U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COPS COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Nancy G. La Vigne 

Amy L. Solomon 

Karen A. Beckman 

Kelly Dedel 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Prisoner Reentry and 

Community Policing: 

Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

URBAN INSTITUTE 

Justice Policy Center 

research for safer communities 
This project was supported by cooperative agreement #2003-HS-WX-K044 by the Office 

of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions 

contained herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official 

position of the United States Department of Justice or The Urban Institute, its trustees, or 

its funders. 

March 2006 

ISBN: 1-932582-61-4 

URBAN INSTITUTE 

Justice Policy Center 

2100 M Street, N.W. 

Washington, DC 20037 

http://www.urban.org 

Prepared in partnership with the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice 

COPS COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Nancy G. La Vigne 

Amy L. Solomon 

Karen A. Beckman 

Kelly Dedel 

Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Community Policing: 

Prisoner Reentry and 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................................................... 1 

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 3 

WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF PRISONER REENTRY ON PUBLIC SAFETY? ................................................ 7 

REOFFENDING RATES AND CONTRIBUTION TO CRIME IN THE COMMUNITY................................................ 8 

INDIVIDUAL RISKS OF REOFFENDING ............................................................................................................. 10 

THE COMMUNITY-LEVEL IMPACT OF REENTRY.............................................................................................. 10 

CITIZEN PERCEPTIONS OF SAFETY .................................................................................................................. 12 

WHY SHOULD POLICE HAVE A ROLE IN PRISONER REENTRY? ........................................................... 15 

POLICE CONTRIBUTIONS TO REENTRY EFFORTS............................................................................................. 18 

COMMUNITY POLICING AND REENTRY .......................................................................................................... 19 

APPLYING COMMUNITY POLICING TO REENTRY: EXPLORING SPECIFIC ROLES ............................................ 21 

Increasing Surveillance .............................................................................................................................. 21 

Encouraging Compliance............................................................................................................................ 22 

Engaging the Community ........................................................................................................................... 24 

Focusing on Places, Situations, and Contexts ........................................................................................... 25 

Exchanging Information and Intelligence................................................................................................... 26 

Connecting to Social Services.................................................................................................................... 27 

Assisting Victims of Crime ......................................................................................................................... 28 

EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD....................................................................................................................... 29 

Baltimore Police Department (Maryland)................................................................................................... 32 

Boston Police Department/Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office (Massachusetts) ........................................... 34 

Burlington Police Department (Vermont) ................................................................................................... 36 

Hampden County Sheriff’s Office/Springfield Police Department (Massachusetts) ................................. 38 

Indianapolis Police Department (Indiana) .................................................................................................. 40 

Knoxville Police Department (Tennessee).................................................................................................. 42 

Lancashire Constabulary (United Kingdom) ............................................................................................... 44 

New Haven Police Department (Connecticut)............................................................................................ 46 

Oakland Police Department (California)..................................................................................................... 48 

Ogden City Police Department (Utah) ........................................................................................................ 50 

Racine Police Department (Wisconsin)...................................................................................................... 52 

Redlands Police Department (California) ................................................................................................... 54 

Redmond Police Department (Washington)............................................................................................... 56 

Savannah-Chatham Police Department (Georgia) ..................................................................................... 58 

Winston-Salem Police Department (North Carolina)................................................................................. 60 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 
CHALLENGES FOR POLICE REENTRY PARTNERSHIPS ........................................................................... 63 

CREATING REALISTIC GOALS AND OPERATING WITH LIMITED RESOURCES................................................ 64 

OVERCOMING INTERNAL ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES........................................................................... 65 

AGREEING ON DATA–SHARING PROTOCOLS.................................................................................................. 65 

OVERCOMING MISTRUST AND MISINFORMATION........................................................................................ 66 

Police and Corrections Relationships......................................................................................................... 66 

Police and Resident Relationships............................................................................................................. 67 

Police and Former Prisoner Relationships.................................................................................................. 68 

FORGING STRONG AND SUSTAINABLE PARTNERSHIPS ................................................................................ 70 

LOOKING FORWARD ..................................................................................................................................... 71 

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................ 77 
Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 1 

AcknowleDgmentS 

The authors would like to thank the many individuals and 

organizations that made this report possible. First, we would 

like to thank Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay School 

of Criminal Justice, and Chief Jim Bueermann of the Redlands 

(California) Police Department for serving as cochairs for the 

Reentry Roundtable, which serves as the basis for this report. 

We would also like to thank the Roundtable participants whose 

thoughtful discussion over the course of the meeting shaped the 

content of this report. We owe a special thanks to those who 

prepared discussion papers and presentations that framed the 

meeting of the Roundtable and greatly influenced this monograph. 

Early in the life of this project we convened a planning meeting 

to seek the advice of law enforcement professionals. We thank 

representatives of the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP), the Police Foundation, the National Sheriffs’ Association, 

and John Hopkins University Police Executive Leadership Program 

for their sage advice. 

