RUNNING HEAD Prisoner Reentry Programs & Recidivism RatesPhilli.docx

RUNNING HEAD: Prisoner Reentry Programs & Recidivism
Rates
Phillips
28
Chapter 1: Introduction
The first era of the twenty-first century underwent a
melodramatic acceleration in federal funding for reentry
resourcefulness, beginning with the Serious and Violent
Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI), followed by the Prisoner
Reentry Initiative (which concentrated on occupational
grounded programming), the Marriage and Incarceration Act
(proposing household programming for imprisoned men, and the
Second Chance Act (highlighting provisional amenities for
formerly confined adult and juvenile offenders) (Lattimore et al,
2010). With the recent change with some of the former
initiatives, it is still too premature to assess how they are
functioning. Though there is still hesitation over the best
delivery for reentry services, the need for some type of aid is
clear. Many recidivists are released from imprisonment into
some form of observation into the community (Travis 2005).
Returning criminals face copious and formidable challenges as
they return to their households and societies.
Statement of the Problem
As a higher number of individuals are released from
correctional facilities and reenter society, reentry programs can
help former offenders reintegrate into society without
participating in criminal activity. Inmates will face specify as
they attempt to changeover from correctional facilities back to
the society. Some of the obstacles include living
accommodations, employment, substance abuse and mental
health issues. These issues present daunting difficulties to
offenders as they attempt to reenter back into the community.
Without adequate convict reentry programs, upon release from

the prison industrial complex, former inmates experience
complications seeking employment and acclimating to society,
causing them to recidivate shortly after release. Ultimately,
these ex-convicts become victims of recidivism, in most cases
shortly after their release.
Purpose for the Study
Rehabilitation policies resurfaced as a goal of U.S. correctional
institutions after more than 20 years of their being focused on
dissuasion and helplessness, with rehabilitative efforts directed
predominantly to substance abuse treatment (Lattimore &
Steffey, 2010). Because of so many offenders’ recidivating and
not finding employment, housing, no family support and no
substance abuse treatment, many of them relapse. They are
forced to wander the streets, directionless, surrounded by the
same criminal environment that previously led to their
illegitimacy. Statistics have shown that reentry programs
decreases recidivism. Therefore, it is essential that correctional
facilities establishment, initiate, and maintain mandatory
reentry programs that will assist in the decrease of the
recidivism rate.
Reappearance has become the new exhortation in correctional
reform, or at least in Washington, D.C. it is rational to say that
the notion means numerous things to countless individuals, and
has varying levels of significance to innumerable assistances
(Austin, 2001). This study will help ex-offenders be able to
come back into the community and become a part of society in a
positive way. The benefits of coming back into a free
community are being their own person, personal housing, and
employment, coming and going as they please but more so being
a productive member of society.
Research Questions
This study aims to answer the following questions:
• What types of prisoner re-entry programs exist?
• Statistically, how effective are prisoner reentry programs?
• Are there any alternative programs which focus on
decreasing recidivism within the communities? (i.e. community

outreach, half-way houses)
• How are reentry programs structured?
• How likely are ex-offenders who participate in reentry
programs to recidivate?
• What are the policy implications of reentry programs?
Hypothesis
Previously incarcerated who partake in prisoner reentry
programs are less likely to recidivate than those who do not. As
a parent or mentor would say, “The busier you are, the less
trouble you’ll be in.” Participating in programs provide ex-
offenders a second chance at life or to some, making things
right. Programs such as Residential Reentry Centers (RRC) that
helps ex-inmates transitions back into the community. The RRC
provisions inmates gradually to rebuild their ties to the
community and facilitate supervising ex-offenders activities
during this readjustment phase. Ex-offenders are given
assistance to find stable employment, living arrangements, and
other preparation resources. Some inmates will be eligible
clothing, and money for transportation to their release
destination.
Definition of Terms
The below listed ‘definition of terms’ have the purpose of
assisting a reader with more comprehensive understanding of
the concepts utilized in this proposal.
· Abscond: To flee to avoid capture by leaving a particular
jurisdiction. It is often associated with fugitives after the
commission of a crime (Anderson, Mangels, Langsam, & Dyson,
2002).
· Acclimate: To accustom to a new climate or to new conditions
(Lexicon Publications, 1992).
· Community: A body of people living near one another in a
social relationship (Lexicon Publications, 1992).
· Community corrections: The spectrum of sentencing
alternatives that permit the convicted offender to remain in the
community as opposed to serving time in a remote correctional
facility. Community corrections include, but are not limited to,

