30 Page Research Paper

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

Georgia

Missouri

Nevada

Ohio

Pennsylvania

Texas

Washington, D.C.

Figure A1. Appendix A describes important information pertaining to offenders when they are being released from prison

Appendix B

Uniform Crime Report (Explanations)

Figure A2. Appendix B describes the Crime Index Offenses

Appendix C

Demographics of Crime, Incarceration, and Correctional Systems Attributes

Figure A3. Appendix C explains the demographics of each prison. Notes: UCR: Uniform Crime Report, PBO: Parole Board Only

Appendix D

Prison Populations

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.