Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 12:22 pm
Time: 12:22 pm
Results for prisoner reintegration
18 results foundAuthor: Adkins, Geneva Title: Iowa Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI) Rural Service Delivery Model Iowa Department of Correctional Services Summary: This report presents an evaluation of the two-year Iowa Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI) Rural Service Delivery Model. The purpose of the program was to improve community safety by providing pre-release services and successful transition planning and aftercare services to offenders released from state institutions to the Second Judicial District Department of Correctional Services. Participants included all offenders released to the Second Judicial District during the grant period. Participants were involved in a three phase program which included: 1. Institution Phase – The re-entry and assessment staff administered the LSI-R and other pertinent assessments during intake and completed a reentry case plan. While in the institution participants were referred to appropriate services including the Life Skills program, when appropriate. 2. Community Transition – Participants who were within 180 days of release were assessed and community programs identified that would best help the participant transition into the community. A determination was made to either refer the offender to Spectrum Wraparound Services or to Corrections’ Reach-in Program. 3. Aftercare Phase – Participants received aftercare services as provided by either Spectrum Wraparound Services or the Reach In program for three to 12 months. Satisfactory completion of the program was determined by consultation with Community Based Corrections and Spectrum staff and the parole officer. The criteria for Spectrum Wraparound Services included the following: • 18 years of age or older • No violent aggravated misdemeanors or felonies; violent serious misdemeanors may be included • Offenders with juvenile violent record may be included • No sex offenses (includes juvenile records and serious misdemeanor offenses) • No murder offenses (NCIC records were checked to determine eligibility). For comparison purposes, a random sample of offenders was selected. These offenders were released to the Second Judicial District during the period from March 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 when reentry services were not available to offenders being released to rural communities. This report will identify and analyze demographic data, interventions, release and supervision information, employment, risk scores, violations, drug use, and recidivism of participants. Data collection for this report ended on June 30, 2009. Details: Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Human Rights, Division of Criminal and Justice Justice Planning, 2009. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 15, 2011 at: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Rural_PRI_Final_Report.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.humanrights.iowa.gov/cjjp/images/pdf/Rural_PRI_Final_Report.pdf Shelf Number: 118746 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry (Iowa)Prisoner Reintegration |
Author: La Vigne, Nancy Title: Release Planning for Successful Reentry: A Guide for Corrections, Service Providers, and Community Groups Summary: This report is designed to help the corrections community, service providers and community groups prepare prisoners for the moment of release from prison and the time immediately following release. It describes the eight most basic and immediate needs returning prisoners have when they exit prison, recommends minimum policies practitioners can institute to meet these needs, and highlights the opportunities and challenges practitioners face when trying to improve their release planning policies. The report also uses the results of a UI survey of 43 departments of corrections to illustrate what release planning procedures are currently being implemented across the country. Details: Washington, DC: Justice Policy Center, Urban Institute, 2008. 104p. Source: Research Report: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 27, 2012 at http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411767_successful_reentry.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/411767_successful_reentry.pdf Shelf Number: 123797 Keywords: Community ParticipationCorrectionsPrisoner ReintegrationReentry |
Author: Casey, Joe Title: The Social Reintegration of Ex-Prisoners in Council of Europe Member States Summary: The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) has a long history of campaigning for prison and criminal justice reform. Working within this 350-year tradition, the Quaker Council for European Affairs (QCEA) is actively involved in promoting respect for human rights in the way society deals with crime. QCEA carried out extensive research into the conditions of women in prison in member states of the Council of Europe (CoE), in partnership with the Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) in Geneva, Quaker Peace and Social Witness (QPSW) in the UK and the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC) representatives to the UN Crime Commission in Vienna. The subsequent 2007 QCEA report, Women in Prison concluded that whilst in many cases prison sentences do little to reduce the risks of reoffending, the social cost to both prisoners and their families is disproportionately high. To support this recommendation, QCEA investigated the use of alternative sanctions to imprisonment in CoE member states. The resulting report, published in early 2010, presented a range of alternatives to prison, which ‘when implemented and assessed effectively, are often more successful at providing society with a suitable and effective response to crime and more often than not significantly less expensive’. Nevertheless, QCEA recognises that imprisonment will remain a part of European criminal justice systems, as ‘a last resort’ to be used where there is a pressing case to control offenders so that they cannot harm others. We argue in this report that whenever prison is used, it must be rehabilitative. Most offenders sent to prison will eventually be released. It is therefore incumbent on prison systems to invest adequately in rehabilitative programmes, so that prisoners have a better chance of reintegrating into the community after their sentence is finished. Such a policy respects the human rights and human dignity of those who break the law, but this is not the only reason to favour rehabilitation in prison management. An effective rehabilitative prison system can bring financial benefits too. Policing, investigating, and administering criminal justice systems are all expensive, as is imprisonment itself. This is not to mention the negative effects of crime on the community. Justice systems which can successfully rehabilitate offenders will save money and better meet the needs of society, since the alternative (longer and longer sentences) produces an unsustainable solution. These issues are explored in Chapter 3 followed by a short outline of how we have compiled the evidence used in this report in Chapter 4. There are many challenges to meet in making a rehabilitative prison system work. Among them is prison overcrowding. This problem is analysed in Chapter 5. Overcrowded prisons strain the resources invested in them and achieve less success in rehabilitating prisoners, because they