community based correctional facilities, half-way houses, day
reporting centers, probation and parole (Davis, 2002).
· Employment: Work done, or to be done, by someone
employed, work as livelihood (Lexicon Publications, 1992).
· Felony: A serious criminal offense, specifically one carrying a
punishment of by death or by imprisonment in a prison facility
for a year or more (Schmalleger, 1999).
· Halfway house: A community based correctional sentence that
provides food, clothing, shelter, counseling and a job
assignment to offenders who are released from prison and are
trying to reintegrate or transition back into the free community
(Anderson, Mangels, Langsam, & Dyson, 2002).
· Inmates: An incarcerated offender (Anderson, Mangels,
Langsam, & Dyson, 2002).
· Institution: The building or building housing such an
organization (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006).
· Institutional Review Boards (IRB): College/university studies
that administer and guarantee ethical research standards (Hagan,
2014).
· Meta-analysis: Statistical analysis of data from many different
studies dealing with the same research question in order to
determine general findings (Hagan, 2014).
· Misdemeanor: An unlawful crime that is less serious than a
felony and is indictable by imprisonment, usually in a local
confinement facility, typically for a year or less (Schmalleger,
1999).
· National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS): A survey
conducted yearly by the Bureau of Justice Statistics that
provides data on surveyed households that report they were
unnatural by crime (Schmalleger, 1999).
· Offender: One that offends, especially one that breaks a public
law (Houghton Mifflin Company, 2006).
· Parole: A method of prison release whereby convicts are
released at the discretion of a board or other power before
having completed their entire sentences (Bohm & Haley, 1997).
· Parolee: A person who has been released into the free

community subject to the conditions of parole (Anderson,
Mangels, Langsam, & Dyson, 2002).
· Parole officer: An agent who provides supervision over an
offender who has been released from a sentence of
imprisonment. In some jurisdictions, parolees must make
regular visits with their parole officers. They are instrumental
in the revocation process (Anderson, Mangels, Langsam, &
Dyson, 2002).
· Pretest: Exploratory test of an instrument on subjects who are
similar to the group to be studied (Hagan, 2014).
· Prison: The substitute is a sentence of 2 to 4 years, of which
the lawbreaker will serve only about 3 to 6 months. During this
term, the lawbreaker is not required to work or to participate in
any training or treatment but may do so voluntarily (Peak,
2010).
· Prison Industrial complex: The extensive financial and
political enterprise represented by the correctional system
(Davis, 2002).
· Prisoner: Convicted offenders sentenced to state or federal
confinement facilities (Anderson, Mangels, Langsam, & Dyson,
2002).
· Probation: An alternative to imprisonment, allowing a person
found guilty of an offense to stay in the community, under
conditions and with supervision (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer,
2010).
· Recidivism: The replication of illegal behavior (Schmalleger,
1999).
· Recidivism Rate: The percentage of imprisoned lawbreakers
who have been unconfined from prison and who are later
arrested for a new crime, generally within three years following
release (Schmalleger, 1999).
· Reentry: The return and adjustment of an offender released
from prison (Davis, 2002).
· Rehabilitation: The challenge to “correct” the disposition and
conduct of imprisoned lawbreakers through educational,
professional, or healing treatment and to return them to society

as law-abiding citizens (Bohm & Haley, 1997).
· Reincarceration: The state of being imprisoned again as the
result of another conviction, or a probation or parole violation
(Anderson, Mangels, Langsam, & Dyson, 2002).
· Reintegration: The process of rebuilding former ties to the
community and establishing new ties after release from prison
(Bohm & Haley, 1997).
· Society: Any number of people associated together
geographically, racially, or otherwise collective interests
(Lexicon Publications, 1992).
· Uniform Crime Report (UCR): A Federal Bureau of
Investigation data-gathering initiative that provides an annual
tally of statistics consisting primarily of information on crimes
reported to the police and on arrests (Schmalleger, 1999).
Limitations of the Study
Penitentiaries would only be accountable for providing simple
agendas to expand prisoner’s education level and other services
to develop the prisoners’ capability to secure occupation if they
chose to participate (Austin, 2001). While the inquiries prose
concerning reentry is subjugated by prison releases; local
confinements process many more lawbreakers which indicates
evidence supporting reentry amenities for this populace. In spite
of the fact that most prisoners are imprisoned for petite
distances of time in local confinement versus penitentiaries.
Additionally, when research data is dependent on written
reports, those reports should be carefully scrutinized for the
most updated data, as older reports do not reflect the most
accurate data. As some reports are written with a focus on data
favorable to the desires of a particular organization on must
carefully analyze data for accuracy. This quasi-experimental
study proposal associated adequate contributors with inadequate
contributors, we cannot rule out the likelihood that self-
selection into treatment clarifies the lower rate of new
principles among contributors (Wikoff, Linhurst, & Morani,
2012). Unfortunately, as studies are going on, gender isn’t
distinguished.