At the Urban Institute, we benefited from the assistance of 

Meagan Funches, Dionne Davis, Demelza Baer, Erica Lagerson, 

and Elizabeth McBride. We also thank Betsey Nevins from the 

Council of State Governments, John Firman of the IACP, and Chief 

Jim Buermann of the Redlands (California) Police Department, 

who provided critical feedback on various drafts of the report. 

Finally, we are especially grateful for the substantive and financial 

support provided by the Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS). Carl Peed, director of the COPS Office; Pamela 

Cammarata, deputy director of COPS; and COPS Senior Policy 

Analyst Katherine McQuay were enthusiastic and resourceful 

colleagues. 
Introduction 3 

Source: The Urban Institute (2005). Based on BJS National Prisoner Statistics. 

Figure 1. Sentenced Persons Admitted and Released from Federal and State 

Prison, 1980–2003 

800,000 

700,000 

600,000 

500,000 

400,000 

300,000 

200,000 

100,000 

0 

1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 

Admissions 

Releases 

IntroDUctIon 

Prisoner reentry—the process of leaving prison and returning 

to society—has generated tremendous attention among 

policymakers, public officials, corrections agencies, service 

providers, and the general public in recent years (see Sidebar 8 on 

the National Reentry Initiatives at the end of this report). To veterans 

of the corrections and law enforcement communities, “prisoner 

reentry” may appear to be simply a new name for something that 

has been occurring since the first prisoners were incarcerated in 

this country more than three centuries ago. Indeed, roughly 95 

percent of people incarcerated in state and federal prisons are 

eventually released.1 Yet prisoner reentry today presents new and 

greater challenges for a number of reasons.2 First, prisoners are 

being incarcerated and released at historic volumes: approximately 

656,000 people were released from state and federal prisons in 

2003 alone,3 a four-fold increase over the past 2 decades (Figure 

1). These returning prisoners are increasingly concentrated in 

communities that are often crime-ridden and lacking in services and 

support systems.4 

Further, despite the fact that correctional spending has increased 

from approximately $9 billion to $60 billion during the past 20 years,5 

prisoners are less prepared for reentry than in the past, with a 

smaller share of prisoners receiving educational programming and 

substance abuse treatment.6 Their limited program involvement is 

particularly problematic given that the majority of prisoners have 

serious histories of alcohol and drug addiction,7 and many lack the 

1 Hughes and Wilson 

(2005).

 2 For an overview of 

the challenges of 

prisoner reentry, see 

Travis, Solomon, and 

Waul (2001). 

3 Harrison and Beck 

(2005). 

4 La Vigne and 

Kachnowski (2003); 

La Vigne and Mamalian 

(2003); La Vigne and 

Thomson (2003); Lynch 

and Sabol (2001). 

5 Bauer (2002). 

6 Lynch and Sabol (2001). 

7 Beck (2001). 

8 Harlow (2003). 
4 

9 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Beck and Shipley (1989); 

Langan and Levin (2002). 

training and life skills to find and keep a job after their release.8 

This depiction of prisoner reentry in the United States has clear 

implications for the individual challenges prisoners face in leading 

productive, law-abiding lives on the outside, yet these challenges 

also pose a distinct threat to public safety. Prisoners who are 

not prepared to stay sober, find a job, secure housing, and avoid 

trouble will more than likely reoffend. In fact, more than two-thirds 

of released prisoners are rearrested for a new crime within 3 years 

of release.9 Communities are thus confronted with a dual challenge: 

to provide former prisoners with the services and environment 

necessary to navigate the transition from prison to the community, 

and to protect the public from potential harm. 

For many reasons, the expertise of police has not been fully brought 

to bear on these reentry challenges. In an effort to examine these 

issues from a community policing perspective, the Urban Institute, in 

partnership with the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (the COPS Office), invited practitioners, 

policymakers, academics, and service providers to participate in 

a Reentry Roundtable to discuss ways in which the role of police 

could expand beyond actions traditionally taken in this arena (see 

Sidebar 1 on the Reentry Roundtable). The discussions and papers 

generated from the Roundtable, along with a scan of police reentry 

practices in the field and a review of additional literature on the topic, 

form the content of this report. 

This report explores the links between prisoner reentry and 

community policing in the context of enhancing public safety. Its goal 

is to encourage new thinking and generate innovative responses 

to reentry that harness the knowledge and expertise of police. 

The first section describes the local context of reentry, its effect 

on communities, and its impact on community safety and public 

perceptions of crime. In the next section, the role of police in reentry 

is examined. This part of the report describes the basic concepts of 

community policing and police problem solving, outlines the benefits 

of applying community policing strategies to prisoner reentry, and 

explores the many opportunities for police involvement in reentry. 

