Mapping 
for Community-Based 
Prisoner Reentry Efforts:

A Guidebook for Law Enforcement 
Agencies and Their Partners 

Police Foundation logo
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services logo



Mapping 
for Community-Based 
Prisoner Reentry Efforts 

A Guidebook for Law Enforcement Agencies 
and Their Partners 

by Nancy G. La Vigne 


The Police Foundation is a national, independent, nonprofit organization dedicated to supporting innovation 
and improvement in policing. Established in 1970, the foundation has conducted seminal research in police 
behavior, policy, and procedure, and works to transfer to local agencies the best information about practices for 
dealing effectively with a range of important police operational and administrative concerns. Motivating all of 
the foundations efforts is the goal of efficient, humane policing that operates within the framework of democratic 
principles and the highest ideals of the nation. 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) was created as a result of the Violent Crime 
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. A component of the Justice Department, the COPS Office mission 
is to advance community policing as an effective strategy in communities efforts to improve public safety in 
jurisdictions of all sizes across the country. Community policing represents a shift from more traditional law 
enforcement in that it focuses on prevention of crime and the fear of crime on a very local basis. 

This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2005-CK-WX-K004 by the U.S. Department of Justice, 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are 
those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of 
Justice or the Police Foundation. 

 2006 by the Police Foundation. All rights, including translation into other languages, reserved under the Universal 
Copyright Convention, the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the 
International and Pan American Copyright Conventions. Permission to quote readily granted. 

ISBN 
1-884614-22-1 
978-1-884614-22-4 

May 2007 

1201 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036-2636 

(202) 833-1460 Fax (202) 659-9149 
Email: pfinfo@policefoundation.org 
http://www.policefoundation.org 

1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
800-421-6770 
E-mail: askCopsRC@usdoj.gov 
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/ 

Mapping for Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement Agencies 
and Their Partners is available online at http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/library.html and 
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/. 


Table of Contents 

Foreword ............................................................................... v
Acknowledgments ........................................................................ vii
Introduction ........................................................................... 1
What is the Purpose of this Guidebook? ................................................. 2
Why Should Police be Involved in Prisoner Reentry?...................................... 4
Community Policing and Prisoner Reentry ................................................ 5
How Can Police Use Mapping in Support of Reentry Efforts?............................... 7
Where are Former Prisoners Residing? ................................................... 7
Are Resources and Services Accessible to Those in Need? ................................ 16
What Partnerships Should be Forged? .................................................... 19
How Can Reentry Data be Obtained? ...................................................... 22
How Should Reentry Maps be Presented? .................................................. 24
What are the Obstacles to Reentry Mapping? ............................................. 25
Data Acquisition ....................................................................... 25
Data Integration ....................................................................... 25
GIS Technology and Expertise ........................................................... 26
Lack of Resources ...................................................................... 26
Public Fears and Media Misrepresentation ............................................... 27
How Can Mapping Lead to Action? ........................................................ 28
Conclusion ............................................................................. 29
References.............................................................................. 30
Resources............................................................................... 31
Biographies of Participants in the Forum on Mapping for Police-Led Prisoner Reentry .... 33

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Sentenced Prisoners Admitted and Released 
from Federal and State Prison, 19772001 ............................................... 1 

Figure 2: List of Participants in the February 2006 Forum on Mapping 
for Police-Led Prisoner Reentry ........................................................ 2 

Figure 3: Locations of Providence Parolees and Probationers 
and Crimes by Type in District 7........................................................ 8 

Figure 4: Population Under Criminal Justice Supervision in 
Knox County, Tennessee, 2005............................................................ 9


Figure 5: Location of Police-Identified Drug Houses in Knoxville, Tennessee, 2005 ...... 10 

Figure 6: Released Inmate Gang Members by New Jersey Municipality .......................11 

Figure 7: Camden, NJ, Released Gang-Affiliated Inmates ................................. 12 

Figure 8: San Diego County Parolee and Probationer Population 
and Reported Property Crime, 2005 ...................................................... 13

Figure 9: San Diego County Sex Registrants in Relation to K-8 Schools .................. 14

Figure 10: GPS Positions of One Sex Offenders Locations Over a 24-Hour Period ......... 15

Figure 11: Distance from Ex-Offender Employment Program Participants to Employers ...... 18


Foreword

In the U.S. today, 7,000,000 Americans are either incarcerated or on probation or parole. Of the 
over 650,000 prisoners released each year, two-thirds are likely to be rearrested within three 
years. About 75 percent of reentering prisoners have a history of substance abuse, and the 
median educational level is the eleventh grade. A shortage of in-prison substance abuse, vocational, 
and educational programs means that few prisoners receive any rehabilitative care while 
incarcerated. Thus, the political, social, and economic impact of prisoner reentry is enormous 
as are the challenges to developing successful strategies to address the growing and complex 
problems associated with reentry. Clearly, an interdisciplinary, coordinated response from all of 
our social and political institutions is necessary. 

This report examines how enhanced collaboration between the law enforcement and corrections 
communitiesspecifically, improvement in how data and information are used for planning 
and managementcan improve both public safety as well as the odds for successful reentry. 
The recent growth in the acceptance and implementation of community policing can help local 
law enforcement play an important role in the reentry process through both supervision and 
support. Instead of relying solely on traditional law enforcement tactics, such as responding to 
calls-for-service and making arrests, police today understand the importance of community-
policing strategies that emphasize prevention, community engagement, problem solving, and 
strategic partnerships. The police can serve as catalysts to coordinate resources and efforts to 
address complex problems across the criminal justice spectrum. 

The innovations demanded by community- and problem-oriented policing require that law 
enforcement agencies incorporate a geographic, spatial, or local focus, and emphasize the 
importance of integrating crime-mapping techniques into agency management, analysis, and 
enforcement practices. In the case of prisoner reentry, mapping provides important information 
about who is being released and where releasees are located so that police might proactively 
address both potential threats to public safety as well as any gaps in resources that are needed 
to assist returning prisoners. 

In developing this publication, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the 
Police Foundation convened a select group of distinguished practitioners, policymakers, and 
analysts from the corrections and law enforcement communities in February 2006 to discuss the 
ways in which mapping can aid police responses to prisoner reentry. We hope that the issues 
and recommendations documented in this report contribute to an improved understanding of 
the importance of mapping for community-based prisoner reentry efforts. 

Hubert Williams 
President, Police Foundation 


Acknowledgments

We thank the many law enforcement and corrections agencies that are already involved with 
prisoner reentry partnerships, as well as the many community-based, reentry-mapping efforts 
that are currently underway. Without these promising practices to draw from, this guidebook 
would be strictly hypothetical and readers would not have the benefit of learning from the 
experiences and wisdom of those who have provided such strong leadership in the field. We are 
particularly appreciative of the many experts who devoted their time to travel to Washington, 
D.C., to attend the forum on this topic and who contributed a tremendous number of suggestions 
and insights that form the backbone of this book. Greg Jones of the Police Foundation 
provided helpful guidance throughout the production of this guidebook. This project would not 
have been possible without the generous funding from the U.S. Department of Justices Office 
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). The funding from COPS and the suggestions from 
COPS staff members Deborah Spence, Matthew Scheider, and Katherine McQuay are 
greatly appreciated. 


Introduction

Prisoner reentrythe process of individuals leaving prison and jail and returning to the community
is a topic of increasing concern to law enforcement agencies across the country. The 
renewed interest in this topic stems from the fact that more people are being released from 
prison each year and they typically return to just a handful of neighborhoods where their 
impact on both perceptions of public safety as well as actual victimization rates can be severe. 

Approximately 656,000 people were released from state and federal prisons in 2003 alone 
(Harrison and Beck 2005), a four-fold increase over the past two decades. The potential impact 
of prisoner reentry on public safety is undeniable: over two-thirds of released prisoners are 
rearrested for a new crime within three years of release (Langan and Levin 2002). One helpful 
tool in addressing the public safety challenges of reentry is the use of Geographic Information 
Systems (GIS), or computerized mapping technology. Given the local context of prisoner reentry, 
it is particularly important for law enforcement to have a clear spatial understanding of the 
characteristics of reentry within their jurisdictions. Mapping is one of the most powerful means 
of capturing important concentrations, patterns, and spatial trends in data (Kingsley, Coulton, 
Barndt, Sawicki, and Tatian 1997). Accordingly, policing strategies designed to tackle problems 
resulting from prisoner reentry can be more effective when they are informed by the mapping 
of such information as the locations of returning prisoners, reentry services and resources, and 
parole offices. 

Figure 1: Sentenced Prisoners Admitted and 
Released from Federal and State Prison, 19772001 
Source: The Urban Institute, 2001. 
Based on BJS National Prisoner Statistics. 


What is the Purpose of this Guidebook?

