The Pros And Cons Of Offender Reentry Programs

There are many problems, concerns, and issues that revolve around offender reentry within the United States, but there are also a lot a positive thing that can come from an offender being reentered into the community. In recent years, criminal justice professionals have begun looking to the community to act as the vehicle for handling the weaknesses of the criminal justice system. One of the biggest weaknesses with the criminal justice system is offender rehabilitation. Professionals believe that reentry programs should primarily be based on community intervention. In establishing the role of the community, professionals first must construct or identify what a community is essentially. Conceptions of a community range from a street corner,

First, all Reentry Partnership Initiatives are geo-based, and they will operate at the neighborhood level. RPI planners often study offender release statistics, targeting neighborhoods with high per captia rates of prison releases, to select the areas for the programs. Second, Reentry Partnership Initiatives are proactive, as well as having problem solving ventures. In the selection of target areas, some RPIs have identified services and informal institutional supports such as churches or community groups that can be very beneficial for offenders upon their release. In areas that lack in services, planners have sought to build support for the RPI. Also, at the individual level reentry case managers work with offenders prior to release to identify any risks and protective factors. This allows reentry case managers to develop plans that are responsive to any risks and other factors prior to the offender’s release. Third, these initiatives are partnerships where authority and accountability are decentralized. In order for a state to be allowed to use an RPI, they had to agree that the RPI would be planned, controlled, and monitored by representatives from agencies and groups, that are diverse, which are chosen from both formal and informal institutions of social control. However, Reentry Partnership Initiatives fall short in two elements. One, at this time, they do not place priority on a community’s quality of life. It is just expected that the quality of life for the community will improve if the reentry initiatives reach their primary goal. Finally, as of now, no Reentry Partnership Initiative has tackled the larger mission of strengthening the capacity of the communities for self-regulation or the realization for the collective aims of welfare (Young, Taxman, & Byrne,