are reduced to ‘coping’ rather than fulfilling their primary, rehabilitative function. Another challenge is ensuring that prisoners’ transition after their sentence is properly managed. This involves a balance between managing exoffenders and the crucially important goal of connecting them to services and opportunities (such as housing and employment) that will lend stability after the initial shock of leaving the regimented, structured life of prison. These need not be mutually exclusive goals. The role that probation services can play is explored in Chapter 6. Prisons must also understand and address the factors that, in many cases, drive criminal behaviour. Rehabilitation programmes for alcohol and drug addiction are vital in this regard as are programmes that aim to help prisoners understand the motivations and reasons for their crimes. Policy and best practice in alcohol and drug rehabilitation, and in sex-offender rehabilitation, are surveyed in Chapters 7 and 8. Yet the main challenge for prisoners remains how they will readapt to life in the community after their release. Preparation for this should begin immediately after their admission to prison. This is a huge adjustment for the prisoner and their families to make, especially after a longer sentence, and one where a number of factors come into play. Education (Chapter 9) is vital; if successfully completed it can have benefits both by offering prisoners employment skills they may not have had before and by allowing prisoners a different perspective on their lives. Preparation and support for prisoners to help them with the search for housing and employment are also important, as is the availability of training to improve their financial skills and thereby plan for the financial uncertainty and period of unemployment that may follow release. Current policies and best practice in these areas are explored in Chapter 10. Prisons should also try as far as possible to ensure that prisoners are able to stay in close touch with their families. Families provide the kind of motivation and support that official agencies simply cannot, and prison administrations must therefore make sure that they do not break family ties. This theme is explored in Chapter 11. Chapter 12 argues for the inclusion of prisoners in society more generally by arguing for the ending of blanket bans on prisoner voting. Finally, Chapter 13 makes the case for greater use of Restorative justice practices within and alongside the existing criminal justice system. Restorative justice aims to deal with conflicts (in this case, those caused by crime) by helping those affected explore the harm done and how it might be repaired. Such interventions may not be suitable in all cases and must be done with the consent of the individuals concerned, but have been shown to powerfully affect both offenders’ and victims’ perspectives on crimes. They work because they address the individual needs and issues caused by crime. At the core of all these issues and approaches is the fact that prisoners, for all that they may have committed acts that society disapproves of or even abhors, remain individual people, and they remain members of the wider community. If law-abiding behaviour arises out of respect or consideration for other members of our community, then dealing with crime solely by excluding its perpetrators from the same community that desires their future respect and consideration is unlikely to work. Continuing to exclude them after their release from prison merely exacerbates the problem, as does allowing prisons to become so overcrowded that prison staff cannot know or address the individual needs of prisoners. Proponents of an evermore punitive prison policy must confront this uncomfortable truth. There is no ‘catch-all’ solution to criminality and the policies and practices described in this report will not all apply to all offenders. However, exploration of best practice is worthwhile. Such practices, combined with a realistic policy on sentencing and prison population, may allow prisons to become genuinely rehabilitative. In so doing, prisons could be made to serve better the society that invests so heavily in them. Details: Geneva: Quaker Council for European Affairs, 2011. 156p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 24, 2012 at: http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rprt-reintegration-full-en-may-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: Europe URL: http://www.qcea.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/rprt-reintegration-full-en-may-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 125752 Keywords: Correctional ProgramsPrisoner Reentry (Europe)Prisoner RehabilitationPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Turner, Susan Title: The Impact of the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM) Pilot Implementation on Parole Agent Attitudes Summary: The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) Division of Adult Parole Operations (DAPO) currently supervises approximately 125,000 offenders on post-release supervision, or parole. California's rate of parolees per population, currently 438 per 100,000 residents, is much higher than the national average of 315 (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009). This is due in part to the large prison population in California, which results in a large number of offenders released to community supervision at the completion of their sentences. Two sentencing decisions contribute to California's higher-than-average number of parolees. First, determinate sentencing laws introduced in 1976 resulted in fixed sentences of imprisonment for particular crimes, followed by mandatory release. This compares with a system of indeterminate sentencing, applied in some states, which sets minimum and maximum terms but leaves the release decision to parole boards (discretionary release). Second, California historically has released all prisoners to a period of supervised parole, usually for three years, rather than reserving supervision for some offenders and releasing offenders assessed to be a lower risk to the community with no supervision requirements. With so many offenders under parole supervision, inevitably many parolees violate parole, either by committing a new offense or through technical violations of their parole conditions (e.g., failing a drug test or missing a meeting with their parole agent). The return to custody (RTC) rate for a parolee in California is 66%, nearly twice the national average (Fischer, 2005), and on any given day, six out of ten prison admissions in California are returning parolees (Grattet, Petersilia, & Lin, 2008). In recent years, reviews of the corrections system in California have recommended reforms to implement evidence-based practices (EBP) into corrections policy. One common suggestion has been the targeting of parole supervision and treatment resources to those offenders most at risk of reoffending (Little Hoover Commission, 2007; Burke, 2009). Two recent legislative changes have altered California's parole system significantly. First, Senate Bill 3X 18 (Penal Code Section 3000.03), effective January 25th 2010, introduced Non-Revocable Parole (NRP), which placed ‘lower risk, low stakes' offenders into the community with no parole supervision or parole conditions, but still subject to warrantless search and seizure by law enforcement. To be eligible for NRP, offenders must have no prior serious or violent felonies, a