessica Rexroat, Mary Shilton, Amy Mericle, and Jennifer Lerch; "Report 1: What Is the Impact of "Performance Contracting" on Offender Supervision Services?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 2: Measuring Performance -The Capacity of Residential Reentry Centers (RRCs) to Collect, Manage, and Analyze Client-Level Data" by Mericle, Shilton, Taxman, and Rexroat; "Report 3: What Organizational Factors Are Related to Improved Outcomes?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 4: How Do Staff Hiring, Retention, Management and Attitudes Affect Organizational Climate and Performance in RRCs?" by Rexroat, Shilton, Taxman, and Mericle; "Report 5: What Services Are Provided by RRCs?" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle; Report 6: Technical Violation Rates and Rearrest Rates on Federal Probation after Release from an RRC" by Lerch, Taxman, and Mericle; and "Report 7: Site Visits" by Shilton, Rexroat, Taxman, and Mericle. Details: Fairfax, VA: George Mason University, Criminology, Law and Society, 2010. 8 parts; executive summary Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 16, 2014 at: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Year: 2010 Country: United States URL: http://www.gmuace.org/research_reentry.html Shelf Number: 133728 Keywords: Halfway HousesOffender ReintegrationPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)ProbationersRehabilitation |
Author: Sugie, Naomi F. Title: Finding Work: A Smartphone Study of Job Searching, Social Contacts, and Wellbeing after Prison Summary: The immediate months after prison are a critical transition period, which can determine future trajectories of successful reintegration or recidivism. Finding employment after prison is considered a key, if not the most important, condition to prevent recidivism; however, individuals face numerous obstacles to finding work. Although many of these barriers have been documented, methodological difficulties prevent a thorough understanding of how they impact the actual job searching and working experiences of individuals at reentry. Using an innovative data collection method - smartphones - this dissertation contributes a detailed portrait of the searching and working trajectories of 156 individuals. Participants were randomly sampled from a complete census of all recent releases to parole in Newark, New Jersey, and were followed for three months. Utilizing these novel data, the dissertation analyzes a) the searching and working experiences of individuals at reentry, b) the use of social contacts for finding employment, and c) the association between emotional wellbeing and job searching. The manuscript also includes a methodological chapter, which describes the strengths and potential challenges of using smartphones with hard-to-reach populations. Analyses of detailed smartphone measures reveal a reentry period characterized by very short-term, irregular, and poor-quality work. There is substantial heterogeneity across searching and working patterns, where older and less advantaged individuals sustain high levels of job searching throughout the three-month study period. In contrast to prevailing notions in reentry scholarship, individuals are not social isolates or deeply distraught about their job searches; rather, they are highly connected to others and feel happier while searching for work. These results indicate that the low employment rates of reentering individuals are not due to person-specific deficiencies of low social connectivity and poor emotional wellbeing. Reentering individuals, however, remain deeply disadvantaged in the labor market, where they compete for work within a structure of deteriorated opportunities for low-skill, urban, and minority jobseekers more generally. Relegated to the lowest rungs of the market, reentering individuals obtain jobs that are very sporadic and precarious. These findings challenge the established idea that finding suitable employment in today's labor market is an attainable goal for reentering individuals. Details: Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 2014. 171p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed December 9, 2014 at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248487.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/248487.pdf Shelf Number: 134294 Keywords: Ex-Offender EmploymentPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Prisoner Reintegration |
Author: James, Nathan Title: Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism Summary: The number of people incarcerated in the United States grew steadily for nearly 30 years. That number has been slowly decreasing since 2008, but as of 2012 there were still over 2 million people incarcerated in prisons and jails across the country. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) reports that since 1990 an average of 590,400 inmates have been released annually from state and federal prisons and almost 5 million ex-offenders are under some form of community-based supervision. Nearly all prisoners will return to their communities as some point. Offender reentry can include all the activities and programming conducted to prepare prisoners to return safely to the community and to live as law-abiding citizens. Some ex-offenders, however, eventually end up back in prison. The BJS's most recent study on recidivism showed that within five years of release nearly three-quarters of ex-offenders released in 2005 came back into contact with the criminal justice system, and more than half returned to prison after either being convicted for a new crime or for violating the conditions of their release. Compared with the average American, ex-offenders are less educated, less likely to be gainfully employed, and more likely to have a history of mental illness or substance abuse - all of which have been shown to be risk factors for recidivism. Three phases are associated with offender reentry programs: programs that take place during incarceration, which aim to prepare offenders for their eventual release; programs that take place during offenders' release period, which seek to connect ex-offenders with the various services they may require; and long-term programs that take place as ex-offenders permanently reintegrate into their communities, which attempt to provide offenders with support and supervision. There is a wide array of offender reentry program designs, and these programs can differ significantly in range, scope, and methodology. Researchers in the offender reentry field have suggested that the best programs begin during incarceration and extend throughout the release and reintegration process. Despite the relative lack of highly rigorous research on the effectiveness of some reentry programs, an emerging "what works" literature suggests that programs focusing on work training and placement, drug and mental health treatment, and housing assistance have proven to be effective. The federal government's involvement in offender reentry programs typically occurs through grant funding, which is available through a wide array of federal programs at the Departments of Justice, Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services. However, only a handful of grant programs in the federal government are designed explicitly for offender reentry purposes. The Department of Justice has started an interagency Reentry Council to coordinate federal reentry efforts and advance effective reentry policies. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Services, 2015. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: CRS Report RL34287: Accessed February 16, 2015 at: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf Shelf Number: 134627 Keywords: Ex-OffendersPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)RecidivismRehabilitation |
Author: Western, Bruce Title: Stress and Hardship After Prison Summary: The historic increase in U.S. incarceration rates made the transition from prison to community common for poor, prime-age men and women. Leaving prison presents the challenge of social integration - of connecting with family, finding housing, and a means of subsistence. We study variation in social integration in the first months after prison release with data from the Boston Reentry Study, a unique panel survey of 122 newly-released prisoners. The data indicate severe material hardship immediately after incarceration. Over half of sample respondents were unemployed, two-thirds received public assistance, and many relied on female relatives for financial support and housing. Older respondents and those with histories of addiction and mental illness were the least socially integrated with weak family ties, unstable housing, and low levels of employment. Qualitative interviews show that anxiety and feelings of isolation accompanied extreme material insecurity. Material insecurity combined with the adjustment to social life outside prison creates a stress of transition that burdens social relationships in high-incarceration communities. Details: Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, 2014. 55p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 9, 2015 at: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/brucewestern/files/trans08.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/brucewestern/files/trans08.pdf Shelf Number: 135200 Keywords: EX-OffendersPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)Socio-economic ConditionsUrban Areas |
Author: Fontaine, Jocelyn Title: Safer Return Demonstration: Impact Findings from a Research-Based Community Reentry Initiative Summary: The Safer Return demonstration, funded by the MacArthur Foundation, intended to promote successful reentry by addressing key individual needs, introducing system reforms, and improving local conditions in Chicago's Garfield Park neighborhood. To understand whether the demonstration met its intended goals, Urban designed a quasi-experimental impact evaluation that included: multiple waves of survey data from community residents, former prisoners, and their family members; program and cost data from Safer Return service providers; and administrative corrections and employment records. Safer Return participation was associated with significant reductions in returns to prison (chiefly due to technical violation reductions) and significant increases in employment/wages. Details: Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2015. 155p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 23, 2015 at: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000276-Safer-Return-Demonstration-Impact-Findings-from-the-Research-Based-Community-Reentry-Initiative.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/2000276-Safer-Return-Demonstration-Impact-Findings-from-the-Research-Based-Community-Reentry-Initiative.pdf Shelf Number: 136131 Keywords: Community-Based ProgramsFamilies of Ex-OffendersFamily-Based Case ManagementPrisoner Reentry (U.S.)RecidivismSafer Return Demonstration |