Chapter 2: Review of the Literature
This chapter provides an exhaustive review of the
literature on prisoner reentry, its apologies, effectiveness,
participation requirements and alternative programs. According
to “The concise dictionary of crime and justice,” re-entry is
defined as the return and adjustment of an offender released
from prison. Reentry is being released back into the community
from which offenders come. According to Seiter and Kadela
(2003) well-defined reentry more scarcely to include only
programs that precisely focus on the evolution from penitentiary
to public and link with a community program to provide
continuity of care.
Types of Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
Re-entry curriculums fluctuate significantly in
arrangement, service providing, and consumers assisted,
although most began working with lawbreakers before they are
unconfined (Katel, 2009, Wheeler & Patterson, 2008, Wilson &
Davis, 2006). According to the Austin, all states have some
form of a pre-release program, but they contrast on a number of
significant proportions. For most states contribution in the

program is professional and is accessible to a minor percentage
of convicts who can get transported to what are typically
minimum-security amenities. Working with eight specific states
about pre-release programs. Those specifics states are
California, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Washington. Here are a list of programs: Education,
Job Readiness, Community Resources, Substance Abuse and
Housing. They also have furlough options such as Education,
Family and other. The table is very specific and goes into
detail about each program and day’s years of participation in a
program before released. For each state listed above, there were
many, many different programs for each and it is narrowed
down by city. A few programs for each state and what each
program does to help ex-offenders become a member of society
again are included (See Appendix A).
According to Kilgore (2015), a program in California
called “A New Way of Life in Los Angeles,” focuses on
incarcerated people but exclusively serves women. This
program is funded by Susan Burton, who herself spent many
years behind bars. This service provides a path to reentry for
women coming out of prison while also functioning as an
advocacy group for the rights of the formerly incarcerated.
The Effectiveness of Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
There are varied views on the effectiveness of prisoner re-
entry programs. Zhang et al (2006) disputed that re-entry
programs are best effective when they fittingly match services
to criminals’ needs, particularly the needs of those who face the
greatest jeopardy at recidivism. With prisoners awaiting re-
entry programs to submit referrals before entering back into
society, community-based programs provided more referrals
than the program and drug testing were implemented more
because of it. While on parole, ex-offenders tested negative
when seeing a parole officer and less likely to be re-arrested
after parole because of re-entry programs. Effective programs
integrate intensive behavior and perceptive methodologies to
reassure prosocial behavior while staff offer maintenance and

reassurance to reinforcement criminals’ transformed way of life
(Gendreau et al., 1996). Jensen and Kane (2010) assessed an in-
prison therapeutic public that facilitated inmates to develop
healthy functioning, abilities, and principles as well as progress
their bodily and emotive health.
The re-entry program providing more recommendations to
community-based services than the penitentiary or release on
parole services and it also amplified drug-testing regularity
during parole. Zhang et al (2006) discussed that re-entry
agendas are most fruitful when they suitably match services to
criminals’ needs, specifically the needs of those who face the
maximum jeopardy of reoffending.
Structures for the Re-Entry Programs
Several structures for re-entry programs exist.
Community-based, prison-based, and parole-based curricula
occur, as do programs that combine penitentiary, early release,
and community facilities. Some agendas assist applicants with
one exact need, such as service, covering, or substance abuse
education, whereas other agendas offer various amenities to
meet participants’ self-identified needs. Program measurements
also contrasts broadly, ranging from weekend modules to
demanding case management over several years (Wheeler &
Patterson, 2008; Wilson & Davis, 2006). Without other
substitutions, offenders most likely put themselves back into
atmospheres that are not conductive to their reintegration
(Rodriguez and Brown 2003; Bradley et al. 2001). As Petersilia
(2003) notes, for some jurisdictions re-entry involves specific
programs and services and for others it simply describes the
process of parole. In an ideal model, re-entry programs should
include three or more phases designed to transition the inmate
into the community (Taxman, Young, & Byrne, 2003). The first
phase would begin in the institution with service delivery
congruent within the inmate’s needs. The second phase would
begin as the inmate is released from the institution. The
inmate’s risk and needs may change significantly as he or she
enters the community context. Ideally, the individual would

continue in treatment service and case plans would be updated
as needed. The final phase is an after care or relapse prevention
phase where clients would receive ongoing support and services
to address their needs (Taxman et al. 2003).
Offenders Participation requirements for Reentry Programs
For most states, participation in the curriculum is
voluntary and is available to only inconsequential number of
inmates who can get transferred to what are typically minimum-
security facilities (Austin, 2001). The incentive to participation
is a reduction in sentencing for those few convicts who are
exposed to a re-entry type initiative, the context almost always
include exposure to learning, job readiness, substance abuse
counseling, and information on resources available in the
community from other state, local, and private agencies. Two
years prior to release, some re-entry programs are introduced
while others are commenced a small number of weeks before
release. All prisoners obtain a nominal level of monetary
provision that groups from twenty-five dollars to two hundred
dollars plus attire and means of transportation to some location
within the state.
Programs such as Project Re-Connect (PRC), Living
Insurance for Ex-Offenders (LIFE) and Transitional Aid
Research Project (TARP) have monetary incentives that help ex-
offenders with housing, finding employment, and transportation.
PRC is a voluntary prisoner program that gives direct monetary
support up to six months of being in the program. LIFE and
TARP have mixed support. The programs provide monetary
compensation but it had no set time frame or an amount each
offender received. The Second Chance Act of 2007 and
Preventing Parolee Crime Program (PPCP) do not offer
monetary incentives through their programs but do offer
employment services, housing, and substance abuse treatment.
All of these programs are very beneficial to successful reentry.
Policy Implications of Reentry Programs
It is imperative that these policies are introduced to
escalate treatment and operation among bound offenders. They