low or moderate California Static Risk Assessment (CSRA) risk score, and not be required to register as a sex offender. Consequently, parole resources were targeted toward those offenders with a higher risk to reoffend who were most in need of assistance with reentry. Second, legislation changed the funding of agent caseloads, reducing caseloads from a funding ratio of 70 cases per agent down to 48:1. These two changes - the removal of a proportion of offenders from parole caseloads and the potential to lower the number of cases that each agent supervised - resulted in a unique opportunity for DAPO management to reconsider the way it supervised offenders to incorporate recent developments in EBP research and ‘best practice’ policies being introduced by colleague agencies elsewhere. In October 2009, DAPO convened a Parole Reform Task Force (PRTF) to recommend new policies and procedures in light of research findings and supervision methods used in other jurisdictions. The PRTF comprised 19 representatives from DAPO Headquarters and all four parole regions, and included ranks of Parole Agent 1 (‘rank and file’ parole agents), PA2 (Assistant Unit Supervisors), and PA3 (Unit Supervisors), in addition to Parole Administrators, Deputy Regional Administrators, and Regional Administrators. The Task Force met weekly through January 2010 and produced a report describing the new parole model, called the California Parole Supervision and Reintegration Model (CPSRM). The CPSRM represented a significant change to the way DAPO supervised offenders post-release. Sections in the Task Force report (i.e., pre-release planning, case management, case conferences, quality of supervision, agent workload, programming, parolee rewards and incentives, and parolee discharge procedures) carefully documented relevant research findings in support of the new practices outlined. At the crux of CPSRM was a move away from a ‘surveillance’ model of supervision towards an approach that emphasized both the quality of supervision, and the engagement of the parolee in the supervision process. Agents were trained in Motivational Interviewing (MI) techniques and used detailed comprehensive interviews to identify the criminogenic needs of parolees. These criminogenic needs formed the basis of the parolee’s case plan. Parolees were encouraged to identify tangible, small steps they could take every month in order to address these needs, and these tasks were written down in a Goals Report. Parolees were now invited to attend Case Conference Reviews in which their case plan was discussed; early discharge from parole was based in part on the level of commitment shown by the parolee in taking a more active role in his/her supervision. Based on the PRTF report a comprehensive DAPO policy manual was developed. Current plans are that CPSRM will roll out state-wide. Prior to its widespread implementation, a pilot implementation took place at four parole units in order to test policies in the field and make adjustments based on agent feedback. This report presents findings from surveys of parole agent attitudes during the CPSRM pilot implementation process. Details: Irvine, CA: Center for Evidence-Based Corrections, University of California, Irvine, 2011. 58p. Source: Internet Resource: Working Paper: accessed February 15, 2013 at: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/sites/ucicorrections.seweb.uci.edu/files/The%20impact%20of%20CPSRM%20pilot%20implementation%20on%20parole%20agent%20attitudes.pdf Shelf Number: 127422 Keywords: Intensive SupervisionParole (California)Parole OfficersParole ReformParoleesPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Council of State Governments Justice Center Title: Reentry Matters: Strategies and Successes of Second Chance Act Grantees Across the United States Summary: With over 95 percent of people in the nation's state prisons expected to be released at some point, officials at all levels of government recognize the need for initiatives to support the successful reentry of these individuals to their communities. For the estimated 60,000 youth incarcerated in juvenile detention and correctional facilities on any given day, there is a particular urgency to help them avoid crime and improve their prospects for a successful future when released. In 2008, Congress responded to these needs by passing the Second Chance Act, first-of-its-kind legislation that was enacted with bipartisan support and backed by a broad spectrum of leaders in law enforcement, corrections, courts, behavioral health, and other areas. The legislation authorizes federal grants that support reentry programs for adults and juveniles, nearly 600 of which have been awarded to government agencies and nonprofit organizations in 49 states by the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs. The program snapshots below illustrate the positive impact these reentry initiatives can have by focusing on areas vital to reintegration back into the community, including employment, education, mentoring, and substance abuse and mental health treatment. Also highlighted are programs that address the needs of a particular population, such as youth, women, and tribal communities. Representing a wide range of populations served, these programs also demonstrate the diversity of approaches that can address recidivism and increase public safety. Details: New York: Council of State Government Justice Center, 2013. 12p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 16, 2014 at: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ReentryMatters.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/ReentryMatters.pdf Shelf Number: 132690 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationRecidivismRehabilitation ProgramsSecond Chance Act |
Author: Malloch, Margaret Title: The Elements of Effective Through-Care. Part 1: International Review Summary: This report forms Part 1 of a two-part review of the elements of effective through-care. It examines the international evidence in order to identify practice that appears to be effective, alongside areas that may hinder effective interventions. Part 2 examines this evidence alongside a review of practice in Scotland. The available evidence, consisting of international research and practice evaluations, clearly highlights the practical issues that prisoners experience at the point of release and transition into the community. These issues often appear more entrenched for short-term prisoners for whom rates of reconviction are highest. The review confirms that already existing difficulties in areas such as accommodation, income, employment, drug and alcohol problems can actually deteriorate after release from custody, and imprisonment may serve to further marginalise particular groups (for example women, young and elderly prisoners, and minority ethnic groups). While programmes in prison may help prepare prisoners for release, according to international research and evaluations these programmes will have greater impact if stable accommodation and employment opportunities are available in the community. Reductions in reoffending appear to be directly related to the availability of support following release, with international evidence suggesting that after-care may be as important as the provision of interventions during the period of custody. Through-care is intended to ensure processes are in place to support prisoners as they move back into their local communities and, to some extent, mitigate the