Search results

Most prisoners are eventually returned to their communities, making their transition into the community and aftercare a fundamental aspect of successful re-entry. This paper aims to explore the stages of someone’s reintegration from pre-release, through to reintegration and desistance and consider the factors relevant to the re-entry process for those who have offended and how to enhance this process. The aim of this paper was twofold; first to highlight the various factors and issues involved in the re-entry and reintegration process, particularly for those who are released after imprisonment and, second, to consider the significance of aftercare services in facilitating this process.

This paper opted for a brief review of the literature regarding incarceration and reintegration and some of the gaps in the literature. This paper will commence with a discussion of the effects of imprisonment on those who are incarcerated, then a consideration of the re-entry process, followed by a discussion of the reintegration process and desistance. Following will be reflections regarding the implications for practice. A case study is used to illustrate these points.

The current paper proposes a framework by which organisations and service providers working with those who are released from prison can use or incorporate into their practice to enhance aftercare support. The case study is used as an example to further illustrate this.

Implications for practice are also considered as well as recommendations to aid the re-entry and aftercare process. Suggestions are also offered to those agencies that are responsible for the provision of aftercare services for those released from prison.

This paper offers some considerations regarding the importance of the preparing and planning for release with a specific focus on aftercare services and their role in the re-entry and reintegration process.

Purpose – This chapter describes the problem of and approaches to ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities exiting correctional custody. Although all ex-inmates must find housing and employment, persons with psychiatric disabilities require linkages to various health-related services and supports. These linkages are necessary, but it is unknown whether they are sufficient because discharge planning services and transition programs for ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities historically lack an evidence base.

Approach – After a decade, the first-generation re-entry programs for ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities have yielded little in the way of empirical data, but they have provided models for program expansion and imperatives for second-generation program assessment. Related research findings for first- and second-generation programs are highlighted with an emphasis on a unique statewide program in Massachusetts.

Findings – A review of the first- and second-generation programs suggests that progress has been slow in identifying empirically supported best practices for this population. There is a growing evidence base that community reintegration outcomes for ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities are the result of demographic and criminal history variations, yet implications of these variations needs further exploration in the realms of service access and receptivity as well as variations in postrelease adaptation.

Implications – More knowledge and innovative research is needed on the experience of ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities and social integration. Resources for cost effectiveness studies as well as long-term follow-up qualitative studies are necessary.

The support given to prisoners when they leave prison has a bearing on their success in starting a new life and on community safety. This paper aims to examine the community re‐entry experiences of ten people with an intellectual disability in Queensland, Australia.

The findings in this paper are part of a wider study on the life stories of ex‐prisoners with an intellectual disability. Seven male and three female participants with intellectual disability were interviewed using a semi‐structured life story method. Interviews were respectful of the communication styles of participants and involved multiple interview sessions, ranging from two to nine interviews per person. Data were analysed using narrative and thematic analysis with the assistance of NVivo 8 software.

Participants found the process of leaving prison an emotional event, often clouded with both confusion about when release was to occur, and uncertainly as to what they could expect on the outside. The need for concrete information and coordinated hands‐on assistance in negotiating supports in the community have significant implications for correctional and community services.

This study captures the perspectives of people with intellectual disability on community re‐entry. These perspectives are often overlooked in policy and practice developments in the field of corrections. Yet without understanding this group, the field is unable to address their particular needs.

The purpose of this paper is to explore treatment needs and factors contributing to engagement in substance use and sobriety among women with co-occurring substance use and major depressive disorders (MDDs) as they return to the community from prison.

The paper used qualitative methods to evaluate the perspectives of 15 women with co-occurring substance use and MDDs on the circumstances surrounding their relapse and recovery episodes following release from a US prison. Women were recruited in prison; qualitative data were collected using semi-structured interviews conducted after prison release and were analyzed using grounded theory analysis. Survey data from 39 participants supplemented qualitative findings.

Results indicated that relationship, emotion, and mental health factors influenced women's first post-prison substance use. Women attributed episodes of recovery to sober and social support, treatment, and building on recovery work done in prison. However, they described a need for comprehensive pre-release planning and post-release treatment that would address mental health, family, and housing/employment and more actively assist them in overcoming barriers to care.

In-prison and aftercare treatment should help depressed, substance using women prisoners reduce or manage negative affect, improve relationships, and obtain active and comprehensive transitional support.

Women with co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders are a high-risk population for negative post-release outcomes, but limited information exists regarding the processes by which they relapse or retain recovery after release from prison. Findings inform treatment and aftercare development efforts.