should lecture the exclusive trials facing this populace as they
return to the public. Strategy producers and correctional
commissioners will need to be cognizant that both the
organizational and traditional variations found in societies will
require involvements very different from those found.
Classifying and addressing the criminogenic needs of prisoners
is supreme regardless of where the lawbreaker calls home.
Because of the absence of behavior available in many societies,
it is crucial that specialists view the imprisonment as a prospect
for mediation (Leukefeld et al. 2002).
Understanding services available in societies will require
officials to have adequate knowledge/familiarity of each inmate
under their control. It is necessary that the staff take the
opportunity to address the cultural barriers that might prevent
the offender from seeking assistance in the community. While
financial certainties make this an improbable resolution, one
apparent resolution would be to increase government spending
to ensure the availability of treatment options in all societies.
Instead, experts will need to look for unconventional answers to
this problem. One selection that has received attention in mental
health writings has been the utilization of technology provided
that services are in isolated areas.
Alternative Programs
Unfortunately, alternative programs for re-entry into the
community are exceptionally limited. There are halfway
houses, community corrections, and career centers. With
community outreach, they have free programs but can only take
in a certain amount of people at a time. Halfway housing can
only intake a certain number of people as well. With halfway
housing, the room is rented out and the parolee must check in
with their parole officer. In order to say halfway house, the
parolee must have a stable income, employment and for some be
able to stay clean and sober while participating in a substance
abuse treatment. Career centers help guide the person into the
right direction. They provide several options for job readiness,
employment, and substance abuse programs. Administrators

who help with these programs make sure education comes first.
If a parolee does not have a high school diploma, they are
enrolled into General Education Development courses (GED).
Most jobs in today’s society require a high school diploma for
applicants.
Chapter 3: Research Design
To carry out this study, a meta-analysis will be used.
Meta-analysis is a statistical analysis from various studies in
response to the same research question to conclude general
findings. This chapter the methodology that will be employed in
carrying out this study. Discussion of the study’s population,
sample, measurement, instruments, data collection, and analysis
as well as procedures for executing the study will be discussed.
According to Austin, the objective is to enforce a reality check
on the indefinite conversation on how to design and instrument
favorable reentry programs and strategies.
Population
In this study, the population will be African Americans
and Caucasians adults ages 18-40. They will be held in prison
industrial complexes in eight states. Those states will be
California, Georgia, Missouri, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Texas, and Washington, which collectively have a reentry
population of 500. Each state has its own representation of
numbers. California 100, Georgia 100, Missouri 50, Nevada 25,
Ohio 25, Pennsylvania 50 Texas 100, and Washington 50. With
each state having very high numbers that will be held and what
programs they have participated in. Along with explaining the
demographics, Appendix B will explain what the Uniform Crime
Reports (UCR) are. These states represented were founded on
preexisting affiliations with the Institute of Crime, Justice and
Corrections and their correctional administrators, the diversity
in their demographics, crime, arrest, and incarceration rates;
and their sentencing and discharge practices. Depending where
an inmate is released from, each state has different or little to
no programs for pre-release. For code reason, A=Adults,
AA=African Americans, and C=Caucasians will be used.

However, roughly about 400,000 inmates are discharged from
penitentiaries each year; there’s roughly an identical quantity
remanded to penitentiaries on a yearly basis. These inmates
derive from two main criminal justice bases: the court and
parole boards. Conventionally, a mainstream of convicts are by
own admission to penitentiary as a new law court obligation,
detonating that they have been punished to penal by the courts.
Only using A=Adults for descriptive details representing men
and women.
Sample
The sampling technique will be quota sampling. Quota sampling
is the unconventional model that does not use probability. The
researcher attempts to ensure that sample quantities for example
age, sex, and race resemble those in the population (Hagan,
2014). In addition, crime rate and prison population will be
included in the sample selection. The total sample will be
N=500. These states all share the same prisoner reentry
programs and offenders released from prison during a time
period of July 1, 2016 until August 1, 2017.
Measurement/Variables
The variables for this study will be prisoner reentry and
recidivism. The independent variable is prisoner reentry
programs and the dependent variable is recidivism. Recidivism
may be defined by means of rearrests rates, incarceration
(imprisonment or jail) rates, or other measures that could yield
diverse assessments of the success or failure of programs
(Hagan, 2014, p.17). Both variables will be measured by a
nominal level. Nominal is defined as a dimension that place
responses in mutually exclusive categories and have no precise
findings (Hagan, 2014, p.396). The data will come from the
eight different states that specifically look at attributes, persons
going to state prison, prison populations, average daily
population, key prison indicators, pre-release programs, prison
releases, and parole/community supervision populations and
releases. These figures come from the prisons information that
is gathered over a period of time. See Appendix C for the full

