Rural Jail Reentry

Offender Needs and Challenges

Kyle Ward

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315469836
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Ciencias sociales
• Subtopic: Criminología

Today's high recidivism rates, combined with the rising costs of jails and prisons, are increasingly seen as problems that must be addressed on both moral and financial grounds. Research on prison and jail reentry typically focuses on barriers stemming from employment, housing, mental health, and substance abuse issues from the perspective of offenders returning to urban areas. This book explores the largely neglected topic of the specific challenges inmates experience when leaving jail and returning to rural areas.

Rural Jail Reentry provides a thorough background and theoretical framework on reentry issues and rural crime patterns, and identifies perceptions of the most significant challenges to jail reentry in rural areas. Utilizing three robust samples—current inmates, probation and parole officers, and treatment staff—Ward examines what each group considers to be the most impactful factors surrounding rural jail re-entry. A springboard for future research and policy discussions, this book will be of interest to international researchers and practitioners interested in the topic of rural reentry, as well as graduate and upper-level undergraduate students concerned with contemporary issues in corrections, community-based corrections, critical issues in criminal justice, and criminal justice policy.

Chapter 1
Introduction

Problem Identification

The incarceration boom of the past 40 years has resulted in an unprecedented number of inmates both entering and leaving jails and prisons. There are currently over 1.5 million American citizens incarcerated in state and federal prisons in the United States (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014)—a rate of one in every 110 U.S. citizens (Glaze & Kaeble, 2014). In Pennsylvania, 52,523 inmates are currently incarcerated in state institutions (Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, 2016)—a rate of around one in every 200 Pennsylvanians (Bell, Bucklen, Nakamura, Tomkeil, San-tore, Russell, & Orth, 2013). At the county jail level, there had been a decrease in county jail admission from 2009 to 2011; however, 2012–2014 showed a marked increase in the county jail population (Kaeble, Glaze, Tsoutis, & Minton, 2015). County jail populations are unique as they include 12 million admissions and releases each year (Beck, 2006). In 2014, the U.S. county jail population was 744,600 (Kaeble et al., 2015).

Jeremy Travis (2005) addressed the mass incarceration problem in his book But They All Come Back. He contends that unless an inmate dies while incarcerated, he or she will eventually be released back into society. A reported 95 percent of state prisoners will eventually be released, and nearly 700,000 individuals each year leave state and federal prisons (Carson & Sabol, 2012; Schlager, 2013). The entire jail population will eventually be released or transported to a state or federal institution; however, nearly two-thirds of the individuals released will be rearrested within three years (Bell et al., 2013; Stahler, Mennis, Belenko, Welsh, Hiller, & Zajac, 2013).

Reentry is a multifaceted subfield in criminal justice research that attempts to address the problems of those returning to communities. In When Prisoners Come Home, Joan Petersilia (2009) defines prisoner reentry as a process that includes “all activities and programming conducted to prepare ex-convicts to return safely to their community and live as law abiding citizens” (p. 3). Jeremy Travis (2005) abbreviates this definition and describes it as the process of leaving prison and returning to society. In using a “reentry framework” as a new paradigm in corrections, Travis (2005) stresses that reentry is not a mode of supervision such as parole or a goal such as rehabilitation, but rather a truth that everyone needs to recognize.

The obstacles inmates face when released make their transition to being productive members of society difficult. Inmates re-entering society from both prison and jail confront multiple problems that include employment, housing, and mental health and substance abuse issues (Lattimore, Steffey, & Visher, 2010; Petersilia, 2009; Solomon, Osborne, LoBuglio, Mellow, & Mukamal, 2008). Realizing the major difficulties associated with reintegration to society, specific programs have been developed to aid inmates and to assist ex-offenders in assimilating successfully into society (Lattimore et al., 2010).

Recently, the government has provided more opportunity to help improve outcomes for individuals returning to the community from jails and prisons. Congress enacted the Second Chance Act in 2008. The Second Chance Act authorizes federal grants to government and non-profit agencies to provide assistance and services to reduce recidivism rates of individuals released from prison or jail (Lattimore et al., 2010). These programs provide employment assistance as well as substance abuse treatment, housing, family programming, mentoring, victim support, and other related services and include programs such as offender notification forums, comprehensive interagency initiatives, reentry courts, and community-based interventions (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009). Funding opportunities in the Second Chance Act are available to any government or non-profit organization that provides services to returning offenders, including jails or community-based, reentry programs. Funding for the Second Chance Act began with a $25 million allotment in 2009. Funding increased to $100 million in 2010, but decreased to $83 million in 2011, $63 million in 2012, and then slightly increased to $67.5 million in 2013, $67.7 million in 2014, and $68 million in 2015. The House and Senate’s Omnibus Appropriations bill allotted $68 million for the 2016 fiscal year to be used for the Second Chance Act (Justice Center, 2016).