Community policing has been around for at least two decades now and it is safe to say that it has become, in large part, more about managing disruptive subjects and virtuous citizens than preventing crime or disorder (Crank, 1994; DeLeon-Granados, 1999; Yngvesson, 1993). While the rhetoric of community may be succeeding where the policing policy is failing, the experience has certainly contributed to the growth of homologous efforts that include community prosecution and community correction. We see a criminal justice system pro-actively seeking to blur the boundaries between its institutions and the communities they work within and, all too often, without. In recent years, there has been a rapid growth in justice approaches that turn their attention toward the community. There are literally hundreds of examples of this trend, from offender-victim reconciliation projects in Vermont and Minneapolis to ‘beat probation’ in Madison, Wisconsin; from neighborhood-based prosecution centers in Portland, Oregon, and New York City, to community probation in Massachusetts. Of course, the most well-known version of community justice is community policing, but localized projects involving all components of the justice system have been widely promoted (Clear & Karp, 1998, p. 3).Like community policing and community prosecution, community correction programs generally focus on partnering with service providers and community groups in order to more finely calibrate their service delivery. For community corrections the recent focus has been on delivering re-entry programs and expanding the availability of intermediate sanctioning options. The sheriff (above) focuses on re-entry, to link jails and communities in two ways: extending the correctional continuum into power-poor communities and increasing political support for expanding the criminal justice system in more affluent communities. Even as fiscal stress translates into budget cuts in education, housing, drug treatment, and other services, the reach of the criminal justice system expands outside the fences as new community-based partnerships and inside the fences as an increasingly program-rich environment. These partnerships are, not surprisingly as we shall see, dominated by criminal justice professionals and dependent on coercive control techniques. Further, their budgets are growing with funds in previous eras earmarked for providing many of the same services in a social welfare, rather, than social control, service delivery context. While these budgetary trends map a macro political trend from an old democratic New Deal toward a new republican new deal network of patronage relationships (see Lyons, forthcoming 2004), this paper examines the micro politics of community corrections developing within an increasingly punitive American political-culture.

Current thinking suggests that specialized services are needed for the successful community reintegration of ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities (Hartwell & Orr (1999). Psychiatric Services, 50, 1220–1222; Healey (1999). National Institute of Justice, February; Hartwell, Friedman, & Orr (2001). New England Journal of Public Policy, 19, 73–82). Nevertheless, stable community re-entry after criminal incarceration involves the response of multiple organizations due to the complexity of community re-entry factors. This chapter presents findings from the analysis of secondary data collected since 1998 and a qualitative interview study with ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities that identified pathways and turning points influencing community re-entry. Using Sampson and Laub's life course theory as a framework (Sampson & Laub (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harward University Press.), the pathways and turning points offer a point of departure for agencies and organizations in responding to ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities in the community. Pathways related to service needs at release include race, age, education, diagnosis, and criminal history; whether an individual is on probation or parole; and whether an individual has a history of homelessness, mental health services, and/or substance abuse. Turning points post release include institutional resource availability, living arrangements, psychotropic medication compliance, outpatient therapy and substance abuse treatment, and having entitlements and benefits in place at release.

Many young adults who drop out of school elect to re‐enter the secondary education system after a period of absence. Reports the findings from a survey of 215 providers of education to re‐entry students in three states of Australia. Few of these educational providers possess formal qualifications in adult education, but most hold favourable attitudes to working with students who return to school. In general, the re‐entry students were perceived to have high rates of academic success but also high rates of withdrawal. The study identified a number of challenges and problems associated with school re‐entry, and makes recommendations to enhance rates of re‐entry student participation, satisfaction and success. Emphasizes the advantages associated with re‐entering an “innovative” senior secondary environment, rather than a traditional high school.

This chapter examines the barriers to reentry for justice involved young people in the US and Australia from the perspectives of the 44 Australian and 14 US stakeholders who work with them. The interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis to identify key internal and external barriers. Results suggest a need for improvement in the areas of collaboration among systems, family engagement, and student self-determination. The discussion focuses on the similarities and differences in the barriers that exist across nations and systems. Implications for future research, practice, and policy are included to improve transition services and supports for juvenile justice involved youth.

This paper aims to provide a comparison of “old” democratic therapeutic communities, and “new” therapeutic communities for drug abuse.

The paper is a review of historical and cultural influences on therapeutic community development, with particular reference to leadership.

Free from bias, cultural, psychological or ideological, the next therapeutic communities should integrate elements of both old and new therapeutic communities, in a development strategy which assimilates, socializes and finally prepares the individual for full participation in the larger community. Within this strategy, a rational authority model is not inherently flawed but can provide a structured stage for corrective experience leading toward personal autonomy. Regardless of its particular form, however, the efficacy of the next therapeutic community will relate directly to the extent to which they incorporate the essential of its modern and ancient prototypes, that of community and healer and teacher.

The two main types of therapeutic community have tended to operate and develop separately. The author calls the rigid separation into question and identifies key shared elements.

There remains a gap in the research on the characteristics, service needs, and experiences of persons with mental illness post incarceration. This analysis uses data collected by the Massachusetts Forensic Transition Team program to describe the characteristics of the offenders with mental illness and to examine the relationship of particular characteristics towards community reintegration and adaptation post release from correctional custody. Length of incarceration (misdemeanor or felony sentence structure) and service needs at release are expected to be associated with the ability to adapt, stigma, and, in turn, short-term dispositions in the community or more structured settings.I first met Andrew in a medium security prison in the fall of 2001. He had spent the majority of his adult life in prison. During the first of three incarcerations, he served five years and was released to live in the community, which he did for almost a year, until he was re-arrested and sentenced for 2 more years. This time, when he was released, he was in the community for only 2 weeks before being arrested and re-incarcerated. Andrew grew up in South Boston. His family has a history of mental illness and alcoholism. Andrew is bipolar, suffering bouts of manic depression, and has a substance abuse problem. His drug of choice is cocaine, which he uses intravenously. He is HIV positive. He is in his early 30s. Andrew's current sentence is 5 years for 26 counts of malicious destruction of property and motor vehicle theft. While he is attempting to get his sentence revised based on his health status, he acknowledges he has difficulty living in the community. Of prison life he says, “I excel in here!” He works a half an hour a day sweeping his unit, “and then I have the rest of the day to myself”. Andrew is presentable and articulate. He participates in release planning. When he is in the community he seeks out appropriate services. Nonetheless, he has difficulty staying out of prison.