worst effects of detrimental social and economic factors which affect the lives of many people processed by the criminal justice system. There is significant variation regarding the legislative context of through-care provision which can consist of both policy and statutory bases; varying across countries but also across regions and local states within a national framework. The provision of support at this transitional stage can reduce the likelihood of reoffending. Internationally, challenges to the provision of through-care arise from fragmentation of services, under-funding and a limited evidence base for service development. While this review drew on an extensive range of international literature, there are a number of limitations in the evidence available and very little evidence of outcomes obtained as a direct result of through-care services. Differences are evident between academic or independent reviews of through-care provision and project evaluations or policy analysis. Different methodological approaches can also hamper attempts to consider evidence comparatively and an over-reliance on reconviction data often obscures many of the 'softer' measures which are present in the process of (re)-integration. However, despite these caveats, there is sufficient evidence from which a number of conclusions may be drawn with regard to through-care provision. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2013. 66p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 03/2013: Accessed July 28, 2014 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/International_Through-care_Review.pdf Year: 2013 Country: International URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/International_Through-care_Review.pdf Shelf Number: 132806 Keywords: AftercareEx-Offender EmploymentEx-Offenders, HousingPrisoner ReentryPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Malloch, Margaret Title: The Elements of Effective Through-Care. Part 2: Scottish Review Summary: This review forms Part Two of an international review of through-care practice. Part One (Malloch et al, 2013) provided a review of international literature. Part Two focuses specifically on Scotland and considers the available evidence to explore practices that work effectively to support through-care. This review provides an overview of available research and through-care practice in Scotland, highlighting key issues rather than providing a comprehensive evaluation of services. It also includes views of practitioners who provide third sector through-care provision and considers their understanding of the key issues. Details: Edinburgh: Scottish Centre for Crime & Justice Research, 2013. 41p. Source: Internet Resource: Report No. 04/2013: Accessed August 12, 2014 at: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Scottish_Through-care_Review.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.sccjr.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Scottish_Through-care_Review.pdf Shelf Number: 133011 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Reintegration |
Author: Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Title: Indianapolis-Marion County City-County Council Re-Entry Policy Study Commission Report Summary: The statistics spoke loudly: data from the Indiana Department of Correction and the Marion County Jail indicate that approximately 5,000 men and women are released into Marion County from prisons and jails each year. During the last few years, approximately 51% of those released into Marion County have returned to incarceration within three years of their release date. The average annual cost for an incarcerated offender is more than $25,000. Reducing the rate of recidivism would have significant economic and public safety benefits in addition to increasing the number of productive members of our community. In response, the City-County Council decided to take action to address issues that we found. In partnership with our public safety partners, members of the Marion County Re-entry Coalition, the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce and other community organizations, the Council's Re-Entry Policy Study Commission began its work to examine, on a local level, the number of men and women incarcerated, the number released and the number who recidivate, costs associated with offenders as they move through the prison system and to develop policies to address concerns about our county's high recidivism rate as identified by local business, policy groups, community organizations and social service agencies . These numbers, coupled with the costs to local government, challenge the Council's ability to adequately fund and address concerns raised by our public safety partners, county residents, and to realize the successful outcomes of those re-entering our community from incarceration. The Re-entry Policy Study Commission was created and amended by Council Resolutions 80, 2012 and 90, 2012, respectively. Under the authority of the Council, its purpose is to examine and investigate current policies and procedures relating to the re-entry of ex-offenders and the economic and community impact of reducing recidivism in Marion County. From November, 2012 through April of 2013, the Commission held 10 public hearings, received presentations from subject matter experts and testimony from members of the public. The information provided was both informative and enlightening to members and the public, and central to the content of this Commission Report, which includes findings and recommendations for policy improvements regarding re-entry. The powers and duties as prescribed by the enacting Council resolutions required the Commission to: 1. Review current practices surrounding offender sentencing, incarceration, release and re-integration into the county, 2. Review sentencing practices/guidelines and their role in supporting or crippling successful re-integration, 3. Review costs associated with the processing, prosecution, incarceration, release, probation, and community supervision of the offender, and determine how the funds are utilized and their efficiency and effectiveness as measured by the successful re-integration of the re-entrant population, 4. Review sources of payment of these costs and how they are utilized, 5. Create community goals/targets for successful re-integration of re-entrants into the community and study the potential impact on the city's economic development, 6. Review national best practices for successful re-integration, including use of public funds utilized in the process of prosecution, sentencing, incarceration, and release of offenders, 7. Review the service provider entities which have been most successful in lowering recidivism rates and recommending means of streamlining and possibly eliminating those which have not, 8. Analyze economic cost/benefit to the city and county of incorporating any new policies, 9. Review current barriers to re-entrant employment, housing, and other necessities, 10. Review best practices to encourage more private sector employers to review their hiring and screening policies and provide more non-discriminatory hiring opportunities, 11. Review and analyze our current supportive services (housing, workforce development, etc.) and ways to improve their role in successful re-integration; and 12. Establish a periodic review of the county's recidivism rate and create a method of measuring and tracking successful performance and re-integration of the re-entrants. Details: Indianapolis: The Council, 2013. 51p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 15, 2014 at: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Committees/Documents/RE-ENTRY/Re-entry%20Policy%20Report.pdf Year: 2013 Country: United States URL: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/Council/Committees/Documents/RE-ENTRY/Re-entry%20Policy%20Report.pdf Shelf Number: 129921 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationRecidivism |
Author: Hopkins, Kathryn Title: Prisoners' experience of prison and outcomes on release: Waves 2 and 3 of SPCR Summary: This report presents the findings from Wave 2 (in-custody, pre-release) and Wave 3 (post-custody) of Surveying Prisoner Crime Reduction (SPCR), a longitudinal cohort study of male and female adult prisoners sentenced to between one month and four years in England and Wales between 2005 and 2007. Prisoners were interviewed in prison and in the community between 2005 and 2010 and re-offending was followed-up using police records for two years after release. The report describes prison routine, prisoners' expectations of life after custody and actual outcomes on release, including employment, accommodation, drugs and alcohol, and finance, benefits and debt. It is not an exhaustive account of SPCR Wave 2 and 3 data, but rather aims to summarise the key results from these waves. Results from Wave 1 of the survey (administered on reception to custody) have already been published. This report is based on self-reported survey questions from a representative sample (SPCR Sample 1) of 1,435 prisoners, most of whom (76%) were sentenced to less than 12 months. Some missing data (due to survey attrition) has been recovered, and some supplementary material from longer-sentenced (18 months to four years) prisoners (SPCR Sample 2) is also reported. Comparisons with earlier prisoner surveys are also made. Prisoners were asked about their time in custody during the Wave 2 interviews, which were conducted shortly before release, and about their outcomes on release during the Wave 3 interviews, which were conducted shortly after release. Details: London: Ministry of Justice, 2014. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Ministry of Justice Analytical Series: Accessed November 3, 2014 at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368164/prisoners-experience-of-prison-and-outcomes-on-release-waves-2-and-3-spcr.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United Kingdom URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/368164/prisoners-experience-of-prison-and-outcomes-on-release-waves-2-and-3-spcr.pdf Shelf Number: 133937 Keywords: Longitudinal Cohort Study (U.K.)Prisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationPrisonersRe-OffendingRecidivism |
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: Metcalf, Hope Title: Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014 Summary: On April 3-4, 2014 the Liman Program hosted Seventeenth Annual Liman Colloquium, Isolation and Reintegration: Punishment Circa 2014 , which was devoted to remedying the harms of incarceration. The assembled group included several directors of state prison systems, as well as lawyers who bring lawsuits against prisons, judges who respond to such lawsuits, and professionals from diverse disciplines and from the non-profit world. This collection of materials, which was provided as a starting point for the discussion, describes current patterns of incarceration and explores interventions designed to reduce the degree to which correctional facilities maintain order through the isolation of prisoners, both through the locating of prison facilities and the placement of people within them. Details: New Haven, CT: Liman Public Interest Program at Yale Law School, 2014. 210p. Source: Internet Resource: Proceedings: Seventeenth Annual Liman Colloquium, Yale Law School: Accessed September 5, 2015 at: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Liman/Liman_Colloquium_2014_Isolation_and_Reintegration_Punishment_Circa_2014_revised_Jan_8_2015.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Liman/Liman_Colloquium_2014_Isolation_and_Reintegration_Punishment_Circa_2014_revised_Jan_8_2015.pdf Shelf Number: 136684 Keywords: Administrative Segregation Correctional Administration Correctional Management Prisoner ReintegrationPrisoners Solitary Confinement |
Author: Arkansas Community Correction Title: ACT 1190 Final Report: Recommendations for an Improved Reentry System in Arkansas Summary: Early on in the process, the Act 1190 Steering Committee identified the most significant barriers for inmates upon release from prison. Committees were formed to address each of these barriers and to provide cost effective and innovative solutions to address the needs. Committees were also formed to assist in identifying funding sources, necessary policy or procedure changes as well as developing communications and public-relations material. Committees included: Planning and Preparation Education Employment Transitional Program Community and Coalition Partners Family Support and Reunification Housing Legal Barriers Resource Development Substance Abuse and Mental Health Healthcare Transportation Policy and Procedures Public Relations and Communications Community Reintegration Management Committee chairs submitted reports of their recommendations for each area. ACC reviewed each report to develop the attached executive summary highlighting the recommendations we believe will enhance successful transition from prison to the community. A more comprehensive report is also attached. During the course of the committee meetings, actions were taken to move forward with recommendations where resources were available. ACC has included in the report this list of accomplishments to compliment the recommendations. In addition to the strides made to date, much more work and resources are needed to implement an effective reentry system in Arkansas. Legislative support for implementation of the Act 1190 Steering Committee recommendations is respectfully requested. Details: Little Rock, AR: Arkansas Community Correction, 2014. 69p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed August 29, 2016 at: http://www.dcc.state.ar.us/images/uploads/publications/Act-1190%20-%20Comprehensive-Final-Report.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.dcc.state.ar.us/images/uploads/publications/Act-1190%20-%20Comprehensive-Final-Report.pdf Shelf Number: 140068 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Reintegration |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, Evaluation and Inspections Division Title: Review of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Release Preparation Program Summary: During the past 3 years, the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) released nearly 125,000 inmates from its custody into Residential Reentry Centers (RRC), into home confinement, or directly into communities in the United States. While not all of these inmates will re-offend, analyses of historical data have shown that many of them will. For example, the U.S. Sentencing Commission recently evaluated recidivism rates for federal offenders released in 2005 and found that nearly half of them were re-arrested within 8 years of their release for committing a new crime or for violating their supervision conditions. To help inmates successfully transition back into the community and to help reduce the likelihood that they will