The purpose of this guidebook is to explore ways in which mapping can aid police responses 
to prisoner reentry. It is intended for a variety of sworn and civilian police personnel as well as 
corrections and community entities interested in partnering with the police on prisoner reentry 
efforts. This publication draws heavily from the contributions of a select group of law enforcement 
and criminal justice experts who participated in a two-day forum on mapping prisoner reentry at 
the Police Foundation in Washington, D.C., in February 2006. (See Figure 2 for a list of forum 
participants. Participant biographies, with the exception of Police Foundation and COPS staff, begin 
on page 33. Titles and affiliations were current at the time of the forum and may have changed. 
For example, Edward F. Davis III is now Commissioner of the Boston Police Department.) 

Figure 2: List of Participants in the February 2006 Forum on 
Mapping for Police-Led Prisoner Reentry 

Mike Ashmet 
Lieutenant 
Program Manager 
Ogden City, Utah, Police Department 

James R. Bueermann 
Chief of Police 
Redlands, California, Police Department 

Edward F. Davis III 
Superintendent of Police 
Lowell, Massachusetts, Police Department 

Jeffrey Gersh 
Chief of Research and Evaluation 
Maryland Governors Office of Crime Control and 
Prevention 
Baltimore, Maryland 

Greg Jones 
Research Associate 
Police Foundation 
Washington, D.C. 

Nancy La Vigne 
Senior Research Associate 
Urban Institute 
Washington, D.C. 

John Markovic 
Program Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 
Alexandria, Virginia 

Katherine McQuay 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

Philip Mielke 
GIS Analyst 
Redlands, California, Police Department 

Terry Morgan 
Commander 
Redmond, Washington, Police Department 

Blake Norton 
Director, Public Affairs & Community Programs
Boston, Massachusetts, Police Department 

Lee Ragsdale 
Program Manager 
Knoxville, Tennessee, Police Department 

Joe Ryan 
Director, Crime Mapping & Problem Analysis 
Laboratory 
Police Foundation 
Washington, D.C. 

Matthew Scheider 
Assistant Director 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 



Dora Schriro 
Director 
Arizona Department of Corrections 
 Phoenix, Arizona 

Kurt Smith 
Director 
Community Analysis and Technology 
Redlands, California, Police Department 

Deborah Spence  
Social Science Analyst 
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 

A.T.Wall 
Director 
Rhode Island Department of Corrections
Cranston, Rhode Island 

Ronald Wilson 
Program Manager 
Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety 
National Institute of Justice 
U.S. Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C.

Specifically, this guidebook aims to: 

 Explain how public safety can be enhanced by police involvement in prisoner reentry 
efforts; 

 Describe the value of mapping prisoner reentry in support of such efforts; and 

 Guide readers through the steps necessary to obtain, map, and analyze reentry-related 
data in the interest of informing police/community prisoner reentry partnerships. 

This guidebook raises and answers a series of questions designed to walk the reader through 
the logic of why and how police can take an active role in prisoner reentry efforts and how 
mapping can aid in those efforts. It then describes in detail the reasons behind, and strategies for, 
engaging in data-sharing partnerships with corrections agencies, followed by a description of 
useful maps that can be produced. Special attention is paid to describing the various obstacles 
both to forging reentry partnerships and to mapping reentry data and how those obstacles can 
be surmounted. The guidebook closes with a discussion of how police agencies, in partnership 
with corrections, service providers, and community representatives, can use maps to influence 
changes in policies, practices, and procedures to better enhance public safety by reducing 
recidivism among released prisoners and apprehending those who do recidivate swiftly and 
efficiently. 


Why Should Police be Involved 
in Prisoner Reentry? 

In many respects, police involvement in reentry is a no-brainer. The primary role of police is 
to maintain peace and order and provide for a safe environment. What we know about prisoner reentry 
is that (1) more people are returning from prison each year; (2) they face enormous 
challenges in successfully reintegrating into society, including histories of drug addiction and 
educational and employment deficits; and (3) a significant number end up reoffending and are 
returned to prison. While not every released prisoner commits new crimes, those who do have 
a direct impact on public safety, influencing citizens fears of victimization, and reducing the 
publics confidence in both police and community corrections. 

Police dont act in a vacuum. We need to be mindful of the increased number of 
prisoners that are released each year and what that means for keeping crime low. 
Edward Davis 
Superintendent of Police, Lowell, Massachusetts 

Indeed, law enforcement agencies have every interest in mapping and understanding the 
community context and impact of prisoner reentry. Knowledge of who is being released and 
where they are returning provides useful information about the community, both with regard 
to potential threats to public safety as well as any gaps in resources that may exist to assist this 
population. Mapping reentry provides law enforcement with a more comprehensive picture of 
assets and risks of an area, adding another dynamic to the neighborhood composite, which by 
definition includes the types of people who live and work in that neighborhood. 

One of the things police can do is add a level of accountability to returning 
prisoners. We can act as corrections eyes and ears on the street. 
Terry Morgan 
Commander, Redmond, Washington, Police Department 

While some individual patrol officers may believe they already know which former prisoners 
are returning to their beats, mapping produces a collective knowledge of reentry and how it 
fits into the larger context of public safety and crime prevention. Moreover, law enforcements 
knowledge of not just where but how prisoners are released (e.g., whether under post-release 
supervision or not) can help forge proactive partnerships with corrections that prevent future 
victimization. 

Most cops think we know everything there is about street problems when we really 
might not. 
James Bueermann 
Chief of Police, Redlands, California 


Community Policing and Prisoner Reentry 

Before launching into a discussion of how police could or should engage in reentry partnerships, 
it is important to review the evolution of policing in America in recent years. Only a few 
decades ago the phrase community policing was hardly uttered in policing, criminal justice, or 
policy circles. Today it has become commonplace but, nonetheless, it means different things to 
different people. At its best, community policing embodies data-driven, problem-oriented, and 
often place-specific approaches to both solving and preventing future crimes. This is accomplished 
through the engagement of police with all manner of community representativesresidents, schools, 
local faith and nonprofit institutions, government agencies, businesses, and other 
law enforcement entities. Community policing also encourages agencies to undergo organizational 
changes to support these partnerships and problem-solving efforts. 

This is a very different model from that of traditional policing, which is primarily reactive and 
focused on apprehending perpetrators who have already committed crimes. Without a doubt, 
there is a role for this traditional line of police work, but community policing embodies much 
more than that, particularly with regard to preventing future victimization. It is from this 
community-policing definition that this guidebook explores how police can become involved in 
prisoner reentry efforts and, more specifically, how mapping can help. 

A traditional approach to policing with regard to prisoner reentry would be to watch, wait, and 
find the earliest opportunity to rearrest released prisoners and get them off the street again. But 
that is not a practical approach, either administratively or fiscally. It is not a good use of police 
officers time to have them sit and wait for something bad to happen, and it is extremely expensive 
to incarcerate people. Perhaps most importantly, this traditional policing approach allows a 
crime to take place before apprehension can occur, creating yet another victim. 

You cannot arrest your way out of everything.
James Bueermann 
Chief of Police, Redlands, California 

Community policing as applied to prisoner reentry goes far beyond this traditional policing 
framework and explores a vast array of ways in which police can enhance public safety by 
engaging in reentry efforts. Yes, increased surveillance is one obvious role, and an argument can 
be made that increased surveillance of released prisoners alone could go a long way to increasing 
public safety. But it is also true that, in the context of community policing, law enforcement 
can play a roleboth prior to and after prisoner releasein: 

 Encouraging former prisoners to comply with their conditions of post-release 
supervision; 

 Connecting former prisoners to services in the community; and 

 Exchanging valuable information with corrections entities that can be used to prevent 
future crimes and solve existing ones. 

The community-policing model also includes neighborhood residents as integral partners in 
identifying, responding to, and preventing crime. Central to that process is the use of problem 
solving, an approach embodied in problem-oriented policing (POP), which focuses on addressing the 
underlying causes of crime as a strategy to improve public safety. Law enforcements 


expertise with POP can be applied to prisoner reentry in a manner that focuses not just on the 
individual risk factors of returning prisoners but also on the risk factors associated with the 
people, property, and places returning prisoners encounter upon their release and that line 
officers know so well. Community policing is well equipped to employ this type of place-based 
focus because police can work in partnership with supervisory agencies to identify both the 
types of places and situations that are likely to increase a returning prisoners criminal 
opportunities as well as how those opportunities might be reduced. 

In summary, a comprehensive and proactive approach to prisoner reentry on the part of police 
is very much a natural extension of the work they do. Indeed, making contact with former 
prisoners is part of officers everyday business. Taking on reentry as a part of their core mission 
benefits law enforcement because successful efforts to reduce reoffending among released prisoners 
can prevent future crimes and help improve community relations with police. Focusing 
on prisoner reentry has the added benefit of helping to leverage resources and intelligence from 
other agencies, aiding in increased surveillance and leading to early apprehension and a fast 
track to prosecution. Such efforts require the sharing and analysis of data, and mapping can aid 
that process in a number of ways. 