We then turn to specific examples from the field of how these 

new police roles in prisoner reentry have been put into practice 

across the country. These examples are followed by a discussion 

of the potential organizational and community-level challenges 

to expanding law enforcement’s role in reentry and suggested 

strategies for overcoming these obstacles. The report concludes 

with a discussion of opportunities for advancing police reentry 

initiatives from both a practical and a policy perspective. 
Introduction 5

Jeremy Travis (Cochair), The Urban Institute* 

Jim Bueermann (Cochair), Redlands Police 

Department 

Alfred Blumstein, Carnegie Mellon University 

Patrick Bradley, Massachusetts Executive 

Office of Public Safety 

Edward Davis III, Lowell Police Department 

Walter Dickey, University of Wisconsin School 

of Law 

John Fitzgerald, Hampden County Jail and 

House of Correction 

Ellen Halbert, Travis County Office of the 

District Attorney 

Susan Herman, National Center for Victims 

of Crime 

Gary Hinzman, Iowa Department of 

Correctional Services 

Martin Horn, New York Department of 

Correction and Probation 

Michael Jacobson, John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice 

* Jeremy Travis has since become president of 

John Jay College of Criminal Justice. 

Gary Johnson, Texas Department of 

Criminal Justice 

Jean Johnson, Public Agenda 

Robert Johnson, Anoka County Attorney 

Paul Joyce, Boston Police Department 

George Kelling, Rutgers University 

Gary Kempker, Missouri Department of 

Corrections 

David Kennedy, John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice 

Nancy La Vigne, The Urban Institute 

Edmund McGarrell, Michigan State 

University 

Alan Mobley, University of California—Irvine 

Brenda Palms-Barber, North Lawndale 

Employment Network 

Carl Peed, Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services 

Charles See, Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry 

Association 

Michael Smith, University of Wisconsin 

School of Law 

Faye Taxman, University of Maryland 

Reverend Steven Tucker, New 

Commandment Baptist Church 

SIDEBAR 1. May 2004 Roundtable Meeting Participants and Presenters 

Discussion papers commissioned for the Reentry Roundtable 

• Promoting Public Safety: A Problem-Oriented Approach to Prisoner Reentry, by Walter J. 

Dickey and Cecelia M. Klingele, University of Wisconsin School of Law 

• The Roles of the Police in the Offender Reentry Process, by Edmund F. McGarrell, Carol 

Rapp Zimmerman, Natalie K. Hipple, and Nicholas Corsaro, Michigan State University, 

School of Criminal Justice 

• Turning ‘Weeds’ into ‘Seeds,’ by Alan Mobley, University of California, Irvine 

• Brick Walls Facing Reentering Offenders, by Faye S. Taxman, Virginia Commonwealth 

University 

Presentations produced for the Reentry Roundtable 

• Prisoner Reentry: A National Overview, by Nancy La Vigne, The Urban Institute 

• Reentry and Recidivism: Defining the Public Safety Challenge, by Jeremy Travis, The 

Urban Institute 

• Placing Reentry in the Context of Sentencing Policy, by Michael Smith, University of 

Wisconsin School of Law 

• Reentry and Safety from a Community Perspective, panel presentation led by George 

Kelling, Rutgers University, Newark 

• The Revolving Door: Exploring Public Attitudes Toward Prisoner Reentry, by Jean 

Johnson and John Immerwahr, Public Agenda, New York 

A summary of the roundtable meeting and roundtable working papers are available at 

http://www.urban.org/ and http://www.usdoj.gov/cops/. Expanded versions of discussion papers 

are available in a special issue of the International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal 

Justice. 
whAt IS the ImpAct of 

prISoner reentry on 

pUblIc SAfety? 
8 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

10 This statistic is 

influenced by a number 

of factors, such as 

the number of people 

released from prison, 

their rates of recidivism, 

and the number of 

arrests nationwide. 

The rearrest rates of 

former prisoners have 

remained stable during 

the past 20 years 

(Langan and Levin 

2002). At the same 

time, the number of 

people released from 

prison has increased 

and nationally, the 

number of arrests 

has decreased. As 

a result, recently 

released prisoners are 

responsible for a larger 

share of arrests—and 

presumably crime—than 

in the past. It should 

also be noted that this 

statistic measures 

arrests, not all new 

crimes committed, 

many of which never 

come to the attention of 

the police. 

The large and increasing numbers of prisoners returning 

to communities, coupled with high rates of reoffending, 

suggest that the police and the public alike have a vested 

interest in developing strategies to improve reentry outcomes for 

released prisoners. This section explores in more detail the links 

between reentry and public safety, looking at who reoffends and 

where. Understanding these aspects of reentry and public safety— 

especially as they are experienced at the community level—is 

important for crafting effective responses to the problem. 