extent of the context.
Instruments
Five studies of prisoner reentry programs will be
examined. Study number one examines California. In California,
inmates who have returned to prison for violation or new crime
examines one third of the state’s prison population. Study
number two examines Texas. Texas will have somewhat of a
unique program. Once a prisoner is granted parole, he or she
may relocate to one of the several accommodations that will be
nominated as discharge entities. Study number three examines
Pennsylvania. The prerelease program is voluntary with certain
restraints. Study number four examines Washington, D.C and
Nevada. Washington has “The Offender Accountability Act”
which requires all inmates released from incarceration evaluated
by risk and needs. Whereas Nevada has no official prerelease
program. Convicts will be given $25 and transport to the city
which they plan to be located in. Lastly, study number five
examines report the number of states that have a substantial
number of non-conditional releases, which means release with
no supervision requirements, these conditions exist in Georgia.
The type of instruments that will be used during this meta-
analysis are variables lists, dummy tables, questionnaires, and
mailed surveys. A variables list is used in the initial rough draft
of the survey. A dummy table is a preliminary blank table that
is constructed prior to the data gathering, it suggest the type of
data required and the analysis. Questionnaires are used to gather
data using open-ended and closed-ended questions.
Questionnaires are also self-administered through mail, in
which the participant is provided a stamped addressed return
envelope enclosed. These surveys were mailed to the five states
prisons complexes and administered to the inmates for data
gathering.
Data Collection
The data will come from five different studies that
specifically look at attributes, persons going to state prison,
prison populations, average daily population, key prison

indicators, pre-release programs, prison releases, and
parole/community supervision populations and releases. These
figures come from the prisons information that was gathered
over time. See Appendix C for the full extent of the content.
The five studies conducted across the following states:
California, Georgia, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
Washington. Study number one wants to investigate the number
of parole failures in those states which reflects why convicts are
oblige to serve some system of parole-like regulation. In
addition, commitment to investigative procedures (drug testing
particular) which is designed to catch what was previous
undetected and unnoticeable forms of criminal conduct. In the
near future, Texas will assign inmates partaking in these
programs to facilities with least supervision and will be
released from penitentiary in the near forthcoming. Texas hoped
to report within the next 3 years’ incarceration rate will drop
from a high of 50% from 2016 release to a low of 30% to 2019
releases. Pennsylvania hoped to report a 3-year incarceration
rate from 50% to 39% from 2016 to 2019 releases.
Washington’s DOC (Dept. of Corrections) would habit the
Level of Service Inventory-Revised (LSI-R) to screen prisoners
for menace at admittance to regulate the equal of programming
the prisoner will receive is appropriate within their custody.
Under the status’s sentencing regulation, prisoners will aid
somewhere from 70% to 95% of their sentences. Once the
inmate is within 2-3 years of announcement date, the DOC will
pledge a proposal that will incorporate an eventual release from
prison. With Nevada, once the ex-offender reach arrival, they
have to report to the local law enforcement support as ex-
convicts and carry identification that specifies such. This
information will be collected through surveys sent to each
penitentiary participating in the program.
Analyzing Data
Though the use of SPSS of data such as crime typologies
including assault, homicide, and larceny within this study, age
of offender, race of offender, time served, geography, gender,

and program offering will be taken into consideration will be
analyzed. Also within the study, the research will be a look of
correlations among these variables. For example, age: race or
age: crime. The age of offenders in each state will be calculated
at a median. The ages will be added up and divided to meet a
median age for the entire representation. Race of offenders are
black and white. Each prisons population and release statistics
will be analyzed. The programs that offered in the prison will
be analyzed such as education, job readiness, community
resources, substance abuse, and housing. In each state, there
will be reports of what is offered and how much time before
release to start the program. In each state, there will be an
account of inmates being released in specific cities. Examples
of the cities will be for California: Los Angeles, San Diego, &
San Bernardino, Nevada: Las Vegas & Carson City,
Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh & Philadelphia, Texas: Houston,
Dallas, & Ft. Worth, and Washington: Seattle, Tacoma, &
Spokane. As future studies go on, there will be more distinguish
between individuals with crime, age, and race. The studies are
being measured as a median and can only extrapolate
information from those numbers as a whole.
List of Steps
Once approval to conduct this study has been granted, the
following procedures will be enacted:
• Compile data from the studies
• Organize data based on socio-demographics and reentry vs.
socio-demographics and recidivism
• Create tables, charts, and graphs
• Review and revisit the literature
• Draw conclusions

Appendix A
Resources for released parolees
California
Allied Fellowship Services
1524 29th Ave
Oakland, CA 94601
510-535-1236
[email protected]
Employment services available to former prisoners include
employment workshop, health education, drug counseling, and
job board. There is also a residential home for men with 30
beds.
Alternative Media Network
1827 Haight St.
P.O. Box 202
San Francisco, CA 94117
415-995-4692
Publishes a “San Francisco Survival Manual” including a
“Behind Bars” category. Send self-addressed stamped envelope
and request to receive the catalog of other available
publications.
Barrios Unidos
1817 Soquel Ave.
Santa Cruz, CA 95062
831-457-8208