Prisoner reentry is a natural extension of the work we do. Its not about reinventing 
the wheel, just folding in new partners. 
Blake Norton 
Director, Public Affairs & Community Programs 
Boston, Massachusetts, Police Department 

Its about working smarter and leveraging resources and intelligence to do so. 
John Markovic 
Program Manager 
International Association of Chiefs of Police 


How Can Police Use Mapping 
in Support of Reentry Efforts? 

Prisoner reentry is not an equal opportunity phenomenon: it affects some communities much 
more than others. In fact, every study conducted on where released prisoners reside shows 
heavy patterns of concentrations, with released prisoners residing in major cities and, within 
those cities, clustering in a handful of neighborhoods. Areas to which high concentrations of 
released prisoners reside tend to be characterized by measures of disadvantage, such as high 
levels of unemployment and poverty. 

In addition to economic disadvantages, these communities also lack strong social mechanisms 
that reinforce pro-social behavior, with low levels of social cohesion among residents and norms 
that are too weak to be effective at eliciting positive behavior (Rose and Clear 2003). A community 
without strong norms, social trust, and informal social control mechanisms has difficulty in 
providing the support, resources, and guidance that can help members disengage from criminal 
activity (Lynch and Sabol 2000). The fact that significant numbers of residents from these areas 
cycle in and out of prison reduces the stability of these communities and increases the potential 
public safety risks caused by reentry. Mapping can aid in understanding these risks as well as 
the needs of returning prisoners, and can also assist in identifying where resources exist and 
where they are needed. 

Where are Former Prisoners Residing? 

Maps depicting the residential locations of recently released prisoners can help law enforcement 
identify concentrations of returning prisoners in relation to other community factors that can 
aid in better assisting this population. Such maps also assist in targeting areas that may be prone 
to increased gang violence or may be at greater risk of victimization by certain types of offenders. 
From a law enforcement management perspective, maps of returning prisoners residences, 
when overlaid with police patrol areas, may also guide police officer deployment decisions. 
Similarly, police can share such maps with community corrections partners to help guide the 
allocation of parole officers, as well as to estimate and minimize the travel distance of parolees 
to parole offices. 

One example of police use of reentry maps is represented through a partnership between the 
Providence, Rhode Island, Police Department (PPD) and The Providence Plan, a nonprofit specializing 
in community data collection and analysis in support of improving the economic and social 
well-being of city residents. This partnership has helped to produce both crime and reentry maps 
in support of CompStat meetings as well as reentry efforts. Because The Providence Plan was 
already actively engaged in reentry-mapping efforts, it was relatively easy for them to produce 
crime maps overlaying probation and parole data with police data. Figure 3 provides an example 
of how parolees and probationers are distributed within one of the police patrol areas in the city. 


Figure 3: Locations of Providence Parolees and Probationers and Crimes by Type in District 7 

Source: Map produced byThe Providence Plan with data obtained from the Providence Police Department and the 
Rhode Island Department of Corrections.


Mapping can also aid in assigning caseloads for which police and probation or parole officers 
conduct team ride-alongs and home visits. Figure 4 illustrates an example of how the Knoxville, 
Tennessee, Police Departments (KPD) reentry collaboration, which was established to build 
partnerships between police, corrections, and probation and parole in order to improve the 
successful reentry of high-risk offenders, uses maps to aid both the allocation of probation and 
parole officers and the identification of suspects.

Figure 4: Population Under Criminal Justice Supervision in Knox County, Tennessee, 2005 
Source: Lee Ragsdale, Program Manager, Knoxville (TN) Police Department, 2006. 

Another mapping application employed by the KPD displays residences that police have identified 
as likely drug houses (see Figure 5). This map was used by corrections to assist in release 
plan investigations and change of address requests. For example, such mapping can help to 
identify whether an address a parolee submits as a planned or new residence is legitimate, as 
well as whether it is located in areas that could pose risks to successful reentry (e.g., near an 
open-air drug market). 


Figure 5: Location of Police-Identified Drug Houses In Knoxville, Tennessee, 2005
Source:Lee Ragsdale,Program Manager,Knoxville (TN) Police Department, 2006.

Identifying areas with high concentrations of returning prisoners may help guide law enforcement 
and parole officer efforts to reduce specific types of associated public safety risks. For 
example, mapping gang activity within the community and gang affiliation among released 
prisoners may help in pinpointing those who are at greatest risk of committing violent crimes 
after release, suggesting a different type of reentry intervention for that subgroup than for the 
general population of releasees. 


Figure 6: Released Inmate Gang Members by New Jersey Municipality Conference. Savannah, GA. 
Source: Johnson, Melissa R. 2005. Using Prison Gang Intelligence from the Inside Out. New Jersey 
Department of Corrections. Presented at the 8th Annual Crime Mapping Research Conference. Savannah, GA.

The New Jersey Department of Corrections (NJ DOC) identifies gang members among current 
prisoners using self-reported gang affiliation, gang-related tattoos, possession of gang-related 
paraphernalia, intelligence from law enforcement, and prisoner informants (Johnson 2005). 
When gang members are released, the DOC notifies local law enforcement in the jurisdiction 
to which the inmate is returning. Gang-affiliated, released prisoners have also been mapped 
throughout the state as well as within the city of Camden. The statewide map revealed that 
87 percent of New Jersey towns have at least one identified gang inmate residing there (see 
Figure 6). 

Within Camden, gang inmates have been mapped by affiliation using different symbols, and 
individuals may be identified by name (see Figure 7). This information has also been combined 
with aerial photos of gang territories to aid in the identification of neighboringand potentially 
clashingturfs (Johnson 2005). 


Figure 7: Camden (NJ) Released Gang-Affiliated Inmates
Source: Johnson, Melissa R. 2005. Using Prison Gang Intelligence from the Inside Out. 
New Jersey Department of Corrections. Presented at the 
8th Annual Crime Mapping Research Conference. Savannah, GA. 

From a traditional law enforcement perspective, the mapping of known offenders in relation to 
reported crimes might also help inform investigative efforts. Such information can be used to 
aid in prevention measures targeted toward areas of greatest vulnerability to crime. However, 
as Figure 8 illustrates, concentrations of where parolees live may have little or no relationship 
to where crime occurs. This finding mirrors previous research underscoring the fact that 
residences of former prisoners do not necessarily coincide with locations of crimes (La Vigne 
and Kachnowski 2003; La Vigne and Thomson 2003). Such maps can be used by law enforcement to 
communicate that residents need not be fearful of victimization simply because former 
prisoners are residing among them. This can reduce not in my backyard attitudes and serve 
to engage residents in positive ways to assist former prisoners in leading productive and law 
abiding lives. 


Figure 8: San Diego County Parolee and Probationer Population and Reported Property 
Source: Julie Wartell, San Diego County District Attorneys Office. 

The question of where former prisoners are residing becomes particularly important with 
regard to sex offenders, as jurisdictions are increasingly barring sex offenders from living in 
areas that are in close proximity to schools, parks, and other places at which children congregate. 
Mapping can assist law enforcement in communities that prohibit sex offenders from living in close 
proximity to schools. Figure 9 illustrates the home residences of sex offenders in San 
Diego in relation to half-mile buffers surrounding schools. A significant number of offenders 
were found to reside in prohibited locations. Police can use this information to share with parole 
that certain offenders are violating conditions of parole. Such maps can also be useful in investigations 
of sex crimes against children. 


Figure 9: San Diego County Sex Registrants in Relation to K-8 Schools 
Source: Julie Wartell, San Diego County District Attorneys Office. 

The advent of Geographic Positioning Systems (GPS) has enabled corrections to enhance the 
basic mapping capabilities of GIS for sex offender management purposes. The GPS device is 
linked to an ankle bracelet, which transmits the geographic coordinates of the offender into a 
central tracking system roughly every ten minutes. This technology enables the whereabouts 
of known sex offenders to be monitored 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The system can also be 
designed to issue alerts if offenders go into proscribed areas, such as near schools or day-care 
centers (termed geofencing). 



Figure 10: GPS Positions of One Sex Offenders Locations Over a 2 -Hour Period 
Source: Kurt Smith, Redlands (CA) Police Department. 