Jail Reentry

Over the past few decades, local jail population growth has mirrored that of the prison population (Solomon et al., 2008). This has changed recently as prison inmate populations are decreasing (Carson & Sabol, 2012) and local jail populations are increasing (Kaeble et al., 2015). Within county jails, a significant portion of the surge in jail populations is derived from recidivism, as nearly 50 percent of jail inmates are incarcerated for violating conditions of their probation or parole (Beck, 2006). Many jail offenders struggle with the same issues that prison inmates do when returning to society (White, Saunders, Fisher, & Mellow, 2012). Like their prison counterparts, jail inmates suffer from substance abuse and mental illness, have low educational attainment, are unskilled, and have weak family support (Solomon et al., 2008).

However, jail reentry has numerous characteristics that distinguish it from prisoner reentry. These unique challenges include jails’ varied population, short lengths of stay, and high individualistic challenges coupled with low service capacity (Solomon et al., 2008). In addition, jails have a diverse population including those awaiting trial, conviction, or sentencing; those convicted of a crime; and those in violation of probation or parole. This population makes reentry planning a challenge.

Compared to prisons, jails are characterized by short-term incarcerations. Over 80 percent are incarcerated for less than one month (Beck, 2006). The significantly shorter length of incarceration greatly affects treatment time and effective program implementation. In a local or county jail, inmates commonly report problems with substance abuse, mental and physical health, housing, and employment (Solomon et al., 2008). These challenges coupled with short incarceration result in a lack of time to effectively progress through a rehabilitation or reentry program. If inmates are incarcerated for six months, they may miss the start of a new program that could have benefited them. When the program is offered again, they may not have enough time left on their sentence to complete it.

A large problem with reentry from jails is the influx of offenders institutions must handle. According to Beck (2006), jails process 12 million admissions and releases annually. Jail administrators process the number of inmates in one month that prison administrators see in one year (Beck, 2006), but these numbers give practitioners an opportunity for intervention and rehabilitation (Solomon et al., 2008).

The jail experience presents a unique opportunity in the reentry process. As jail sentences are much shorter than prison terms, these stays mean less time away from inmates’ home communities. Short sentences are less likely to interrupt relationships with family, friends, and employers, as well as and other positive social networks that a longer prison sentence may impede. In addition to social benefits, federal benefits are less likely to be removed during short-term jail sentences than longer prison stays (Solomon et al., 2008).

The location of jails in the communities in which inmates return is advantageous to the reentry process and facilitates continued contact with family, treatment providers, employers, community and faith workers, and others. This contact allows for an in-reach approach that can help strengthen or establish social bonds in the community or lead to more effective continuity of treatment. Similarly, as jails are local institutions, they have a role in a community network of providers. A collaborative effort between the jail and community can facilitate interventions with high-risk individuals who would likely be seeking aid from agencies such as the department of health and human services, workforce development, and family and child welfare services (Solomon et al., 2008).

Reentry Programs

There are many reentry programs in the realm of community corrections. Typically, these programs are diverse and not widely evaluated. While there is substantial research demonstrating the effectiveness of rehabilitative programs in prison, (Mitchell, Wilson, & MacKenzie, 2006; Reitzel & Carbonell, 2006; Tong & Farrington, 2006; Wilson, Mitchell, & MacKenzie, 2006), there is an implicit, although untested, assumption that the methods that have been shown to work in the realm of rehabilitation will translate to effective reentry services (White et al., 2012). Research demonstrates that offenders fare better post-release when strong social support networks are present in their communities (Kubrin & Stewart, 2006). Reentry programs that start to build social support networks while individuals are incarcerated have been shown to be effective in aiding in the successful transition from incarceration to the community (Miller & Miller, 2010). These types of services are often called in-reach programs. In contrast, out-reach programs include services geared toward post-release offenders that focus on the prison-to-community transition. Programs often commence when the offender is released and include wraparound services such as vocational assistance, case management, and substance abuse counseling (Miller & Miller, 2010).

Although reentry programs are provided for many recently released offenders, experimental evaluations of these programs are scarce. In a review of 32 evaluated prison reentry programs prior to 2001, Seiter and Kadela (2003) found 21 of the programs effective in reducing recidivism. These programs included vocational training and work release programs, drug rehabilitation programs, education programs, and halfway house and prerelease programs. More recent evaluations of effective prison reentry programs find support for community mental health programs for mentally ill offenders (Farabee, 2006; Lovell, Gagliardi, & Phipps, 2005) and halfway houses (Ostermann, 2009).

Despite the size of the jail population, reentry programs and research on reentry programs are limited (Roman & Chalfin, 2006). Jail reentry programs have been evaluated in urban areas such as New York (White et al., 2012), Pittsburgh (Willison, Bieler, & Kim, 2014), Boulder (Koshmann & Peterson, 2013), and Boston (Braga, Piehl, & Hureau, 2009) with varied levels of success. White et al. (2012) evaluated the RIDE (Riker’s Island Discharge Enhancement) program in New York City. Created in 2004, the volunteer-oriented program connects participants with a non-profit, community-based service provider while they are in jail and follows up with inmates up to 90 days after their release. The program also provides transportation, case management service, guidance, and support for program participants. In an evaluation of the program, White et al. (2012) found that rates of recidivism for program participants were not lower than non-participants in a one-year follow-up. However, those who continued to be engaged in the program up to 90-days after release had fewer rearrests than non-completers, indicating that dosage and motivation were important to reintegrative success.