831-457-0389
http://www.barriosunidos.net
Post-release services. Performs Pow-wow/Cinco De
Mayo/uneteenth ceremonies at Tracy and info packet related to
cultural traditions.
Berkeley Oakland Support Services (BOSS)
P.O. Box 1996
Berkeley, CA 94701
510-649-1930
Email: [email protected]f-sufficiency.org
This agency offers pre-release and parole planning.
California Food Policy Advocates
116 New Montgomery St. Suite 633
San Francisco, CA 94105
415-777-4422
www.cfpa.net
Pre-release and parole planning services available only in the
Bay area. Publishes How to Get Food and Money, The People’s
Guide to Welfare, Health and Other Services in California, and
Como Obtener Dinero y Alimentos: La Guide Popular Para of
Welfare, Services Medicos y Otros Services en California.
Provides information on welfare, social security, food stamps,
and agencies that provide emergency aid.
Seventh Step Foundation-East Bay Chapter
475 Medford Ave.
Hayward, CA 94541
510-278-0230
This organization has a re-entry program called Freedom House
that provides parolees with housing meals, clothing, and
employment.

Georgia
Crison Ministries with Women
465 Blvd., SE
Atlanta, GA 30312
404-622-4314
This organization provides transitional housing, counseling,
job-training, and support services.
CURE
759 Willow Gate Circle, Apt. C
Liburn, GA 30047
CURE is a grassroots organization from top to bottom. It does
not hire professional leaders. Instead, its leaders come from the
ranks of people formerly in prison and family members of
friends of prisoners. This organization offers assistance to ex-
offenders.
The Open Door Community
910 Ponce de Leon Ave NE
Atlanta, GA 30306
404-974-9652
www.opendoorcommunity.org
Serves meals, provides showers and change of clothes, and a
free medical clinic.
Missouri
Association of Gospel Rescue Missions
1045 Swift St.
North Kansas City, MO 64116
816-471-8020
800-624-5156
Have residential programs in some cities for ex-offenders.
CURE
P.O. Box 6034

Chesterfield, MO 63006
816-413-0186
www.Mocure.org
[email protected]
offenders.
Employment Connection
4000 Laclede Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63108
www.employment.org
This organization offers intensive job acquisition skill training
and employment placement assistance to persons with criminal
records.
Jail Ministry Outreach
Lutheran Ministries Association
8631 Delmar Suite 306
St. Louis, MO 63124
314-754-2821
[email protected]
Provides restorative justice through community services. This
program is based around love, resource awareness for a positive
re-entry, and individual and group support sessions.
Our Savior Lutheran Prison Ministry Service Group
1500 San Simeon Way
Fenton, MO 63026
636-343-2192
Networks with other agencies to provide jobs, clothing, food
and housing for recently released ex-offenders.

Project Cope
3529 Marcus Ave.
St. Louis, MO 63115
314-389-4804
www.projcope.org
[email protected]
This project offers re-entry support through faith-based
partnership teams and transitional housing for some, to former
prisoners of the St. Louis Community.
Nevada
CURE
21 Shirley Lane
Yerington, NV 89447
offenders.
EVOLVE
1951 Stella Lake Drive
Las Vegas, NV 89503
702-638-6371
Vocational training, counseling, and case management, for
people with criminal histories.
Nevada AIDS Foundation
900 W. 1st Suite 200
Reno, NV 89503
775-348-9888
This organization attempts to find housing for prisoners upon
release and maintain a food bank that also geared towards HIV
positive former prisoners.

Ridge House
900 W. 1st Suite 200
Reno, NV 89503
775-322-8941
Substance abuse treatment programs, and residential programs
with career counseling.
Ohio
Bearing the Burden Ministries, Inc.
P.O. Box 212
Brookville, OH 45309
937-903-8519
http://www.btbmi.com/
Bearing the Burden Ministries is primarily a correctional
ministry and consultancy to churches and organizations that
desire to begin or improve a jail/prison/re-entry outreach as
well as pastoral care chaplaincy ministry to those without a
pastor or church.
CURE
P.O. Box 14080
Columbus, OH 43214
877-826-8504
[email protected]
http://www.cure-ohio.org
offenders.
Opening Doors of Ohio, Inc.
1689 Hardin Lane
Powell, OH 43065
614-543-0417

http://www.openingdoors.org/
Ministering to ex-offenders and their families.
The Missing Link
P.O. Box 40031
Cleveland, OH 44140
440-282-1683
Links troubled youth and ex-offenders with life changing
programs including Christian residential programs.
Pennsylvania
CURE
P.O. Box 26708
Elkins Park, PA 19077
215-548-8267
[email protected]
offenders.
Justice and Mercy
P.O. Box 223
Shillington, PA 19607
610-208-0406
http://www.justicemercy.org/
Justice and Mercy is a nonprofit, volunteer organization
dedicated to decreasing the effects of crime in our communities,
increasing public safety, and ministering to and restoring both
crime victims and offenders. These goals are achieved by
educating and informing the public at large, advocating cost-
effective and practical reforms within the criminal justice
system and by supporting and encouraging wise public policy.