The Redlands, California, Police Department recently linked the states parole GPS pilot program 
to its own GIS to determine its utility for law enforcement. Initially the department had 
not yet done any geofencing and one officer was simply checking locations of offenders twice a 
day. However, a known sex offender who had been incarcerated for sexual battery of a twelve-
year-old had recently been released from prison and was subject to GPS monitoring, so officers 
took particular note of his whereabouts and quickly identified a disturbing pattern. The 
offenders routine was to go out of his way to drive by the university and linger on the campus. 
It became clear that he was searching for targets on campus, and collaboration with university 
police quickly linked him to a series of indecent exposure events, which resulted in a parole 
violation and his return to prison for an additional eight months. (See Figure 10 for depiction of 
how GPS, when combined with aerial photography, can provide detailed information about the 
whereabouts of monitored sex offenders.) 


Start Text Box:

Mapping and GPS Tracking of Sex Offenders 

Megans Law and similar state and local statutes have prompted the development of Web-based data 
systemsmany equipped with mapping capabilitiesthat can be employed by both law enforcement 
and the public. This provides an opportunity to quickly identify returning prisoners who were 
serving time for sex offenses, which can be used to increase surveillance of these individuals as 
well as to encourage their compliance with certain conditions of post-release supervision, such as 
not living or going near schools and other areas where children congregate. GPS tracking of sex 
offenders provides the added benefit of receiving real-time alerts when offenders do enter such 
proscribed areas. 

Despite the advantages that GIS and GPS provide to sex offender management and surveillance 
efforts, these systems may also increase fears among the public; therefore maps of sex offender 
locations should be generated and disseminated with care. The following are some simple guidelines 
that, if employed, may minimize fears caused by the use of sex offender mapping and tracking 
systems, as well as increase the efficient use of them by law enforcement and corrections. 

Distinguish sex offenders by type. The public is most concerned with child predators. These 
should be distinguished from those convicted of statutory rape and other types of sex offenders. 

Illustrate the percent of sex offenders as a share of all returning prisoners. This will 
enable the public to understand the scale of the problem, illustrating that most returning prisoners 
are incarcerated for lesser crimes. 

Limit dissemination based on purpose. It is important to distinguish between the need to 
share sex offender maps with other agencies versus sharing them with residents. 

Proximity is as important as location. Knowing whether a sex offender is in close proximity 
to a child day care center is as important as if he were on the premises. When using GPS, create 
geofencing that has a generous radius around certain vulnerable targets to allow police or 
corrections officers ample time to arrive on the scene. 

Limit GPS surveillance to high-risk offenders. GPS generates an enormous amount of 
information and, even with geofencing programmed into the system, police and corrections can 
easily become overwhelmed by the data at the expense of identifying at-risk behavior on the part of 
the most dangerous sex offenders. 

End Text Box

Are Resources and Services Accessible to Those in Need? 

A second category of useful mapping applications for reentry is the use of maps to guide 
resource allocation. Mapping released prisoners in conjunction with services available to them 
can illustrate areas containing adequate services and employment opportunities in close proximity 
to where the majority of prisoners return. Such mapping can also detect a service delivery 
mismatch in which services exist but are not easily accessible. 


Equally important is whether suitable jobs for former prisoners are available or are located 
along public transportation networks. The San Diego District Attorneys Office, in partnership 
with the San Diego Association of Governments (SanDAG), employed mapping to examine 
the distance that former prisoners participating in the Second Chance employment placement 
program needed to travel to report to their jobs. Figure 11 depicts the distances for each of the 
forty participants, and reveals that some commutes were as far as twenty miles each way, which 
prompted the reentry partnership in San Diego to contemplate transportation challenges of 
returning prisoners and the role that long commutes might play in job retention over time. 

Another example that illustrates how reentry mapping might guide resource allocation is the 
need for safe and affordable housing for returning prisoners. Some prisoners have no housing 
available to them after their release and have no remaining ties to family and friends on the 
outside. These housing challenges are intensified when prisoners return to their old neighborhoods 
only to find that there are no shelters or affordable housing options for them. Mapping the locations 
of shelters, halfway houses, and affordable housing in relation to where inmates return can 
illustrate the extent of this problem and provide guidance in choosing appropriate sites for new 
housing options for releasees. 

The examples of reentry-mapping applications described above underscore the importance and 
value of understanding the effects of incarceration and reentry on communities. It is important 
to note, however, that maps themselves are not the end goal of a reentry program. To the contrary, 
the maps generated should be used in concert with other analysis tools to help launch a 
community conversation, to engage stakeholders, and to generate support for the creation of 
new resourcesand the targeting of existing oneswhere they will be most effective. These 
reentry maps will yield the greatest impact if they are guided by and shared with partners who 
are most likely to be engaged in promoting the successful reintegration of former prisoners. 


Figure 11: Distance from Ex-Offender Employment Program Participants to Employers 
Source: Julie Wartell, San Diego County District Attorneys Office. 



What Partnerships Should be Forged?

The key to any reentry partnershipand particularly one involving the sharing and mapping of 
data and intelligenceis to get the right players at the table. These players will vary from 
community to community but, at a bare minimum, law enforcement should aim to partner with both 
institutional corrections (prisons and jails serving their jurisdiction) and community corrections 
(parole, probation, and/or other community supervision agencies). These corrections entities will 
have the data on when people are being released, where they will be living, and whether they 
will be subject to supervision on the outside. Corrections will also likely have information on 
the criminal backgrounds, gang affiliations, and drug use and mental health histories of released 
prisoners, all of which are critical to understanding both the needs as well as the potential public 
safety threats of this population. Likewise, law enforcements access to information on community 
dynamics, as well as the risks and habits of known offenders and their associates, can contribute 
to prisoner reentry strategies and educate residents. 

Cross-jurisdictional agency collaboration makes the job easier for both corrections 
and law enforcement. 
Jeffrey Gersh 
Chief of Research and Evaluation 
Maryland Governors Office of Crime Control and Prevention 

Despite the obvious benefits to police partnering with corrections, establishing partnerships 
with them can be very challenging and requires a mutual understanding of the goals and philosophies 
of each agency. Often the greatest barrier to such partnerships is misperception on the 
part of each party on whom they are and what they are trying to accomplish. Stereotypically, 
corrections view police as hardliners whose sole purpose is to apprehend offenders, whereas 
police believe corrections officers are criminal-loving social workers. Those who work for 
corrections agencies may believe that they do not garner the appropriate amount of respect from 
their law enforcement counterparts, and therefore may be unwilling to engage in a partnership. 
Overcoming these misperceptions is critical to forging a strong, productive partnership. 
This can be accomplished by doing cross trainingfor example, having parole officers ride 
along with police officers and vice versa, and inviting parole officers to speak at police roll calls. 
Similarly, police visits to correctional institutions and corrections visits to roll calls could be 
beneficial in helping each party gain a better understanding for and appreciation of the others 
work. Often these common understandings are forged at the very top of the law enforcement 
and corrections hierarchies, with individual relationships among chiefs and corrections directors 
going a long way toward setting a tone of collaboration and collegiality for the rank and file 
of both agencies. 

We are different agencies and have different missions even though they are related. 
The culture clash needs to be talked about and ironed out. 
A.T. Wall 
Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections 


It is evident that any fruitful law enforcement reentry partnership requires both buy-in and 
collaboration from community and institutional corrections, but what other partners should 
be at the table and what can they contribute to the reentry-mapping effort? One useful means 
to identifying reentry-mapping partners is to answer the question, Who is affected by prisoner 
reentry and how? This could lead to the generation of a long list of stakeholders, complete with 
detailed information on the types of data and intelligence that they may be able to provide to 
law enforcement. Some general categories of types of reentry partners include: 

 
Correctionsboth institutional (prisons and jails) and community (probation and 
parole) 

 
Other criminal justice entitiesneighboring and regional law enforcement (state, 
county), federal law enforcement (U.S. Attorney, Immigration and Naturalization, 
cross-agency task forces, courts, juvenile justice) 

 
Residentsincluding past victims of crime, families of released prisoners, and 
released prisoners themselves 

 
Local businessthose affected by crime and those willing and able to employ former 
prisoners 

 
Schoolsboth in sharing intelligence on adult sex offenders and drug dealers as well 
as identifying potential youthful offenders 

 
Faith-based institutionsoften an informal source of support and assistance to 
returning prisoners 

 
Service providersincluding substance abuse treatment centers, transitional housing 
providers, job readiness and placement centers 

 
Public housing authoritiesmay impose restrictions on certain types of returning 
prisoners and may have intelligence on where absconders are 

Often many of these partners have already been identified through other comprehensive law 
enforcement efforts, such as interagency task forces. These existing relationships can be easily 
harnessed and redirected to the topic of prisoner reentry. The power of forging such comprehensive 
prisoner-reentry partnerships is that both responsibility and accountability for the issue is 
spread across the entire community. This can engender greater community cohesion around the 
common goal of crime reduction. 

