NCJ Number
208072
Journal
Federal Probation Volume: 68 Issue: 2 Dated: September 2004 Pages: 53-61
Date Published
September 2004
Length
9 pages
Annotation
After describing the changing patterns of Federal and State prison admissions and releases, this article examines the target- population criteria used in eight model Reentry Partnership Initiative Programs (RPI's) and then discusses the challenges posed by various offender groups.
Abstract
Offenders are now serving a greater proportion of their sentences in prison, and they are returning to the community with the same problems they had when incarcerated. In addition, some offenders return to the community with new mental health, physical health, and criminogenic problems. This article focuses on who should be targeted for reentry programs, and where in the community they should be targeted. This is done by examining the targeting criteria developed in eight model RPI programs identified by the Office of Justice Programs and recently included in a multisite process evaluation. Generally, the reentry programs reviewed include three reentry phases: the institutional phase, the structured reentry phase, and the community reintegration phase; however, there is considerable variation in the design of the programs as well as in the duration of each phase. These differences are related largely to the targeting decisions of program developers at each site. This article highlights the impact of offense, offender, and area-specific targeting decisions on each phase of reentry. The eight reentry programs reviewed are in Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina, Vermont, and Washington State. The discussion of the various offender types released from prison daily -- such as sex offenders, drug offenders, repeat offenders, and mentally ill offenders -- emphasizes the need to design each phase of the reentry process to address the reintegration issues associated with specific target populations. This article recommends assessing reentry programs to determine whether they address the needs of the multiple-problem offender. 3 tables and 31 references