LITERATUREREVIEWReentryDefined It is necessary to have an efficientdefinition of “prisoner reentry,” as well as what the literature indicates is asuitable characterization of a prisoner reentry program. Petersilia (2004)defines reentry stating, reentry “simply defined, includes all activities andprogramming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely to the communityand to live as law abiding citizens” (p.5).
However, Shadd Maruna (2011) reportsthat the development of rehabilitation is more than withdrawing prison andbeing discharged into the society; it also includes the social andpsychological properties of imprisonment which includes the need for compassion,tolerance and understanding of past wrongdoings. In this research, reentry isdefined as the method by which an individual works to reintegrate into thecommunity following discharge from prison or jail. The framework of reentry assistancesexposed in this research includes initiatives, programs and services providedafter individuals are released from prison. These programs provide a variety ofservices to prepare ex-offenders for confronting the challenges of reintegratingin a community. The motivation of this study is on reentry programs and theresources employed within in them and how the quality of the same isintrinsically valuable to the necessities of the released person for lifeoutside of prison. Reentry programs are regularly operatedby nonprofit organizations.
The focus population for a reentry program differsand may be directed to women or men, youth or adults, and offender typology.Reentry programs have been the emphasis of research by academics who evaluatethe effectiveness of these programs in fulfilling the necessities ofindividuals and eventually in the program’s capability to lower recidivism and renovateex-offenders into constructive citizens. The reason past analysis have centeredaround the effectiveness of the these programs is to create new models thatprovide better: program concentration, stimulus of participants, funding, execution,as well as approaches of program staff and overall program strategy (Wilson andDavis, 2006; Pettus and Severson, 2006; Mears et al, 2006; Crosby and Bryson,2005; Kettl and Fesler, 2005; Seiter and Kadela, 2003; Travis and Petersilia,2001; McGuire, 1995 and Morash, 1982). Seiter and Kadela (2003) produced a twoparted definition approach that includes prisoner reentry activity taking placeduring and after incarceration. They define prisoner reentry programs as: 1. Correctional programs (United Statesand Canada) that focus on the transition from prison to community (prerelease,work release, halfway houses, or specific reentry programs) and; 2. Programs that have initiated treatment(substance abuse, life skills, education, cognitive/behavioral, sex/violentoffender) in a prison setting and have linked with a community program toprovide continuity of care (p.
368). While Seiter and Kadela’s definitionacknowledges that community-based organizations are an essential part of the stabilityof care for ex-offender’s post-discharge, their explanation does not identifynonprofit organizations as a primary benefactor of assistance services wherethe obtainability of pre-release services are limited or unavailable. Historyof Reentry in the United States Prisoner reentry is not a new model incriminal justice. The notion has been titled by different positions, whichinclude “reintegration” and “offender rehabilitation”(Travis and Petersilia, 2001; Ward and Maruna, 2007; Seiter and Kadela, 2003).
The application of reentry has changed over the last twenty years from apre-release endeavor to a inclusive arrangement practice which recognizes thesocial maintenances and administration indispensable to completely reintegratean ex-offender into the community after their release from prison. Ex-offenderreentry is molded by many stakeholders, each of them are essential to establishthe scenarios of successful reintegration. A study performed at a national levelinvolving society reintegration and the association with parole was conductedby the National Research Council’s Committee on Supervision and Desistance fromCrime in conjunction with the Committee on Law and the Division of SocialScience and Education. The 2007 testimony focuses the description of parole andsupervision and its influence on reintegration.
The council defines the probation provisionas a correctional purpose of release which assists to guarantee public protectionby supervising the circumstances of discharge. According to Phyllida Parsloe(1967), the probation assistance began as an experiment in Boston,Massachusetts as a volunteer service. This led to the Probation Act of 1878 andretaining officers mainly for the delivery of services post-release. Regulationwas supplementary in 1907 with the passage of the Probation Offenders Act,which can be considered an initial form of reentry policy. The council reportsthat within this role, parole officers assumed a great deal of prudence, whichcan grow recidivism rates though their prudence to retract or consent parolees(The National Research Council, 2007).