Sometimes youre just reorganizing the players and introducing new technology. 
Blake Norton 
Director, Public Affairs & Community Programs 
Boston, Massachusetts, Police Department 

Once the various partners are identified, roles and relationships will need to be defined. At a 
minimum, the roles of all partners should include the exchange of information and intelligence 
about returning prisoners in terms of the risks they pose to the community, their needs (drug 
treatment, housing) as well as assets (strong family support, employment skills), and their conditions, 
if any, of post-release supervision. Partners may also exchange more global information 
on the location, type, and availability of services available for returning prisoners and the 
frequency and type of contacts police have with former prisoners under correctional supervision. 
This type of information exchange is enhanced when reentry partners are co-located at the same 


workplace or when joint task strategies are developed, such as drug courts that require equal 
input and shared information among different criminal justice and community entities. 

Its important to look at who your internal partners are and whether they buy into 
reentry. 
Dora Schriro 
Director, Arizona Department of Corrections 

This type of information sharing can be facilitated by developing memoranda of understanding 
(MOUs) that clearly state the nature of the information to be shared, the frequency of data 
exchanges, and who will have access to the data. In addition to sharing information, reentry 
partnerships can be both forged and reinforced by other efforts to increase each partys 
understanding of the others work. This can be accomplished through cross training, the use of citizen 
academies, parole/police ride-alongs, and police officer visits to prisons. 

It is rare for police to be seen inside a correctional institution, so it has an effect 
when they are seen. When someone is in custody, you have their attention; they are 
clean and sober, so it is the best time to converse. 
A.T. Wall 
Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections 

Perhaps the greatest means of forging a strong and sustainable reentry partnership is to build 
off existing personal relationships for which trust already exists and stereotypical barriers have 
been overcome. These personal relationships, coupled with strong buy-in from the top, can be 
very effective in reentry efforts that involve a wide array of stakeholders. 

I would say that sharing information is fundamental to the success of both 
disciplines because community safety is our ultimate goal. However, we are more 
likely to pass on information when we know and trust the person we are talking 
with. This relationship can be developed more rapidly when each discipline realizes 
how often the other interacts with the same offenders. 
Lt. Mike Ashmet 
Ogden City, Utah, Police Department 


How Can Reentry Data be Obtained? 

When it comes to obtaining address-level data on returning prisoners, it is first necessary to 
understand the administrative structure in your state. Each states criminal justice structure 
is different, with some states combining institutional and community corrections under one 
agency and others housing these functions under independent agencies. For the purposes of 
police involvement in prisoner reentry, it is useful to reach out to both the agency that collects 
and maintains data on existing prison populations, as well as the agency that maintains information 
on those offenders who are currently under supervision in the community. Each data 
source has its advantages and disadvantages. 

One way to create a connection and foster collaboration with corrections agencies 
is to show them some preliminary data analysis. This would not only help to 
confirm some of their previous suspicions but would also provide them with useful 
information that they may not have seen before. This could definitely help in 
bridging the gap between police and corrections. 
Ronald Wilson 
Program Manager, MAPS, NIJ 

Data on institutional corrections typically provide a more accurate representation of the volume 
of recently released prisoners but are less likely to have reliable addresses for this population. 
Conversely, databases of existing parolees can include those who were released many years ago 
and hence may not be representative of those individuals who are reentering society. Moreover, 
this data source underestimates the reentry count because, in many states, a significant number 
of released prisoners are not under community supervision. In addition, some released prisoners 
are supervised as probationers rather than parolees (see sidebar, Probation and Parole: 
Understanding Post-Release Supervision). Nonetheless, community corrections databases are 
much more apt to have reliable addresses because parolees are required to report changes of 
address to their parole officers. 

Many nuances and complications exist in interpreting and analyzing these data sources. Moreover, 
creating maps that effectively and accurately communicate information requires knowledge of color 
schemes, graphics, and other display options that are available in GIS software. 
For an in-depth discussion on these issues and how they can be overcome, see La Vigne and 
Cowan, 2005. 

In addition to data about released prisoners, the reentry-mapping partnership will also need 
contextual data about the neighborhoods in which returning prisoners reside. These data 
include basic information, such as the income and employment levels in those neighborhoods, 
which can typically be obtained from census files or the local council of governments. Information 
on the locations of service providers may be obtained from local Information and Referral 
or 211 databases listing services for former prisoners. 


Start Text Box 

Probation and Parole: Understanding Post-Release Supervision 

Criminal justice definitions can vary widely from state to state, creating confusion among those 
who are seeking to better understand and respond to the released prisoner population. In most 
states, those released to a term of community supervision following a state prison term are called 
parolees. This term, however, has taken on different meaning in recent years, as more states have 
moved away from the use of parole boards as an early release mechanism. However, even in those 
states where parole has been abolished, the term parole as applied to post-release supervision 
remains. 

Probation, on the other hand, is typically imposed as an alternative sanction to a prison term and, 
thus, in most states probationers are not recently released prisoners (although they are likely 
candidates for prison if they fail to meet the conditions of probation). However, in some places 
judges impose split sentences, also known as shock probation, whereby offenders are sentenced to 
a short prison term followed by a term of probation supervision in the community. While national 
statistics on the share of state prisoners who are released to parole and probation supervision 
are not available, recent projections indicate that roughly 80 percent of released prisoners will be 
under some form of community supervision (Beck 2000). If historical data are any indication, among 
those under supervision, roughly 90 percent are on parole and 10 percent are on probation. 

End Text Box



How Should Reentry Maps be Presented?

It is clear that reentry maps produced with the data sources described above can be extremely 
useful in describing the nature of reentry, the underlying factors surrounding reentry success 
or failure, and the existing and needed resources to serve this population. Nonetheless, many 
police reentry partnerships develop mapping capabilities but find themselves limited by a lack 
of knowledge of what types of maps to produce. Busy, executive-level decision makers should 
not be expected to understand the nuances of GIS to the extent that they know what types of 
maps to request. The burden should be on the person generating the maps to present various 
versions of the same information in a way that decision makers can determine which best 
communicates the data. 

The making and sharing of maps with decision makers should also be viewed as an iterative 
process, for which drafts are presented, revised, and redistributed. Rare is the case that the first 
map produced communicates information effectively, and sharing such first drafts with the 
end user can lead to helpful refinements. In addition, it is often useful for mapmakers to help 
decision makers by including a bullet or even brief narrative text on the same page as the map, 
describing the main points the map is communicating. These take-away points enable those 
who are not accustomed to reading maps to focus their attention on the specific concentrations 
or relationships that the map portrays. 

Mapmakers should tell folks what they think the map meansand what it doesnt. 
A.T. Wall 
Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections 


What are the Obstacles to Reentry Mapping? 

Data Acquisition 

Obtaining and mapping reentry data require partnerships and, often, formal agreements with 
participating agencies to address a number of likely challenges. First, acquiring data from 
multiple agencies raises issues associated with human subjects protection, and can often result 
in turf wars between agencies that are perceived as having conflicting missions (e.g., human 
services agencies versus law enforcement). As discussed earlier, much can be overcome by forging 
strong partnerships from the start, employing the cross-training methods described earlier 
in this publication. Often, formal written documentation of the partnership is useful as well, 
which is typically achieved through a signed MOU. In order to be effective and comprehensive, 
the MOU should address who will share the data (including restrictions or guidelines on 
third-party sharing), how personal identifiers will be addressed, and how the resulting maps 
and analyses will be distributed. Given the sensitive nature of the topic and the medias likely 
interest in it, it may be prudent to include language that says that no agency shall release the 
data (in map or any other form) without the agreement of all MOU signatories. MOUs may also 
include agreement on how often data will be shared among the parties and a requirement that 
all parties abide by clearly delineated metadata1 standards. Such MOUs can provide peace of 
mind that data are used responsibly and that the sharing of data with other agencies will not 
generate any unexpected media attention. 

An MOU helps spell out what each agency is going to do without making those 
boundaries impermeable. It establishes legitimacy for all involvednot just the 
police or correctionsmaking it a true partnership. 
Lee Ragsdale 
Program Manager, Knoxville, Tennessee, Police Department 

Data Integration 

Incompatible and antiquated data systems can make it difficult to extract data for mapping 
purposes and, without metadata, integration can be difficult. A useful approach to overcoming 
these challenges is to encourage all parties to use the Global Justice Extensible Markup Language 
(XML) Data Model (Global JXDM). Global JXDM was developed by the U.S. Department 
of Justices Office of Justice Programs in order to reduce the burden that individual criminal 
justice agencies typically face in developing common systems in order to share data. For more 
information on how to obtain and employ Global JXDM, see http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic 
.jsp?topic_id=43. 

1Technically defined as data about data, metadata applies to the documentation about where data are obtained 
from and how they are stored, modified, defined, and formatted. Metadata become critical when data are shared 
across agencies so that all users employ the data properly and understand its limitations. 