Reoffending Rates and Contribution to Crime in the Community 

As noted earlier, roughly two-thirds of released prisoners are 

rearrested within 3 years of release; nearly half of all releasees 

return to prison within that same period, either for a new crime or 

for a technical violation of the conditions of their release. While 

individual recidivism rates are undoubtedly high, there has been little 

attention to the amount of new crime for which returning prisoners 

are responsible. The one study on the topic (Rosenfeld, Wallman, 

and Fornango 2005) estimates that recent prison releases account 

for about one-fifth of all adult arrests by police.10 This statistic 

understates former inmates’ contributions to overall crime levels 

in that it does not include those reentering the community from 

jails (see Sidebar 2 on Jail Reentry) or prisoners who have been 

in the community for more than 3 years. Thus, while we cannot 

assert the exact proportion of crime for which returning prisoners 

are responsible, it is well documented that the majority of released 

prisoners will reoffend and contribute to a substantial share of crime. 
What is the Impact of Prisoner Reentry on Public Safety? 9 

To date, reentry polices and programs have primarily targeted people released from state 

and federal prison. However, jail reentry has at least as much of an impact on public safety, 

if not more. Although the nation’s jail capacity is lower than its prison capacity—there are 

approximately 691,000 jail beds, compared to 1.4 million prison beds—admissions and releases 

from jails far exceed those from prisons.1 According to the forthcoming Bureau of Justice 

Statistics 2004 Survey of Large Jails, 20 percent of jail inmates serve at least 1 month, and only 

4 percent serve more than 6 months. As a result, the jail population is continuously turning over, 

resulting in approximately 12 million admissions and releases per year.

2 

The short sentences served in jail and the proximity of jails to inmates’ home communities have 

important implications—both positive and negative—for the role of local jails in addressing the 

challenges of prisoner reentry, highlighted below: 

• Mental illness. Sixteen percent of both jail inmates and state prisoners report a mental 

condition or overnight stay in a mental hospital. However, only 41 percent of mentally 

ill jail inmates receive mental health services compared to 61 percent of mentally ill state 

prisoners.3 

• Substance abuse and dependence. More than two-thirds (68 percent) of jail inmates 

are dependent on or abuse drugs or alcohol, but only 18 percent receive treatment or 

participate in other substance abuse programs after entering jail. Sixty-nine percent of jail 

inmates are regular drug users, and 29 percent of convicted jail inmates report drug use 

at the time of their offense.4 

• Limited employability. Fifty-seven percent of jail inmates were working full time the 

month prior to their arrest. Thirty percent of all jail inmates reported personal earnings 

totaling less than $300 per month.5 

• Extensive criminal histories. Three-fourths of jail inmates have served a prior probation 

or incarceration sentence, and nearly a quarter (24 percent) have served three or more 

prior sentences to incarceration. More than half of all jail inmates have a current criminal 

justice status at the time of arrest.6 

SIDEBAR 2. JAIL REENTRY 

Harrison and Karberg (2004). 

St. Gerard (2005). 

Ditton (1999); Harlow (1998); Mumola (1999). 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Karberg and James (2005). 

James (2004). 

Ibid. 

4. 

5. 

6. 
10 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

11 La Vigne, Visher, and 

Castro (2004). 

12 Visher, La Vigne, and 

Travis (2004). 

13 Beck and Shipley (1989); 

Langan and Levin (2002). 

14 Lynch and Sabol (2001). 

15 La Vigne and 

Kachnowski (2003); 

La Vigne and Mamalian 

(2003); La Vigne and 

Thomson (2003). 

Individual Risks of Reoffending 

Despite the high proportion of all crime committed by released 

prisoners, not all released prisoners are at equal risk of reoffending. 

Recent research on prisoner reentry indicates that those who 

reoffend are more likely to be unemployed, to use drugs or abuse 

alcohol, and to have extensive criminal histories (see Sidebar 3 for 

a profile of returning prisoners).11 Those who reoffend also tend to 

be younger and have more negative attitudes toward police and 

the legal system than released prisoners who do not recidivate.12 

Timing also plays a role in identifying risks of reoffending: Released 

prisoners are at greatest risk of reoffending during the early 

months of their release, with nearly one-third (29.9 percent) of 

them rearrested during their first 6 months of freedom.13 These 

risk factors are based on both national and site-specific studies but 

may vary to some degree at the local level. Thus, it is important for 

law enforcement—in partnership with community corrections—to 

conduct local analyses of the characteristics and risks of returning 

prisoners to help inform the design and implementation of reentry 

efforts. 

The Community-Level Impact of Reentry 

Information on the reoffense rates and risk factors of returning 

prisoners may be helpful when designing interventions, but 

these statistics reveal little about how threats to public safety 

are experienced at the community level. Most prisoners return 

to communities within major counties and cities;14 within these 

metropolitan areas, released prisoners are further concentrated in 

a handful of neighborhoods.15 For example, in Illinois, 51 percent 

of prisoners released from state correctional institutions in 2001 

returned to Chicago, and 34 percent of those resided in just six 

of Chicago’s 77 neighborhoods (Figure 2). As discussed later in 

this report, these geographic concentrations of returning prisoners 

provide opportunities for place-based strategic reentry efforts, 

including enhanced services and supervision in a given area. 
What is the Impact of Prisoner Reentry on Public Safety? 11 

Source: La Vigne et al. (2003); see also La Vigne (2004). 