Braga et al. (2009) conducted an evaluation of another urban jail reentry program, the Boston Reentry Initiative. The program, beginning in 2001, brought multiple faith-based and social service agencies together to provide pre- and post- release support for high-risk and violent male inmates from the Suffolk County Correctional Facility in Massachusetts. Program services included mental health and substance abuse treatment, career counseling, job placement, education, identification or driver’s license assistance, housing, and transportation. In their three-year follow-up of 108 program participants matched with 309 controls, Braga et al. (2009) found that program participants were significantly less likely to be rearrested than members of the control group.

In an evaluation of the Auglaize County Transition (ACT) Program in Auglaize County, Ohio, Miller and Miller (2010) compared recidivism rates of 73 program participants to 72 non-program control group participants 12 months after release. Located in a rural county, the ACT program was developed as an in-reach program to begin while offenders are incarcerated and to follow them when released based on their needs. The program is multifaceted and includes services such as case management, employment placement, job readiness training, work release, substance abuse treatment, mental health counseling, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Results showed a significant difference in recidivism; only 12.8 percent of the program group participants were rearrested during the one-year, follow-up period, compared to 81.9 percent of the comparison group (Miller & Miller, 2010).

Although these reentry programs appear effective in reducing recidivism of offenders, they are located primarily in urban areas. As a result, many questions relating to offenders in rural communities remain.

Rural Reentry Issues

A problem not commonly addressed is the impact of prisoner reentry in rural communities. Weisheit, Falcone, and Wells (2006) contend that “rural does matter” (p. 17). A large proportion of Americans reside in rural areas and their voices fail to be heard. As most crime occurs in urban environments, most services are implemented in a utilitarian way. Consequently, the interventions may fail to address the unique needs of rural residents.

Wodahl (2006) proposes that a rural perspective in reentry research is necessary and that the experiences individuals have when returning to rural areas differ from those in urban settings in important ways. Wodahl (2006) contends that rural communities have unique features that make urban-based policies and programs culturally, economically, and socially ineffective in rural settings. Garland, Wodahl, and Mayfield (2011) believe that rural residents are less likely to have access to private or public services, health-care services, government programs, and other assistance programs that are much more readily available in urban areas. A recent report by Zajac, Hutchison, and Meyer (2014) explored rural reentry issues in Pennsylvania. By interviewing state-level correctional employees, Zajac et al. (2014) found the most important issues facing rural offenders to be stigma, transportation, housing, employment, and program availability.

The current study attempts to explore the issues surrounding rural reentry. As rural communities tend to be economically challenged when compared to urban locales (Weisheit et al., 2006), there are scarce employment opportunities and a small tax base that likely result in reduced funds for rehabilitation programing (Wodahl, 2006). Whereas Wodahl (2006) outlined some challenges to reentry in rural areas, the current study aims to explore the perceptions of these challenges through the perceptions of multiple actors in the criminal justice system.

Perceptions of Reentry Needs

Probation officers and service providers are key participants in the reentry process. These practitioners provide the services or access to the programs and interventions that could best aid those who are re-entering society. Parole officers are often excluded from the reentry discussion. They serve as liaisons for reentry and rehabilitative programing and are likely to witness the potential benefits or inadequacies. Some prior research has addressed parole officers’ perceptions on the process of reentry in relation to the needs of the offenders (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2007; Gunnison & Helfgott, 2011).

In addition to community corrections workers, inmates and reentry program practitioners often have differing views of the challenges of reentry. Helfgott (1997) found that ex-offenders indicated they faced little support from family and friends when released, and the challenges they identified as most pressing included attaining housing, employment, substance abuse counseling, education, clothing, food, transportation, medical care, and having a positive circle of friends. Practitioners from community transition agencies deemed that the allocation and decentralization of services and community prejudice were the greatest barriers for recently released offenders (Helfgott, 1997). While all three studies identify important issues in the reentry process, they focus on the metropolitan area of Seattle and do not address the potential needs of rural offenders. The current study explores the challenges faced by inmates reintegrating into rural areas.

Current Study

This study explores a number of issues associated with offender reentry in rural areas from three perspectives: offenders, treatment and program staff, and county probation and parole officers. The research examined their unique views of the challenges associated with returning offenders and their attitudes regarding programming for offenders in their area including the services that should be available.

The goal was to identify and further understand prisoner reentry issues in rural areas and to examine differences and similarities rural offenders confront, as well as the extent to which the various sample respondents’ perceptions concur. For inmates and probation/parole officers, data were gathered regarding rural reentry programming, perceived challenges inmates face, and successful strategies through an anonymous survey. Items were adapted from Gunnison’s and Helfgott’s (2007) survey of practitioners’ views of reentry issues and modified to fit each particular criminal justice actor’s role. Semi-structured interviews were utilized with treatment staff due to the small population of rural treatment providers and the exploratory nature of rural reentry programing from the practitioner’s perspective.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical framework used to explore the problems associated with rural reentry is derived from Sampson and Laub’s (2003) age-graded theory and Francis Cullen’s (1994) social support framework. Whereas jail rehabilitation is difficult to administer, it m...