re-offend, the BOP operates, among various reentry efforts, the Release Preparation Program (RPP), which was the focus of this review. The BOP requires every institution to provide an RPP, and most sentenced inmates at BOP-operated institutions are required to participate in the RPP. The RPP consists of classes, instruction, and assistance in six broad categories: (1) Health and Nutrition, (2) Employment, (3) Personal Finance and Consumer Skills, (4) Information and Community Resources, (5) Release Requirements and Procedures, and (6) Personal Growth and Development. The RPP has two segments: the Institution RPP, developed by each institution's RPP committee based on the general release needs of the institution's inmate population, and the Unit RPP, developed by the institution's unit teams based on the needs of the individual inmate. Inmates must complete both segments for the BOP to consider them to have completed the RPP and to be better prepared for their eventual transition back into society. This review examines the BOP's effectiveness in fulfilling the RPP's established program objectives. These objectives are to enhance inmates' successful reintegration into the community through RPP participation; to enter into partnerships with various groups to provide information, programs, and services to releasing inmates; and to reduce inmate recidivism. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, 2016. Source: Internet Resource: Evaluation and Inspections Division 16-07: Accessed September 2, 2016 at: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1607.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/e1607.pdf Shelf Number: 140124 Keywords: Federal Bureau of PrisonsPrisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationPrisoner ReleaseRecidivism |
Author: Crow, Iain Title: Resettling Prisoners: A Review Summary: The resettlement of citizens coming out of prison is an important part of the Government's Reducing Re-offending Action Plan. This review looks at the available research to see what can be learned about the most promising approaches to resettlement. Concern about the resettlement of offenders goes back many years, at least to the end of the nineteenth century, and one its most constant features is the high proportion of exprisoners who re-offend, some of them returning to prison several times. Recent concern about resettlement has been fuelled both by the intractable nature of the problem, and by the increasing numbers needing to be resettled. There is particular concern about the resettlement of certain groups within the prison population, including short-term prisoners and women prisoners. Although the available research has its limitations, there are a number of pointers to the lessons that can be drawn from what we know. • Offenders often have a mixture of factors contributing to their offending behaviour. Those leaving custody are likely to have several inter-related resettlement requirements (accommodation, employment, training, health issues). Research evidence underlines the importance of multi-modal action addressing the full range of offenders' needs. • Offenders need continuity of engagement, and not just to be moved about from one person and agency to another. Good linkage between agencies is important. Integrated case management is one of the fundamental principles of NOMS, an aspiration that needs to be achieved for successful resettlement to become a reality. • Important though practical interventions are, successful resettlement is not just about practical support. Several studies refer to the importance of personal determination and resilience in resisting re-offending on release. Agencies can play a part in encouraging and reinforcing ex-prisoners’ own efforts. Not all offenders are equally capable of helping themselves, but this suggests a twin-track strategy of supporting those who have the capacity to help themselves, while targeting resources more effectively on those who are less capable. • Families and friends can play a vital role in providing supportive relationships, and the connections needed to obtain jobs. Research underlines the importance of sustaining those relationships through imprisonment, and on release. • The available literature points to the importance of not only addressing the needs of the offender, but also paying attention to the communities from which they come. Researchers point to the fact that commonly the communities to which prisoners return are disadvantaged, and need support in re-integrating offenders. This highlights the role that restorative justice might play in offender re-integration: a community which feels there has been some restoration and that there is the potential for offenders to contribute to community well being is more likely to support exoffenders. The NOMS vision agreed by the Chief Executive and Board in January 2005 refers to, ‘Engaging local communities in the management and resettlement of offenders’. In this context the voluntary and community sector has a crucial role to play, and the success of NOMS will be judged not only on how well the former prison and probation services work together, but the extent to which the VCS, and employers, become effective partners. • There is a need to extend provision for women offenders in the light of a significant increase in the numbers sent to, and leaving prison in recent years. Research highlights the need of women returning to the community for both practical support, and to repair, or sometimes avoid, damaged relationships. • For the majority of prisoners with mental health problems there is little follow-up post-release. Positive approaches to improving access to healthcare services for prisoners on release are needed. • There is a significant likelihood of people returning to drug use and crime quite soon after release if there is nothing in place at the time of release. The extent of drug misuse, and its close relationship to re-offending, means that treatment in prison needs to be linked directly to aftercare. • Recent research has focused on efforts to understand what factors have been instrumental in desistance from crime: what happens when people cease to offend. Although research in this area is still very much in progress, it indicates the importance of a holistic approach to offenders, and suggests that, as with re-entry courts in America, it is important to recognise the achievements of offenders who desist, as well as punishing failure. • A viable resettlement strategy needs to consider not only individual offenders, but also the social context in which resettlement takes place. This means combating social exclusion by ensuring that there is an adequate supply of social housing, of training opportunities relevant to the needs of offenders, and work with employers to ensure that job opportunities are available to ex-prisoners. Concern about resettlement has been fuelled by changes in sentencing and supervision in recent years, which have contributed to an increase in the numbers released from prison, from 45,557 in 1992 to 88,104 in 1999. Put simply, the larger the prison population, the bigger the problem of re-integration. Reducing the size of the prison population is therefore an important pre-requisite for a successful resettlement strategy Details: Layerthorpe, York. UK: York Publishing, 2006. 54p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 6, 2017 at: http://canatx.org/rrt_new/professionals/articles/CROW-RESETTLING%20PRISONERS.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://canatx.org/rrt_new/professionals/articles/CROW-RESETTLING%20PRISONERS.pdf Shelf Number: 141356 Keywords: Offender RehabilitationPrisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationPrisoner Resettlement |