Note: The concentrations of returning prisoners in the South Lawndale community 

depicted in the map reflect 1,158 prisoners who were “released” to the county jail located 

there. Also note that no communities had a range of 701 to 1,253 returning prisoners.

Figure 2. Prisoner Releases by Chicago Communities, 2001 

n 

Releases to Chicago 

Neighborhoods 

1-100 

101-400 

401-700 

1,254-1,681 

Cook County 

Other III County 

Indiana 

Water 

Highway 

10 0 10 miles 

Source: Illinois Dept. of Corrections Total releases to Chicago in 2001= 15,488: 

2,354 or 15% are not shown on map because 

of incomplete addresses 
12 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

16 Johnson and Immerwahr 

(2004). 

17 Ibid. 

Citizen Perceptions of Safety 

Another important consideration when examining the impact of 

prisoner reentry on communities is residents’ perceptions of the 

crime risks returning prisoners pose and the fear of victimization 

that may result from those perceptions. The prospect of new crimes 

committed by returning prisoners can elevate fear of victimization 

among residents and perceptions that the neighborhood is unsafe. 

Even drug crimes may not be perceived as victimless in that the 

behaviors associated with active drug markets can devastate 

neighborhoods.16 While residents may believe that prisoners have 

the capacity to become productive, law-abiding citizens (after all, 

returning prisoners are also their neighbors and sometimes their 

family members), they also recognize that if former prisoners are 

not successful in turning their lives around, residents may be further 

victimized.17 Even if these perceptions are inaccurate, police have an 

interest in engaging in reentry efforts to reduce fear of crime among 

the general population. 

This section has described the safety risks—both real and 

perceived—that returning prisoners pose to communities. Despite 

the fact that not all released prisoners reoffend, many do. Moreover, 

returning offenders’ new crimes may affect not only community 

safety but also community perceptions of police performance, as 

both police and the public increasingly use crime rates as a yardstick 

of police success. For these reasons, along with others discussed 

below, police have a strong incentive to engage in prisoner reentry 

efforts. In the next section we continue the discussion about why 

police should be involved in reentry efforts and describe the types of 

reentry-related activities in which police can engage to secure public 

safety in their communities. 
What is the Impact of Prisoner Reentry on Public Safety? 13 

Demographics. The majority of returning prisoners are male (88%). Just over half are white 

(55%), followed by African American (44%) and Hispanic (21%). The median age at the time of 

release is 34.1 

Substance Use and Health Concerns. More than two-thirds of prison inmates have a 

history of substance abuse.2 More than one-third has served sentences for drug-related 

offenses.3 Compared to the general population, prisoners have higher rates of chronic medical 

problems and infectious diseases, including asthma, hypertension, HIV/AIDS, Hepatitis C, and 

tuberculosis. Mental health disorders are also more prevalent than in the general population. 

Although most inmates have access to health care while incarcerated, upon release, their 

access to treatment services and medication is often limited.4 

Family Relationships. Family relationships are among the most important sources of tangible 

and emotional support to returning prisoners. For example, 88 percent of former prisoners 

in Chicago lived with a family member during the first year after their release.5 Despite 

this support, some aspects of family—such as child support obligations—can compound 

reintegration difficulties. One study of the Massachusetts prison and parole population found 

that nearly 25 percent of prisoners owed an average of $17,000 in child support arrearages 

upon release.6 

Housing. Twelve percent of state prisoners reported that they did not have housing at the time 

of their arrest, and the likelihood of homelessness increases for those with mental health and 

substance abuse problems.7 Women with minor children find securing housing particularly 

challenging given their limited economic resources.8 

Employability. While more than two-thirds of prisoners were employed prior their 

incarceration,9 unemployment rates are high among released prisoners. Institutional job 

readiness and work release programs are helpful, but access to them is limited.10 In addition 

to skill deficits and gaps in work history, the employment prospects of former prisoners are 

restricted by employers’ reluctance to hire former prisoners and availability of accessible jobs in 

proximity to their homes.11 

SIDEBAR 3. PROFILE OF RETURNING PRISONERS 

Harrison and Beck (2004). 

Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001). 

Harrison and Beck (2005). 

Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001). 

La Vigne, Visher, and Castro (2004). 

Thoennes (2002). 

Ditton (1999); Langan and Levin 

(2002); Rossman et al. (1999). 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

Ritchie (2000). 

Harlow (2003). 

Solomon et al. (2004). 

Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2003); 

Solomon et al. (2004). 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 
WHY SHOULD POLICE 

HAVE A ROLE IN PRISONER 

REENTRY? 
16 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety

18 Rosenfeld, William, and 

Fornango (2005). 

19 Research by Tom 

Tyler and colleagues 

suggests that as citizens 

increase their perceptions 

of police, they may be 

more willing to report 

crimes and engage in 

community crimeprevention activities 

(Sunshine and Tyler 

2003; Tyler 2004; Tyler 

and Hou 2002). 