GIS Technology and Expertise 

Agencies new to mapping are often daunted by their lack of GIS technology and/or technological 
expertise, as well as by the costs associated with acquiring that technological expertise 
through training or subcontracting. Given the right resources and partnerships, however, an 
array of cost-effective solutions is available. With regard to software, many basic mapping 
programs and geocoding programs are now available online for free or for a nominal fee.2 
Information specific to the mapping of crime and criminal justice data, including both software 
and training resources, may be found through the National Institute of Justices Mapping and 
Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) program.3 

Another option is to take advantage of interns or students from a local universitys planning, 
criminal justice, or geography departments. These departments typically own their own GIS 
software, and professors are often looking for real-life work to use as practical applications for 
their students, so that each party benefits from such a partnership. Given the inexpensive (and 
often free) labor universities provide, such a partnership holds promise for providing ongoing 
support over time. 

In some cases, the appropriate approach for covering the costs of a new GIS venture is through 
the use of state or federal grants. One option for grants is through the state agency that distributes 
funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program,4 or by 
applying for JAG funds directly as a local government entity. JAG grants can be used to fund a 
variety of criminal justice related items, including information technology such as GIS. 

Lots of software is available that agencies just arent taking advantage of. 
Kurt Smith 
Director, Community Analysis & Technology 
Redlands, California, Police Department 

Lack of Resources 

Perhaps the greatest reason agencies do not engage in reentry-mapping efforts is the perceived 
high cost of doing so. These perceptions, however, are often inaccurate. As referenced above 
with regard to GIS expertise and software, most reentry partnerships include at least one agency 
that has already invested in GIS. Thus, the costs are mostly in human resources and the opportunity 
costs associated with having employees working on reentry mapping at the expense of 
other activities. These opportunity costs should not be underestimated but may nonetheless be 
justified if a clear tie can be made between reentry mapping and increased public safety. Moreover, 
the partnerships required to launch a reentry-mapping effort in a cost-efficient manner 
should result in increased collaboration, which would be looked upon favorably by prospective 
funding agencies. 

2For a list of free GIS software online, see http://www.gis.com/implementing_gis/software/index.html. For free 
geocoding software (on a trial basis only) see www.geocode.com.

3See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/.

4Formerly known as the Byrne Formula and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) programs, JAG is 
administered by the Office of Justice Programs of the U.S. Department of Justice. More information on the program 
can be found at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag.html.


Public Fears and Media Misrepresentation 

Reentry maps can be useful tools in assisting law enforcement and corrections partners in 
understanding and responding to prisoner reentry, but often residents do not perceive a benefit 
from the distribution of maps depicting concentrations of returning prisoners. Indeed, such 
maps may increase fears of victimization, raise concerns about diminished property values, and 
prompt charges of racism due to the fact that reentry concentrations often closely mirror concentrations 
of minority populations. Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) issues may also emerge, as 
reentry maps may prompt residents to anticipate that services will be co-located near concentrations 
of returning prisoners, exacerbating rather than mitigating the public safety risks in their 
immediate vicinity. 

While some of these perceptions may be insurmountable, they can be anticipated and minimized by simple 
mapping techniques along with the strategic release of maps to the public. 
Care should be taken to represent hot spots of returning prisoners not with shades of red, which 
connote danger, but with more neutral shades of gray, green, or blue. When using icons or 
graduated symbols, colors and sizes can also be adjusted to represent the information in a way 
that does not appear intimidating. With regard to racial issues, it is important to map returning 
prisoners along with an array of other socioeconomic datarather than using race as a proxy 
so that it is clearly communicated that these concentrations are about economic disadvantage 
rather than race. 

We need to include other factors, such as income and unemployment, to make it 
clear that this is about correlations and not about race. 
A.T. Wall 
Director, Rhode Island Department of Corrections 

Another way to minimize the flaring of racial tensions that can sometimes occur with reentry 
maps is to explain the purpose and the context of the maps. If the maps are presented in the 
context of garnering support for creative, proactive approaches to supporting the successful 
reentry of prisonersand thus increasing public safetythe public is much less likely to 
become hostile and defensive than if the first map they see depicts returning prisoners in 
relation to crime hot spots. Indeed, public commitment and resources to address and minimize the 
challenges of prisoner reentry can be garnered through an education campaign that emphasizes 
the increased public safety and net benefit to taxpayers that will result if policies and practices 
can be implemented that support the successful reintegration of former prisoners. 

Even when the above precautions are taken, the media can still thwart these efforts, highlighting 
what it believes to be the most sensational findings associated with any reentry map that 
is distributed. This can harm relationships between police and corrections, resulting in finger 
pointing from one agency to the other in an unproductive but all too common attempt at damage 
control. While personal relationships between agency staff can go a long way to preventing 
these types of incidents, even the strongest reentry partnership can quickly deteriorate under 
such media scrutiny. Tensions over media coverage can be prevented, or at least mitigated, by 
developing agreements that each agencys public information officer talk to the other before 
anybody talks to the press. 


How Can Mapping Lead to Action?

One of the greatest dangers of the application of GIS to a new issue or problem is that people 
assume that the end product is the map, spending most of their energies adding new data 
layers, experimenting with different color schemes, and focusing on the aesthetics of the map 
production process. If maps are to be used to support effective police reentry partnerships, 
they should be viewed as the beginning of the process rather than the end. Such maps should be 
employed to inform the conversation on reentry in terms of the concentrations, needs, and risks 
of returning prisoners in the community. 

It would be great if the department of corrections could take the initiative and map 
out their data, since they have their own centralized database. 
Philip Mielke 
GIS Analyst, Redlands, California, Police Department 

Reentry maps can help partners gain a common understanding of the distribution of former 
prisoners throughout the community as well as the risks they may or may not pose. Mapping 
may illustrate that there are ample services within a community but that the services are all 
located in the same part of town, making it difficult for former prisoners living in more remote 
(and more affordable) areas to take advantage of those resources. 

Mapping can also help dispel myths about the risks that returning prisoners pose to public 
safety. For example, when isolated by type of sex offense, a map of former sex offenders may 
clearly illustrate the very small share of returning prisoners that group comprises, reducing 
fears and leading to more realistic policies tailored toward this subpopulation. 

The sharing of maps with varying levels and types of decision makers should be viewed as an 
iterative process, and preferably the person who produced the map should have a seat at the 
table. Those generating maps may wish to present a few, different, mapped representations of 
the same data to decision makers and to supplement those maps with graphs, charts, and tables. 
This enables people of varying map-reading aptitudes to rely on alternative and complementary 
visual representations of the data. Moreover, this approach helps to educate people on the 
possibilities of mapping and increases their own comfort level in using maps to inform conversations 
with decision makers that can lead to action. 


Conclusion

The recipe for a successful reentry-mapping initiative relies upon three important ingredients: 
people, partnerships, and products (see sidebar, What is the Value Added of a Prisoner Reentry 
Mapping Partnership?). Identifying the right people be they inspirational leaders who generate 
support or data gurus who understand the nuances of geocoding and mappingis a critical 
first step. Equally important, however, are the partnerships that must be forged and sustained 
to promote the sharing and mapping of data and the use of it to make a meaningful impact on 
public safety. Finally, these people and partnerships will have no sustainable impact if they do 
not lead to products that promote change in the way prisoner reentry is viewed and addressed. 
The products are not the maps alone; to the contrary, maps should be incorporated into the 
overall prisoner reentry strategy, playing a supporting rather than a starring role in the policies 
and practices that are ultimately developed and implemented. 

Crime control, at the end of the day, is not soft or hard. Either it works or it 
doesnt. 
James Bueermann. 
Chief of Police, Redlands, California 

Start Text Box

What is the Value Added of a Prisoner Reentry Mapping Partnership? 

 
Improves understanding of resources and available services (e.g., housing, job placement programs, 
substance abuse treatment) 

 
Increases understanding of where released prisoners are residing 

 
Builds knowledge of types of released prisoners in various neighborhoods (e.g., sex offenders, 
violent offenders, drug offenders) 

 
Promotes fluid communication and information exchange between agency partners 

 
Facilitates trust and buy-in between agencies 

 
Assists in efficient allocation of parole officers 

 
Identifies specific vs. general risks (e.g., gang member vs. repeat petty thief) 

 
Provides a comprehensive understanding of crime problems, especially in high-risk neighborhoods 

 
Promotes community and agency involvement, which spreads and increases the level of 
accountability and responsibility

 
Advances technological capabilities (e.g., GPS-tracking of high-risk offenders) 

 
Streamlines efforts by each participating agency (e.g., MOUs) 

 
Establishes legitimacy for all parties involved 

 
Increases understanding and appreciation of other agencies work 

End Text Box


References

Beck, Allen J. 2000. State and federal prisoners returning to the community: Findings from 
the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Washington, D.C.: Presentation at the First Reentry Courts 
Initiative Cluster Meeting. 