Texas
Bridging the Gap Ministries
P.O. Box 131747
Tyler, TX 75713
903-539-6797
Provides services for ex-offenders and their families.
CURE
4121 Burning Tree Lane
Garland, TX 75042
972-276-9865
[email protected]
www.bxcure.org
offenders.
Crime Prevention Institute-Targeted Project Re-Enterprise
8401 Shoal Creek Blvd.
Austin, TX 78763
512-502-9704
Post-Release services include supportive resources, job
placement services, employment monitoring and incentives,
follow up and information and referral services.
Diocese of Beaumont Criminal Justice Ministry
P.O. Box 3948
Beaumont, TX 77704
409-838-0451
http://www.dioceseofbmt.org/[email protected]
Provides services for ex-offenders and their families.

Washington, D.C.
Altar of Ed Ministries
2800 Ontario Rd. NW, Suite 506
Washington DC 20009
202-232-0866
Ex-offenders in need of help with re-entry may contact Jim
Wilder for assistance.
Center for Neighborhood Enterprise
1625 K. St., NW
Suite 1200
Washington DC 20006
202-518-6500
http://www.cneonline.org/[email protected]
The Center for Neighborhood Enterprise’s mission is to
empower neighborhood leaders to promote solutions that reduce
crime and violence, restore families, revitalize low-income
communities, and create economic enterprise.
Our Place, DC
801 Pennsylvania Ave., SE, Ste 460
Washington DC 20003
202-548-2400
www.ourplacedc.org
[email protected]
Post-release services include a support center offering

employment and housing resources, a safe and nurturing
environment, and referrals to other support services necessary
to obtain and retain employment.
Figure A1. Appendix A describes important information
pertaining to offenders when they are being released from
prison
Appendix B
Uniform Crime Report (Explanations)
Crime Index Offense
Explanations
Violent Crime
Murder/Non-negligent Manslaughter
Intentional taking of another human life
Forcible Rape
Forcible sexual intercourse with another person

Robbery
Unlawful taking of property
Aggravated Assault
Intent to inflict serious pain
Property Crime
Burglary
Unlawful entry
Larceny-Theft
Unlawful taking & carrying away of personal goods
Motor Vehicle Theft
Stealing or attempting to steal a vehicle
Arson
Malicious and unlawful burning
Violent Crime Index
Crimes against persons that involve bodily harm or the threat of
bodily harm
Property Crime Index
A criminal offense that involves the theft or destruction of
property
Figure A2. Appendix B describes the Crime Index Offenses
Appendix C

Demographics of Crime, Incarceration, and Correctional
Systems Attributes
Attribute
California
Georgia
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
Demographics
Adult Population
25,845
5,852
4,022
1,280
8,400
12,000
15,067
4,480
Median (Age)
34.6
35.0
37.1
36.3
38.2
40.1

33.6
32.3
Race/Ethnicity
White
26,000
5,300
4,850
1,762
9,867
10,500
11,873
6,000
Black
2,654
2,200
681
150
1,300
1,631
2,862
200
Hispanic
10,331
250
90
280
181
315

6,480
366
Other
4,274
170
85
120
142
220
600
481
UCR Crime Rates
Total
4,242
5,468
4,824
5,280
4,330
3,237
5,053
5,687
Violent
710
583
510
647
366
411

516
492
Property
3,369
4,899
4,211
4,633
3,945
2,825
4,447
5,493
Adult UCR Arrest Rates
Total
5,555
2,996
5,560
3,070
2,822
2,563
6,515
3,952
Violent
520
160
200
615
127
154

168
113
Property
550
330
610
309
286
353
594
479
Drugs
1,010
450
515
289
222
248
608
315
Other
3,837
2,212
4,430
1,870
2,190
1,727
4,821
2,964
Sentencing Structure

Indeterminate
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Determinate
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Sentencing guidelines
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Truth in sentencing
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes

No
Yes
Discretionary release
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Incarceration rate per (100,000 people)
418
523
489
590
423
330
742
234
Budgets (in millions of dollars)
Prison operating budget
4,700
786
431
153
1,994
1,069

2,048
329
Parole board/supervision budget
84
86
56
Consolidated or separate agencies?
Separate (PBO)
Separate
Consolidated
Separate
Consolidated
Separate
Consolidated
Consolidated
Figure A3. Appendix C explains the demographics of each
prison. Notes: UCR: Uniform Crime Report, PBO: Parole Board
Only
Appendix D
Prison Populations
Attribute
California
Georgia
Missouri
Nevada
Ohio
Pennsylvania
Texas
Washington
Current Prison Population

Total inmate population
136,076
44,372
28,291
9,449
46,573
36,475
164,039
14,761
Offense type
Violent
46
44
48
54
55
52
44
63
Property
23

22
28
22
7
10
21
16
Drugs
30
16
20
23
14
15
19
22
Other
10
22
9
6
29
27
7
4
Current growth trend
Flat
Growing
Flat
Growing
Flat
Flat
Growing
Flat
Legal status of the current prison population

New court commitments
60
N/A
82
91
77
85
N/A
99
Parole violators-technical
18
N/A
15
8
13
17
N/A
2
Parole violators-new sentence
26
N/A
9
5
12
N/A
N/A
2
Inmate custody classification levels