20 Parent and Snyder

 (1999). 

21 Kelling and Coles (1996). 

The primary mission of law enforcement is to maintain peace 

and order and provide for a safe environment. Thus, the most 

compelling argument for police involvement in prisoner reentry 

is that a significant share of former prisoners presents a threat to 

that mission by committing new crimes in the community. As such, 

police have a natural role in reentry because making contact with 

former prisoners is part of their everyday business. In fact, arrest 

frequencies for returning prisoners are 30 to 45 times higher than 

for the general population.18 Police agencies stand to benefit from 

their involvement in reentry because successful efforts to reduce 

reoffending among released prisoners can, by definition, prevent 

future crimes and help improve community relations with police.19 

Moreover, reentry initiatives fit well within the community policing 

and problem-solving model, which typically focuses on solving the 

underlying cause of a crime problem through partnerships with local 

businesses, residents, government agencies, and other community 

stakeholders. During the last several years, police have begun to 

reach out to these entities to create partnerships to reduce crime, 

and police have realized important benefits to public safety. Among 

them are (1) enhancing partner agencies’ capacities to protect 

the public by harnessing the powers of their respective line staff 

in complementary ways; (2) improving interactions among partner 

agency staff by reducing mistrust, correcting misinformation, and 

encouraging creativity and flexibility in solving community problems; 

(3) improving the delivery of services to targeted neighborhoods by 

extending partnerships to social service agencies and community 

organizations; and (4) increasing support for collaboration among 

policymakers and the general public.20 Furthermore, these 

partnerships allow criminal justice agencies to present a unified front 

focused on public safety, reassuring the public that the separate 

components of the criminal justice system are coordinated and 

working toward common goals. Prior research has found that such 

proactive crime-prevention partnerships can yield long-term crimereduction benefits.21 It stands to reason that applying these same 

types of partnerships to the issue of prisoner reentry can also have a 

positive impact on community safety. 

Police involvement in reentry can also help diminish the public’s fear 

of victimization by former prisoners. Returning prisoners’ new crimes 

can have a negative impact on police-community relations: Society 

often views a returning prisoner’s crime as one that could have been 

prevented (see Sidebar 4 for more information on recidivism among 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 17 

In 2002, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) released a landmark study on patterns of 

recidivism among former prisoners. The study followed a cohort of individuals released from 

prison in 1994 for 3 years, tracking multiple measures of recidivism.1 More than two-thirds of this 

sample was rearrested within 3 years of release and 51 percent returned to prison during that 

same period. Of those returned to prison, half were reincarcerated for new crimes and the other 

half for technical violations of conditions of post-release supervision. The time to rearrest was 

also an important predictor of recidivism: Almost half of all new arrests occur within 6 months of 

release. 

Within 3 years 

272,111 prisoners 

Rearrest 

Arrest frequencies for returning prisoners are 30 to 45 times higher than for the general 

population, averaging approximately 15,611 arrests per 100,000 released prisoners.2 The 

criminal histories of former prisoners examined by BJS reveal that the total number of arrest 

charges for crimes committed by the sample prior to incarceration totaled an estimated 4.1 

million. It is estimated that the sample accumulated an additional 800,000 post-release arrests 

during a period of 3 years, an average of four crimes each. Combining pre- and post-release 

arrests increases the average number of arrest charges attributable to an individual releasee 

from 4 to 17.9.3 The implication for police is clear: effective reentry strategies can substantially 

contribute to public safety. 

SIDEBAR 4. RECIDIVISM AMONG FORMER PRISONERS 

The study cohort represents two-thirds of all individuals 

released from state prisons in 15 states in 1994 

based on a weighted sample of 33,796 of the 272,111 

prisoners released in the study’s 15 states in 1994. 

These states are Arizona, California, Delaware, Florida, 

Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, and 

Virginia. Four measures of recidivism were used: 

rearrest, reconviction, resentence to prison, and return 

to prison with or without a new sentence. The 2002 

study is a replication of a similar study conducted by 

BJS in 1983 (Beck and Shipley 1989). See Langan and 

Levin (2002, 11) for a detailed methodology of the study 

and a comparison of the findings between studies. 

1. Rosenfeld et al. (2005). 

Langan and Levin (2002, 4). Notably, these statistics 

reflect arrest charges accumulated by a single release 

cohort. The contribution of multiple release cohorts to 

the total number of adult arrests further compounds the 

impact of reentry on public safety. Analysis by Rosenfeld 

et al (2005) indicates that factoring in recidivism of 

prisoners released in 3 consecutive years, returning 

prisoners account for approximately 20 percent of 

adult arrests for serious crime in 1994 (Rosenfeld, 

Wallman, and Fornango 2005). See also Travis (2005). 

2. 

3. 