Author: Simes, Jessica T. Title: Neighborhood Attainment After Prison Summary: Each year over 600,000 people leave prison and become residents of neighborhoods across the United States. Neighborhoods are spatial contexts to which people are socially connected, but imprisonment is fundamentally segregative. When this period of total institutionalization ends, people leaving prison have to forge new relationships to the labor market, with family and friends, the welfare system, the political system, as well as neighborhoods and communities. Due to challenges in observation and measurement, we do not fully understand how individuals establish relationships with place after prison. Combining census data and prison records with a longitudinal survey of people leaving prison and returning to the Greater Boston area, this paper examines mechanisms explaining the disparities in neighborhood attainment after a period of imprisonment. In the context of Greater Boston, black and Hispanic men and women leaving prison move into significantly more disadvantaged areas than their white counterparts, even after controlling for levels of pre-prison neighborhood disadvantage. Mitigating factors such as histories of employment and moving away from former neighborhoods improve neighborhood quality immediately after release from prison. Household dynamics are an important neighborhood sorting mechanism: living in concentrated disadvantage was more likely for those living in non-traditional households or group quarters. While 40 percent of respondents initially moved to only one of two neighborhoods in Boston, nearly 25 percent of respondents left prison and entered formal institutional settings, returned to prison, or lived in extreme social marginality throughout various locations in Greater Boston. Racial and ethnic differences in neighborhood sorting by household type- and the conditions of extreme marginality-are key mechanisms of neighborhood attainment during the precarious of period reentry. Details: Cambridge, MA: Department of Sociology, Harvard University, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2018 at: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/brucewestern/files/neighborhood_attainment_after_prison.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/brucewestern/files/neighborhood_attainment_after_prison.pdf Shelf Number: 149072 Keywords: Neighborhood AttainmentPrisoner ReentryPrisoner Reintegration |
Author: Leslie, Dacia Latoya Title: Criminal Recidivism in the Caribbean: improving the Reintegration of Jamaican Ex-Prisoners Summary: Finding ways to reintegrate ex-prisoners into Jamaican society is a pressing but complex social, economic and moral issue. This is due, not least, to the financial costs of prison recidivism and growing concern over the Jamaican state's capacity to meet the needs of a large number of its citizens subject to forced repatriation to their homeland by overseas jurisdictions due to their offending. The absence of a mature and reliable evidence base about the extent and nature of criminal recidivism in Jamaica also contributes to the challenges faced by policy makers and service providers seeking to reduce incidence of crime. This is in part related to the dearth of research on what is a sizeable and multi-faceted subject matter which has impeded a more decisive and progressive political and policy response. While there are generic criminological themes in regard to recidivism, desistance and reintegration of offenders that cross international boundaries (see Harriott 2000; Headley 2006), there remains the not inconsiderable challenge of identifying culturally specific features that bear upon crime and the policies and programmes that might encourage sustained abstinence from offending and which could be better served by a distinctive Caribbean criminological epistemology. To that end, this exploratory study seeks to offer insights into the social worlds of male and female offenders in Jamaica in order to better understand what they deem to be the influences that led them to crime and those which might at least assist them in desisting from law-breaking. The study is based upon a largely qualitative research design comprising semi-structured interviews and focus groups. Some 54 inmates participated who had received more than one prison sentence and in that sense are termed here a 'recidivist', albeit the contested nature of this term and related key concepts such as desistance and reintegration will be subject to scrutiny in the early chapters of this thesis. One other inmate who could not be regarded a prison recidivist mainly because he was awaiting trial on this his second time in prison was interviewed in prison and added to the study. All 55 interviews and most focus groups were conducted with persons being held in three of Jamaica's maximum security correctional facilities. In addition, eighteen other individuals who had managed to stay out of prison following their release were interviewed within the community. A further set of interviews were conducted with 17 organisational leaders and spokespeople representing state and voluntary agencies engaged in the process of offender reintegration. Their perspectives reveal illuminating contrasts with those provided by the ex-prisoners about the likely ingredients of an effective return to a life without serious offending. The findings will hopefully assist policy makers and professionals in thinking about the steps that might be taken to tackle Jamaica's high rate of serious crime. As the findings will suggest, such steps must involve a renewed understanding, sense of belief and commitment towards effective reintegration. Additionally, there needs to be a more robust conviction that persons leaving prison can indeed change but that they face embedded hostility and exclusion from a number of quarters. This study provides insights into why ex-prisoners believe that there is resistance amongst influential others in the community to accepting them as 'reformed'. Such perspectives should assist local agencies in better understanding the impact of negative community attitudes and point to ways to counter social exclusion and help promote effective reintegration. Moreover, the findings point to the importance of strategies at national and local level that can bestow upon ex-prisoners a more meaningful sense of belonging and positive citizenship that can help reinforce the reintegration process. Throughout, the voices and experiences of the ex-prisoners come to the fore to challenge accepted policy and criminological wisdoms and to point out the need for more creative and determined initiatives to help people from prison find a new and better future. Details: Cardiff, UK: Cardiff University, 2016. 382p. Source: Internet Resource: Dissertation: Accessed May 7, 2018 at: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/93842/ Year: 2016 Country: Jamaica URL: http://orca.cf.ac.uk/93842/ Shelf Number: 150084 Keywords: Prisoner ReentryPrisoner ReintegrationRecidivism |
