Community Residents' Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry in Selected Cleveland Neighborhoods

Brooks, Lisa E.; Visher, Christy A.; Naser, Rebecca L.

doi:10.1037/e716952011-001

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(5 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Toward this end, corrections officers are an important symbol and instrument of this transitional process. Studies demonstrate that prisoners are ill-prepared for reentry (Grommon, 2013), and that many returning offenders are unaware of the supports and services that are available to them (Brooks, Visher, & Naser, 2006). This is an unfortunate state of affairs given that most prisoners express a desire to desist from crime but often do not know how to arrange their lives in ways that support this goal (Schaefer, 2016;Shapland & Bottoms, 2011).…”

Section: Recommendation 10: Corrections Officers Should Facilitate Trmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correcting the “Correctional” Component of the Corrections Officer Role: How Offender Custodians Can Contribute to Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Schaefer

2017

Corrections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research demonstrates that for many individuals imprisonment fails to rehabilitate or deter, and may actually promote recidivism. What can be done to limit reoffending and improve reentry experiences? One malleable component of custodial corrections is the role of the corrections officer. Alterations in the practices of detention workers may significantly contribute to positive offender outcomes. Drawing from several disparate literatures, this article proposes ten recommendations for how to reform the role of corrections officers in ways that promote rehabilitation and reintegration. Discussed are ways in which corrections officers should emphasize correction, use cognitive behavioral techniques, embody other roles (crisis counsellors, health advocates, corrections counselors, and life coaches), encourage identity substitutions, suggest new routine activities, solicit crime controllers, and facilitate transitions.

show abstract

Section: Recommendation 10: Corrections Officers Should Facilitate Trmentioning

confidence: 99%

Correcting the “Correctional” Component of the Corrections Officer Role: How Offender Custodians Can Contribute to Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Schaefer

2017

Corrections

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thirty-three percent of Massachusetts residents stated that gradually releasing offenders through work release and halfway housing is “very effective” and an additional 47% said this process is “fairly effective” (Roberts et al, 2005). Cleveland residents participating in focus groups who lived in neighborhoods with high concentrations of returning offenders stressed housing as a major challenge for returning offenders and identified correctional halfway houses as a necessary intervention to improve post-release outcomes (Brooks, Visher, & Naser, 2006).…”

Section: Prior Research On Public Support For Transitional Housingmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Influences Public Support of Transitional Housing Facilities for Offenders During Reentry?

Garland

Wodahl

Saxon

2016

Criminal Justice Policy Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transitional housing facilities for released prison inmates have existed in the United States since the early 1800s and are a promising strategy to aid offender reintegration. One recurring obstacle to the successful implementation and sustainability of these facilities is public resistance. Unfortunately, very little is known regarding what influences public support or opposition specifically for offender-based transitional housing. The current study examines how support for transitional housing centers may vary among residents of a Midwestern state based on the proximity of the facility and the types of offenders living there. The study also examines a range of possible influences on support, including community factors, family-related considerations, correctional and political views, and demographic variables. The most consistent influence on acceptance of transitional housing centers was general support for helping offenders during reentry. Other variables with more limited effects were an emphasis on services and programming over monitoring and surveillance during reentry, having a close family member imprisoned, age, and education level. Implications of these findings and directions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

“…The theoretical link between unemployment and crime is well documented (e.g., Bushway & Reuter, 2006;Fagan & Freeman, 1999;Uggen, 1999;Uggen & Staff, 2001). Returning citizens face significant challenges in obtaining and keeping a job (Brooks, Visher, & Naser, 2006;Center for Policy Research, 2006;Good & Sherrid, 2005;La Vigne & Kachnowski, 2005;La Vigne, Visher, & Castro, 2004;Petersilia, 2003;Piehl, 2003;Solomon, Visher, La Vigne, & Osborne, 2006;Travis, 2005;Visher & Courtney, 2007), and unemployment rates in this population are high (La Vigne et al, 2004;Visher & Kachnowski, 2007). Returning citizens face a "catch-22"-the stigma of their conviction may limit their ability to secure a job and increase the appeal of the illegal labor market (e.g., Freeman, 1995), yet participation in the legitimate workforce has the potential to improve reentry outcomes and facilitate desistance from crime through the development of prosocial bonds and social capital (M. R. Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990;Hirschi, 1969;Sampson & Laub, 1993;W.…”

Section: Challenges Of Reentrymentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving the Success of Reentry Programs

Gill

Wilson

2016

Criminal Justice and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Returning citizens face significant barriers to reintegration after incarceration, yet evidence for the effectiveness of reentry programs is limited. A possible explanation is the lack of specificity in matching services to individuals’ unique risk and need profiles. To assess the impact of this “service–need fit” on both self-reported and official recidivism, we conducted a secondary analysis of data from the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) evaluation using propensity score modeling and logistic regression. Increased fit was significantly associated with reduced recidivism for both types of outcome. We also found that fewer than half of the participants received the services they said they needed. Our findings are based on self-reported needs and services rather than clinical risk assessments. However, service–need fit appears to be an important determinant of successful reentry. Future research should focus on optimizing the combination and tailoring of services and integrating perceived need with actuarial assessments.

show abstract

Community Residents' Perceptions of Prisoner Reentry in Selected Cleveland Neighborhoods

Abstract: is a principal research associate in the Justice Policy Center at the Urban Institute. She is principal investigator of the multistate Returning Home project and is also co-principal investigator of a national evaluation of prisoner reentry programs.

Cited by 13 publications

References 3 publications

Correcting the “Correctional” Component of the Corrections Officer Role: How Offender Custodians Can Contribute to Rehabilitation and Reintegration

Correcting the “Correctional” Component of the Corrections Officer Role: How Offender Custodians Can Contribute to Rehabilitation and Reintegration

What Influences Public Support of Transitional Housing Facilities for Offenders During Reentry?

Improving the Success of Reentry Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About