Rearrested 

Reconvicted 

Returned to Prison 

6 months 

1 year 

2 year 

3 year 

67.5% 

46.9%

 51.8% 

29.9% 

44.1%

 59.2% 

2 67.5% 
18 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety

former prisoners).22 Police involvement in reentry can serve to educate 

the public about what the true risks of reentry are and what they are 

doing to respond to those risks (e.g., targeted surveillance and linking 

ex-offenders to services, jobs, and the faith community). 

Police Contributions to Reentry Efforts 

Just as police can benefit from involvement in reentry, those engaged 

in reentry efforts also have much to gain from police participation. 

22 Travis (2005). Many reentry partnerships focus on assisting returning prisoners 

to access services, obtain housing, and find employment; police 

involvement sends the message that these initiatives are by no means 

“soft on crime” because, in addition to the support they provide, 

reentry programs also carry with them the distinct threat of rearrest. 

Police involvement in reentry also supports community corrections 

efforts by serving as additional eyes and ears on the street, enhancing 

both the surveillance and assistance functions of community 

supervision. Finally, police can support restorative justice reentry 

efforts by serving as intermediaries between victims and offenders. 

Clearly, police have an important role in prisoner reentry initiatives, 

and that role can take many forms. The following section begins 

by describing the community policing framework and how it can 

be applied to the issue of prisoner reentry, after which a series of 

examples of the different ways that police have become involved 

in prisoner reentry are presented. These examples extend beyond 

traditional law enforcement practices to include innovative and 

proactive crime-prevention strategies, problem solving, community 

engagement, and partnerships, all of which build on the community 

policing framework. 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 19 

Community Policing and Reentry 

Community policing addresses crime and social disorder using 

traditional aspects of law enforcement, such as surveillance, 

investigation, and apprehension, but expands that role to include 

prevention, problem solving, community engagement, and strategic 

partnerships.23 Whereas a traditional policing approach to reentry 

would include repeated arrests of the same offender, the community 

policing approach would be to analyze and understand the reasons 

behind the repeat offending and develop partnerships with relevant 

agencies and community stakeholders to address those underlying 

problems to prevent future reoffending. The community policing 

model also includes neighborhood residents as integral partners 

in identifying, responding to, and preventing crime.24 Central to 

that process is the use of problem solving to develop a better 

understanding of the context of the crime problem to be addressed. 

The sequential steps of problem solving are represented by 

the SARA model, whereby community police officers Scan the 

environment for information on recurring problems and their 

consequences, Analyze the events and conditions that contribute 

to the problem, develop a range of Responses designed to have 

an impact on the problem, and Assess the extent to which these 

responses have affected the size and scope of the problem (see 

Sidebar 5 for an example of the SARA model applied to prisoner 

reentry). Traditionally, problem-solving efforts focus on a specific 

type of crime, crimes occurring in a specific place, or crimes 

committed by a specific group of people. Community police 

officers can apply the SARA model to reentry-related problems 

in a particular neighborhood, identifying the specific risk factors 

of returning prisoners as well as the challenges they face as they 

return to the community. The assessment component of SARA 

is particularly important because if police are able to quantify a 

significant decrease in crime resulting from a reentry partnership, 

they are much more likely to generate ongoing support for the 

initiative.26 

23 U.S. Department of 

Justice Office of 

Community Oriented 

Policing Services (2005). 

For a more extensive 

definition of community 

policing, see http://www. 

cops.usdoj.gov/default. 

asp?Item=36. 

24 Kelling and Coles (1996). 

25 See Eck and Spelman 

(1987) for a more 

thorough discussion on 

the SARA model. 

26 For more information 

on conducting 

evaluations of policy 

initiatives, see the 

forthcoming COPS 

Law Enforcement 

Guide to Managing Local 

Evaluation at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov. 
2.

20 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety

The most prominent policing method for analyzing problems, crafting responses, and assessing 

results is the SARA model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment). The following 

example illustrates how SARA can be used to deconstruct reentry into solvable problems so that 

responses are practical, feasible, and assessable.1 

____________________________________________________________ 

Scanning 

Many individuals returning to the community from prison or jail are 

persistent, high-rate offenders. An estimated two-thirds of state prisoners 

will be rearrested for a new crime within 3 years of release. 

Analysis 

What is the scale and geographic distribution of the reentry population in your community? 

What proportion of new crime is attributable to returning prisoners? 

What is the actual rate and pattern of reoffending of these individuals? Is there 

variation in the type of crimes being committed? Is there a specific area in 

the community or period after release that is particularly criminogenic? 

What are the risk factors associated with recidivism (e.g., unemployment, substance abuse)? 

What services are currently available in the community to reduce risk factors and 

increase protective factors? Are there any gaps in service? What are they? 

What leverage does the community have to enforce compliance and prosocial behavior (e.g., revocation of probation/parole, fines, etc.)? 

Who does prisoner reentry affect? What community partners and key 

stakeholders should be involved in responding to the challenges of reentry? 