Author: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism Title: Action Agenda on Violent Extremist Offenders in Prison in Mali: Gaps, Challenges and Action Plans for the Rehabilitation & Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders in Prison in Mali Summary: he violent conflict in Mali, initiated in 2012, is complex and continuously evolving: the groups involved include terrorist organisations such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), Mouvement pour l'Unicite and le Jihad en Afrique de l'Ouest (MUJAO), Ansar Dine, its affiliate Macina Liberation Front (MLF), and Al Mourabitoune. As the number of extremist detainees has increased due to the country's situation, it is important to consider issues that come along with this: how to deal with violent extremists when they are in prison? What different actors can play a role during this detention time? As most of the detainees will eventually be released, it is also important to take into consideration challenges linked to re-integration. This Action Agenda aims to address a number of these issues by outlining four Action Areas that currently deserve the attention of both national and international actors in order to efficiently deal with problems associated with detaining Violent Extremist Offenders (VEOs). In August 2016, UNICRI conducted an assessment mission in Mali to present its programme on Rehabilitation & Reintegration of Violent Extremist Offenders, developed within the framework of the UN Counter-Terrorism Implementation Task Force (CTITF). The presentation was addressed to key national and international stakeholders and aimed to ensure their engagement. From September 2016 onwards, ICCT and UNICRI joined their efforts in Mali on Reintegration and Rehabilitation (R&R) of violent extremists. Three trainings have been jointly organised so far: first, a training on the psychological aspects of violent extremism for prison staff in the Central Prison of Bamako (December 2016); second, a training for religious leaders on radicalisation (April 2017); and third, a training on risk assessment with a special focus on violent extremism for personnel of the National Prison Administration, DNAPES (August 2017). These training workshops have been designed in close consultation with national authorities and international partners, such as the Justice and Correction Section of the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA/JCS). Throughout the needs assessment mission and training workshops, and in consultation with different actors on the ground, ICCT and UNICRI have identified four target areas that deserve the attention of both national and international actors, namely (1) increasing awareness of the causes and consequences of violent extremism in the Malian context, (2) intake and risk assessment of violent extremist offenders, (3) empowerment of youth leaders, and (4) disengagement of VEOs through vocational training and engagement of communities through dialogue sessions in prison. These areas will be further discussed below, outlining specific actions recommended to increase capacity building, intensify inter-agency cooperation and coordination, and design and implement an R&R program, all using research to ensure that actions are tailored to local needs and guided by an evidence-based approach. This Action Agenda is composed of three sections: the first briefly discusses the background of the conflict in Mali as well as some of the issues faced in Mali with regards to VEOs in prison. The second section describes the four Action Areas and outlines proposed activities to address concerns and needs identified by ICCT and UNICRI throughout the initiatives implemented by both organisations so far. Finally, next steps and recommendations will be discussed. Details: The Hague: ICCT, 2018. 21p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 30, 2018 at: https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mali-Action-Agenda-2.pdf Year: 2018 Country: Mali URL: https://icct.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Mali-Action-Agenda-2.pdf Shelf Number: 150408 Keywords: ExtremistsPrisoner ReintegrationRehabilitationTerroristsViolent Extremists |
Author: O'Grady, William Title: Reintegration in Ontario: Practices, Priorities, and Effective Models Summary: The reintegration of individuals exiting correctional facilities (hereafter "releasees") in Ontario into the larger community has widespread implications for those being released, their families, and the broader society. While many releasees are in need of reintegrative supports, they often struggle to find stable housing, employment and/or educational opportunities, and access to necessary social, physical, and mental health services. Not only are these problems compounded by the social stigma of being labelled "an ex-offender" or "an ex-con", but also the lack of communication between stakeholders and a fragmented service provision model stretched across a large number of front-line service providers. Addressing the complex needs of releasees through effective programs, services and practices is crucial for successful reintegration. Research literature is clear that successful reintegration is one of the primary factors in reducing recidivism. Reduction in further criminal justice involvement by releasees has significant implications on enhancing community safety. The Association for Effective Reintegration in Ontario (AERO) was established in 2013 out of a larger Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council1 (SSHRC)-funded project entitled Navigating the Road to Reintegration which sought to create a research network to develop a long-term research agenda and knowledge mobilization plan, as well as a practicable policy framework that front-line service providers can readily utilize to begin the process of streamlining and optimizing reintegration efforts in Ontario. AERO's main object is to address reintegration issues throughout Ontario from the research and policy activities of its stakeholders (academics, front-line service providers, and other individuals from the community), in order to collaboratively develop practical solutions which would effect real change to the reintegration process. Over the last three years, AERO has undertaken several activities to mobilize its members and determine what they felt to be the most significant challenges releasees face, as well as identifying the best solutions for ensuring a successful transition from a correctional institution (hereafter prison) to the community. AERO members identify five main priority areas in reintegration: Discharge Planning, Housing, Employment and Education, Social Supports and Complex Needs, and Stigma. This document provides an overview of each priority area and the relevant research literature, while also highlighting many promising and innovative reintegration programs or practices currently being offered by community-based service providers across Ontario. We conclude with a discussion of the importance of the five priority areas for successful reintegration and emphasize the major themes emerging from the literature on effective reintegration practices and models which, we argue, should guide reintegration services and programming. Details: Ottawa: John Howard Society of Ontario, 2016. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed June 5, 2018 at: http://johnhoward.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Reintegration-in-Ontario-Final.pdf Year: 2016 Country: Canada URL: http://johnhoward.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Reintegration-in-Ontario-Final.pdf Shelf Number: 150469 Keywords: Prisoner Reentry Prisoner Reintegration |