Both the unprecedented national attention directed to the issue of re-entry and promising programs and practices developing across the country have helped to create a fertile ground for additional innovative, collaborative ventures to take root. Furthermore, data generated from efforts such as the development of a knowledge base (see Policy Statement 2, Developing a Knowledge Base) reflect that distinct organizations are allocating resources to serve or supervise many of the same people. Even more stunning is the extent to which numerous funding streams are being directed to the same neighborhoods.

Still, despite this context, and despite the self-interest that officials in public health care, housing, workforce development and other services have in what happens to people released from prison and jail, the investment of officials from these systems in prisoner re-entry remains limited in most jurisdictions. Their hesitance to become engaged in re-entry issues is understandable: they have limited resources, which budget crises in state and local governments are further reducing. Furthermore, those constituencies and advocacy groups that influence decisions about the allocation of shrinking health and social service dollars rarely appear to have re-entry issues at the top of their agenda.

At the same time, administrators of criminal justice agencies have historically been isolated from both other government and community organizations and have focused primarily on maintaining the security of the institutions they oversee. And now, like their counterparts in health, human, and social services, criminal justice administrators are equally, if not more, overwhelmed assuming responsibility for increasing numbers of individuals without a corresponding increase in resources. It is thus not surprising that criminal justice administrators rarely look beyond their particular role in the system to determine how they can cultivate partnerships in the community and best contribute to the successful re-entry of people leaving prison and jail and returning to the community. This situation, coupled with intense pressure from the media and elected officials, often causes criminal justice officials to focus almost exclusively on the incapacitation of offenders and catching them if and when they violate a condition of release.

This policy statement reviews the steps essential to shifting the orientation of these organizations so that they balance the above obligations with their roles and responsibilities regarding re-entry. Establishing this foundation must precede any significant re-entry initiative.

Recommendations:

A.

Determine how each organization's mission relates to re-entry.

B.

Concentrate services and supervision in the communities where releasees live.

C.

Engage community-based organizations, including faith-based institutions, to serve people who are incarcerated and who have been released from prison or jail.

D.

Ensure that releasing authorities comprise experts who understand the value and appropriateness of supervised release and evidence-based decisions.