Minimum-low
26
36
44
22
18
38
79
68
Medium
46
40
13
56
53
34
7
21
Maximum-close
18
22
31
23
32
19
4
14
Administrative/disciplinary segregation
4

8
7
N/A
5
6
8
3
Protective custody
0
N/A
4
N/A
0
N/A
3
2
Figure A4. Appendix D describes the prison population and
custody classification levels
Bibliography
Adler, F., Mueller, G. O., & Laufer, W. S. (2010). Criminology
(7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Anderson, J. F., Mangels, N., Langsam, A., & Dyson, L. (2002).
Criminal justice and criminology: Concepts and terms. Lanham,
MD: University Press of America.
Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Current trends, practices,
and issues. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 314-334.
Bohm, R. M., & Haley, K. N. (1997). Introduction to criminal
justice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Glencoe.
Bradley, K. H., Oliver, R. B., Richardson, N. C., & Slayter, E.

M. (2001). No place like home: Housing and the ex-prisoner.
Issue brief. Boston, MA: Community Resources for Justice.
Davis, M. S. (2002). The concise dictionary of crime and
justice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Farabee, D., Zhang, S. X., & Wright, B. (2014). An
experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-
focused offender reentry program. Journal of Experimental
Criminology, 10(3), 309-322.
Gendreau, P., Little, T., & Goggin, C. (1996). A
META‐ANALYSIS OF THE PREDICTORS OF ADULT
OFFENDER RECIDIVISM: WHAT WORKS!*. Criminology,
34(4), 575-608.
Hagan, F. E. (2014). Research methods in criminal justice and
criminology (9th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Jensen, E. L., & Kane, S. L. (2010). The effect of therapeutic
community on time to first re-arrest: A survival analysis.
Journal of offender Rehabilitation, 49(3), 200-209.
Katel, P. (2009). Prisoner reentry. CQ Press.
Kilgore, J. (2015). Understanding Mass Incarceration: A
People's Guide to the Key Civil Rights Struggle of Our Time.
The New Press.
Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A., Dawes, D., Steffey,
D., Tueller, S., & Visher, C. A. (2012). Prisoner reentry
services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants.
Prepared for National Institute of Justice.
Lattimore, P. K., Steffey, D. M., & Visher, C. A. (2010).
Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the twenty-first century.
Victims and Offenders, 5(3), 253-267.
Leukefeld, C. G., Narevic, E., Hiller, M. L., Staton, M., Logan,
T. K., Gillespie, W., ... & Purvis, R. (2002). Alcohol and drug
use among rural and urban incarcerated substance abusers.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 46(6), 715-728.
Listwan, S. J., Cullen, F. T., & Latessa, E. J. (2006). How to
prevent prisoners re-entry programs from failing: Insights from
evidence-based corrections. Fed. Probation, 70, 19.

New Webster's dictionary and thesaurus of the English
language. (1992). Danbury, CT: Lexicon Publications.
Peak, K. J. (2010). Justice administration: Police, courts, and
corrections management (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and
prisoner reentry. Oxford University Press.
Rodriguez, N., & Brown, B. (2003). Preventing homelessness
among people leaving prison. Vera Institute of Justice, State
Sentencing and Corrections Program.
Second Chance Act of 2007, P.L. 110-199, 122 Stat. 657 (2008).
Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What
works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime &
Delinquency, 49(3), 360-388.
Schmalleger, F. (1999). Criminology today: An integrative
introduction (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sperry, K., & Harper, S. (2000). Delivering Mental Health
Services in Rural Prisons: Technology Meets Tradition. Journal
of Correctional Health Care, 7(2), 209-236.
Taxman, F. S., Young, D., & Byrne, J. M. (2003). From prison
safety to public safety: Best practices in offender
reentry. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
The American heritage dictionary of the English language (4th
ed.). (2006). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges
of prisoner reentry. The Urban Institute.
Wheeler, D. P., & Patterson, G. (2008). Prisoner Entry. Health
& Social Work, 33, 145-147.
Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism
among Participants of a Reentry Program for Prisoners Released
without Supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289-299.
Retrieved March 7, 2016.

Wilson, J. A., & Davis, R. C. (2006). GOOD INTENTIONS
MEET HARD REALITIES: AN EVALUATION OF THE
PROJECT GREENLIGHT REENTRY PROGRAM*.
Criminology & Public Policy, 5(2), 303-338.
Wodahl, E. J. (2006). The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry from
a Rural Perspective,". Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 32-
47.
Zhang, S. X., Roberts, R. E., & Callanan, V. J. (2006).
Preventing parolees from returning to prison through
community-based reintegration. Crime & Delinquency, 52(4),
551-571.

RUNNING HEAD Prisoner Reentry Programs & Recidivism RatesPhilli.docx

More Related Content

Similar to RUNNING HEAD Prisoner Reentry Programs & Recidivism RatesPhilli.docx (8)

More from jeanettehully (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

RUNNING HEAD Prisoner Reentry Programs & Recidivism RatesPhilli.docx