Harrison, Paige M., and Allen J. Beck. 2005. Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2004. Washington, 
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April, NCJ 208801. 

Johnson, Melissa R. 2005. Using Prison Gang Intelligence from the Inside Out. New Jersey 
Department of Corrections. Presented at the 8th Annual Crime Mapping Research 
Conference. Savannah, GA. 

Kingsley, G. Thomas, Claudia J. Coulton, Michael Barndt, David S. Sawicki, and Peter Tatian. 
1997. Mapping Your Community: Using Geographic Information to Strengthen Community 
Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

Langan, Patrick A., and David Levin. 2002. Recidivism of Prisoners Released in 1994. Bureau of 
Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 
Justice Programs. 

La Vigne, Nancy G. and Jake Cowan. 2005. Mapping Prisoner Reentry: An Action-Research 
Guidebook. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

La Vigne, N.G. and V. Kachnowski (2003). A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. 
Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. 

La Vigne, N.G. and J. Thomson (2003). A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington, D.C.: 
The Urban Institute. 

Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. 2000. Prison Use and Social Control. In Policies, 
Processes, and Decisions of the Criminal Justice System, Criminal Justice 2000: Vol. 3, edited 
by Julie Horney (744). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 
Programs, National Institute of Justice. 

Rose, Dina R., and Todd R. Clear. 2003. Incarceration, Reentry, and Social Capital: Social 
Networks in the Balance. In Prisoners Once Removed: The Impact of Incarceration and 
Reentry on Children, Families, and Communities, edited by Jeremy Travis and Michelle 
Waul. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press. 


Resources 

Mapping 

While this monograph recommends that reentry-mapping novices team up with local experts 
(e.g., universities or nonprofit data centers) to obtain mapping assistance, it may not be possible 
or desirable to do so. In fact, some reentry-mapping partnerships may determine that having in
house GIS expertise is important for project sustainability. Fortunately, several affordable training 
options are available. Software vendors such as ESRI and MapInfo offer training workshops 
throughout the country for a fee (see www.esri.com and www.mapinfo.com). 

For a list of free GIS software online, see http://www.gis.com/implementing_gis/software/
index.html. For free geocoding software (on a trial basis only) see www.geocode.com

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety program (MAPS) 
publishes reports and sponsors conferences and workshops, including the annual Crime 
Mapping Research Conference.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/index.html

The NIJ-funded Crime Mapping and Analysis Program (CMAP) offers training, technical 
assistance, and other resources. 
http://www.nlectc.org/cmap/

Created with support from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the 
Police Foundation Crime Mapping & Problem Analysis Laboratory (CMPAL) offers practical 
assistance and information to law enforcement agencies through an array of online resources, 
including an Introductory Guide to Crime Analysis and Mapping, Users Guide to Mapping Software 
for Police Agencies, Manual of Crime Analysis Map Production, Crime Analysis and Mapping Product 
Templates, Guidelines to Implement and Evaluate Crime Analysis and Mapping in Law Enforcement, 
Crime Analysis and Crime Mapping Information Clearinghouse, and an Advanced Problem Analysis, 
Crime Analysis, and Crime Mapping Training Curriculum. With support from COPS, the foundation 
publishes Crime Mapping News, a quarterly newsletter for crime mapping, GIS, problem 
analysis, and policing.
http://www.policefoundation.org/docs/crime_mapping.html

A project of the U.S. Department of Justices (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP), together 
with the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative, the Global JXDM is a comprehensive 
product that includes a data model, a data dictionary, and an XML schema that together is 
known as the Global JXDM. The Global JXDM is an XML standard designed specifically for 
criminal justice information exchanges, providing law enforcement, public safety agencies, 
prosecutors, public defenders, and the judicial branch with a tool to effectively share data and 
information in a timely manner. The Global JXDM removes the burden from agencies to independently 
create exchange standards and, because of its extensibility, there is more flexibility to 


deal with unique agency requirements and changes. Through the use of a common vocabulary 
that is understood system to system, Global JXDM enables access from multiple sources and 
reuse in multiple applications. 
http://www.it.ojp.gov/topic.jsp?topic_id=43 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Mapping 

The Reentry Policy Council (RPC), coordinated by the Council of State Governments (CSG), 
is a public/private partnership established to assist state government officials grappling with 
the increasing number of people leaving prisons and jails to return to the communities they left 
behind. The RPCs Web site has a step-by-step guide to addressing reentry at the local level, and 
includes links to research and resources.
http://www.reentrypolicy.org/reentry/default.aspx

The CSG Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum are developing a self-assessment 
toolkit for law enforcement agencies looking to improve and expand reentry efforts. Planning and 
Assessing a Law Enforcement Re-Entry Strategy is scheduled for release in Fall 2007. 
http://www.reentrypolicy.org/reentry/LawEnforcement.aspx

The Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center has an extensive list of prisoner reentry publications, 
including links to full documents.
http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-portfolio/index.cfm. 

In addition, the Urban Institute has a separate Web page dedicated to mapping prisoner reentry, 
which offers additional resources, publications, and links. 
www.reentrymapping.org

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, has a prisoner reentry Web page 
with information on state initiatives.
http://www.reentry.gov

The Mapping and Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) Web site, of the U.S. Department of Justice, 
National Institute of Justice, lists resources and publications on community mapping across 
a wide array of criminal justice topics.http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/maps/

The Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign is designed to support the work of community and 
faith-based organizations through offering media resources that will facilitate community 
discussion and decision making about solution-based reentry programs.
http://www.reentrymediaoutreach.org/

The International Association of Chiefs of Police and the Office of Community Oriented Policing 
Services published Offender Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement 
Executives and Their Agencies, the final report of a national policy summit of over 100 law 
enforcement, correctional, and community leaders to address the issue of offender reentry and 
the role of local law enforcement in reentry programs. 
http://www.theiacp.org/research/ReentrySummitReport.pdf


Biographies of Participants in the Forum 
on Mapping for Police-Led Prisoner Reentry 

Mike Ashmet 

Lieutenant Mike Ashmet is a twenty-year veteran of the Ogden City, Utah, Police Department, and is 
currently assigned to the uniform division as a watch commander. He has served as the commander 
of a multijurisdictional drug enforcement task force, and as the commander of a multijurisdictional 
homicide investigation task force. Lieutenant Ashmet has been recognized by the Utah Department 
of Corrections for his efforts in developing and sustaining a healthy partnership between corrections 
and local law enforcement. He works to improve systems to enhance information sharing and collaboration 
between the two agencies in an effort to reduce recidivism. He has an M.A. in organizational management, 
a B.S. in criminal justice, and is a recent graduate of the FBI National Academy. 

James Bueermann 

Jim Bueermann has worked for the Redlands, California, Police Department since 1978, serving 
in every unit within the department. He was appointed police chief and director of housing, recreation, 
and senior services in May 1998. He has been involved extensively with the research and 
development of risk and protective-focused prevention (RPFP) as a strategic crime prevention 
model and community-building tool. His work in this area has resulted in the ongoing development 
and evaluation of risk-focused policing, an innovative community-policing strategy, which integrates 
community-oriented policing and problem solving, RPFP, and advanced computer-mapping 
technologies. He has been involved with prisoner reentry issues for several years, participating in 
regional, national, and international forums as well as working with the California Department of 
Corrections. He is the co-founder of Californias secondand southern Californias firstPolice and 
Corrections Team (PACT). There are now PACTs throughout California and they are a critical part 
of the states restructuring of its parole system. He currently sits on the Prisoner Reentry Institute 
Advisory Board of John Jay College in New York City. He holds a bachelors degree from California 
State University at San Bernardino and a masters degree from the University of Redlands. He is a 
graduate of the FBI National Academy and the California Command College. 

Edward F. Davis III 

Edward F. Davis III is a 25-year veteran of the Lowell Police Department and a lifelong resident of 
Lowell, Massachusetts. He rose through the ranks holding a variety of positions, including captain 
in charge of community policing and commander of the regional narcotics unit. He was appointed 
superintendent of police in 1994. A community-policing pioneer, Davis reengineered the department 
using geographic assignment of all personnel to storefront precincts that represent each neighborhood. 
He was appointed by Governor Mitt Romney to the Department of Corrections Advisory 
Council and to the Commission on MedicoLegal Investigation. Superintendent Davis holds both 
a bachelors and masters degree in criminal justice, and attended the John F. Kennedy School of 
Governments Program for Senior Government Executives at Harvard University. He was the recipient of 
the National Institute of Justice Pickett Fellowship. 


Jeffrey Gersh 

Mr. Gersh is the Chief of Research & Evaluation at the Maryland Governors Office of Crime Control 
and Prevention where he provides guidance on data collection, data analysis, and process/outcome 
evaluations. Prior to joining the governors office, Mr. Gersh worked at the Washington/Baltimore 
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (W/B HIDTA) where he was responsible for assessing the 
performance of local, state, and federal drug enforcement task forces. In addition to his evaluation 
activities, he helped to establish and supervise the HIDTAs mapping and crime analysis unit. Mr. 
Gersh also provided scientific guidance on data collection and research design to the W/B HIDTA 
director, W/B HIDTA staff, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and several federal, state, and 
local criminal justice entities. Mr. Gersh has a masters degree in criminal justice from the University 
of Baltimore. 

Nancy La Vigne 

Nancy La Vigne is a Senior Research Associate at the Urban Institutes Justice Policy Center, where 
she directs several projects related to prisoner reentry, policing, and crime prevention. She is project 
director of Returning Home, a multi-state, longitudinal study of prisoner reentry; and principal 
investigator for the Reentry Mapping Network, a consortium of thirteen jurisdictions that are mapping 
and analyzing reentry and corrections data to help inform local reentry initiatives. La Vigne is 
also leading a study in partnership with the Washington Metro Transit Police to prevent car crime 
in Metros commuter parking facilities. Prior to her current position, La Vigne was founding director 
of the National Institute of Justices Crime Mapping Research Center. She also served as research 
director for the Texas Punishment Standards Commission. La Vigne holds a Ph.D. from Rutgers 
University, a masters degree from the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas, and a 
B.A. from Smith College. 

John Markovic 

John Markovic manages several federally-funded projects for the International Association of Chiefs 
of Police, including the Protecting Citizens Civil Rights Project and IACPs contribution to an 
initiative that is developing a national GIS system. Before coming to IACP in 2004, John was a senior 
planner/crime analyst at the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, where he played a role in coordinating 
the development of New York States intranet-based, cross-jurisdictional crime-mapping system, 
now in use by law enforcement agencies across the state. Previously, John worked on the Project on 
Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods, developing indices of neighborhood well-being 
by combining data from the U.S. census; police and other justice agencies; public health data sets; 
and field interviews. John holds a master of arts in criminal justice from the University of Illinois at 
Chicago. 

Philip Mielke 

Philip Mielke has been employed by the Redlands Police Department since 2001 as the COMPASS 
Analyst under the NIJ-funded Community Mapping, Planning, and Analysis for Safety Strategies 
Initiative. Philip was instrumental in the development of the East Valley Spatial Data Warehouse and 
Citizen COMPASS. His practical experience with GIS began in 1997 when he chaired an initiative 
through the University of Redlands biology department to acquire and implement a GIS for mammalian 
ecology and white-tailed deer tracking. Philip headed an undergraduate, award-winning 
presentation on crime analysis in 2000 at the American Association of Geographers conference while 
working at the Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission. He holds undergraduate degrees 
in biology and philosophy from Wittenberg University and is currently enrolled in the University 
of Redlands International MS GIS Program. He is the recipient of the NIJ MAPS Conference Best 
Cartographic Design Award in 2005 and the California Crime and Intelligence Analysts Association 
Innovation Award in 2006. 


Terry Morgan 

Commander Terry Morgan has over 24 years of law enforcement experience and currently oversees 
the investigations division of the Redmond, Washington, Police Department. He chairs the Firearm 
Crime Enforcement Coalition (FACE) for the King County chiefs organization, and works closely 
with the Western District of Washington Project Safe Neighborhoods program. Morgan was a driving 
force in the development of the FACE program, which has improved training for police officers 
and firearm crime case management in all of King County. In 1992, Morgan was a co-founder of 
the SMART partnership (Supervision Management And Recidivist Tracking) with the Washington 
State Department of Corrections. SMART was one of the first formal police-corrections partnership 
programs in the country and has served as a model partnership program for law enforcement and 
community corrections. Commander Morgan is a graduate of the FBI National Academy and the 
Northwest Law Enforcement Command College. He was the recipient of the Puget Sound Chapter 
of the American Society of Industrial Securitys 2002 Law Enforcement Leadership Award. 

Blake Norton 

Blake Norton is Director of Public Affairs & Community Programs for the Boston, Massachusetts, 
Police Department, where she serves as the senior program administrator of the Boston Ex-Offender 
Reentry Initiative, a law enforcement, faith-based, and prosecution partnership to reduce crime and 
victimization in targeted high-crime neighborhoods of Boston. She serves on the mayors Reentry 
Board, Bostons Workforce Development Council, and has been a guest lecturer at the Regional Community 
Policing Institute for New England, teaching community partnership and negotiation. Ms. 
Norton is a graduate of the University of MassachusettsBoston, and received her masters degree in 
community education and administration from the Boston University School of Education. 

Lee Ragsdale 

Lee Ragsdale has served as the Community Corrections Program Manager with the Knoxville Police 
Department since 1998. His duties include general operation and management of the Knoxville Public 
Safety Collaborative, a multi-agency partnership that seeks to enhance public safety by providing 
enhanced, proactive, and coordinated treatment and supervision services to high-risk/multipleneeds 
probation and parole offenders living in the City of Knoxville. Mr. Ragsdale is a member of 
the Knox County Sex Offender Task Force, the Knox County Drug Court Treatment Team, and the 
Tennessee Reentry Collaborative. He serves on the Helen Ross McNabb Juvenile Justice Advisory 
Board, the Tennessee Community Resource Board for the Department of Corrections, the Board of 
Probation and Parole, and as a board member of the Midway Rehabilitation Center. Before coming 
to Knoxville, Mr. Ragsdale was a juvenile probation officer and supervisor with the State of North 
Carolina for nearly fifteen years. He has a B.A. in political science from the University of Tennessee 
at Knoxville and an M.S.W. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 

Dora Schriro 

Dr. Schriro was appointed Director of the Arizona Department of Corrections by Governor Janet 
Napolitano on July 1, 2003. With more than 20 years of corrections experience, she was the first 
woman to lead two state correctional systems. Prior to her appointment as director in Arizona, Dr. 
Schriro served as the commissioner of the St. Louis, Missouri, Division of Corrections and as the 
director of the Missouri Department of Corrections from 1993 to mid-2001. Before joining the Missouri 
state system in 1993 as director, Dr. Schriro was the correctional superintendent for the City 
of St. Louis. She served as assistant commissioner in the New York City Department of Corrections 
from 19851989. Dr. Schriro earned a juris doctorate from St. Louis University, a doctorate from 
Columbia University, a masters degree from the University of Massachusetts-Boston, and a bachelor 
of arts cum laude from Northeastern University. Her work has earned four Innovations in American 
Government awards from the JFK School of Government and three Innovations awards from the 


Council of State and Local Government. Dr. Schriro received the National Governors Association 
Distinguished Service Award in August 2006. 

Kurt Smith 

Kurt Smith is the Director of Community Analysis and Technology for the Redlands, California, 
Police Department, where he oversees crime and community analysis, GIS and database development 
and support, applied technology development, and high-tech crime investigations. He is the 
president of the California Crime and Intelligence Analyst Association and director of the East Valley 
COMPASS regional data-sharing and crime-mapping initiative. He holds a B.A. in geography and an 
M.P.A. 

A.T.Wall 

A.T. Wall has served as Director of the Rhode Island Department of Corrections since 2000. Mr. 
Walls career in corrections began in 1976 as a probation officer. After graduating from law school, he 
served as a prosecutor in Manhattan and then as director of a sentencing project for chronic offenders 
convicted by the New York City courts. He returned to his native Rhode Island and joined the 
Department of Corrections in 1987 as assistant director. Mr. Wall received a B.A. from Yale University 
and a J.D. from Yale Law School. 

Ronald Wilson 

Ron Wilson directs the Mapping & Analysis for Public Safety Program (MAPS) and the Data 
Resources Program at the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) in Washington D.C. His interests include 
developing GIS tools and software for use in the area of crime analysis, exploratory spatial data 
analysis (ESDA) tools, software engineering in GIS, and building a National Spatial Crime Data 
repository. At NIJ, Mr. Wilson is applying and advising on spatial data analysis methods as they 
apply to various criminological research projects, including a policy implementation analysis to 
curb violent crime using spatial analysis techniques; understanding the diffusion effects of religious 
institutions on homicide rates to identify areas for better modeling; and understanding the effects of 
mass incarceration on neighborhoods using spatial regression. He is also assisting in the restructuring 
of the next version of CrimeStat. In 2000, he received the AlGore National Partnership for Reinventing 
Government Award for his development of the analysis toolbox of a regional crime analysis 
GIS known as RCAGIS that is now used in the Baltimore Metropolitan Region. He received a B.A. in 
geology from Thiel College, a masters in geography, specializing in GIS, from Indiana University of 
Pennsylvania, and is currently working on a masters degree in software engineering at the University 
of Maryland at College Park. 


Police Foundation 
1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW 
Washington, DC 20036-2636 
www.policefoundation.org