Response 

As a primary stakeholder in reducing recidivism among released prisoners, the police can 

respond by: 

Partnering with probation and parole to enhance supervision 

Facilitating sessions that notify returning prisoners of the 

expectations and support of the community 

Gathering and sharing intelligence on behavior indicating trouble reintegrating with 

community (e.g., hanging out with the old gang, violating curfew restrictions) 

Building upon existing partnerships (and engaging new partners) to 

strengthen the collaborative action of reentry initiatives 

Connecting ex-offenders to services and community resources 

Communicating with the residents to overcome barriers caused by prior harms. 

Assess 

Has the response been implemented as planned? 

Has recidivism among released individuals decreased? 

Has citizen fear of crime diminished? 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

SIDEBAR 5. PROBLEM SOLVING: A REENTRY EXAMPLE 

Adapted from the SARA model example 

developed by the POP Center. See 

http://www.popcenter.org/about-SARA.htm. 

1. 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 21 

Applying Community Policing to Reentry: Exploring Specific Roles 

Police involvement in reentry efforts can take many forms. 

Their expertise in problem solving and their existing community 

partnerships have direct applications to facilitating successful 

reintegration. The following categories describe the different ways 

that police have applied their authority, knowledge, and role in the 27 McGarrell et al. (2004).

community to improve reentry outcomes for released prisoners. Given that they are 

armed and equipped with These categories are by no means mutually exclusive; indeed, as sophisticated

illustrated in the descriptions of policing reentry projects that appear communication devices, 

police generally take the later in this report, in many cases police have multiple roles in lead with officer-safety

reentry efforts. issues (e.g., tactical 

decisions about how 

to approach a dwelling

Increasing Surveillance for a home visit or officer 

safety issues in 

dangerous

Police and corrections officers work with the same individuals neighborhoods), while 

parole officers usually at different times, giving them great collective insight into the take the lead when 

personalities, peers, and family dynamics of returning prisoners. interviewing parolees 

suspected of new This information can provide an important window into the individual criminal activity or who

circumstances of former prisoners that might either enhance have been struggling to 

or threaten their ability to reintegrate successfully. In fact, joint comply with the 

conditions of supervision

supervision of parolees by teams of police and parole officers is (Parent and Snyder 1999). 

perhaps the most common way that police currently contribute to 

prisoner reentry efforts. Team supervision usually takes the form 

of police accompaniment on parole home visits, parole ride-alongs 

on police patrols, and parole involvement in policing activities, 

such as attending community meetings and staffing neighborhood 

substations.27 
22 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

28 McGarrell et al. (2004). 

29 Travis and Lawrence 

(2002). 

30 McGarrell et al. (2004).

 31 Ibid. 

Another means of enhanced surveillance is to use knowledge 

about the criminal and substance abuse histories of returning 

prisoners, continually monitoring their associations with gangs 

and their activities in the community.

28 Such information enables 

law enforcement to focus their interventions strategically, targeting 

those who are at highest risk of reoffending rather than spreading 

scarce resources across the vast number of former prisoners within 

a community. Police are particularly well positioned to apply such 

assessment tools to those released from prison “unconditionally”— 

without any formal post-release correctional supervision or 

requirements. Almost 20 percent of all prisoners are released to the 

community unconditionally, meaning that they are not supervised by 

a parole or probation officer, are not required to abide by any special 

conditions of supervision, and may not be eligible for the supportive 

services that often accompany a conditional release.29 To the extent 

that post-release surveillance occurs at all for those released from 

prison unconditionally, that surveillance role falls primarily on the 

shoulders of the police. 

Encouraging Compliance 

For most returning prisoners, compliance with special conditions 

of release—such as curfews, random drug testing, participation 

in treatment programs, and maintaining regular contacts with 

supervising agencies—is mandated. For police, reentry programs 

centered on increasing compliance and deterring crime typically 

build upon the activities of post-release supervision agencies. 

Research suggests that direct discussions with reentering prisoners 

about the range of sanctions for unlawful behavior as well as 

incentives for staying clean and drug free increase the odds of 

compliance (see Sidebar 6 on Project Safe Neighborhoods).30 This 

message may take the form of a contract or binding agreement, 

which enables the ex-prisoner and agency partners to walk through 

their obligations and the consequences for not abiding by the 

conditions of release.31 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 23 

Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN) is the President’s initiative to combat gun violence through 

partnerships among federal and state law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, community 

groups, and others. PSN also incorporates the following elements: strategic planning; 

training, community outreach, and accountability.

1

 By substantially increasing federal firearms 

prosecutions, analyzing crime data to target law enforcement efforts effectively, launching a 

variety of media campaigns, and engaging community groups, PSN has contributed to some of 

the lowest violent crime rates in 30 years.2 

The relationships built through PSN’s partnerships are a valuable resource for antirecidivism 

and prisoner reentry initiatives.3 One successful strategy known as “pulling levers,” used in 

Boston, Indianapolis, Winston-Salem, and elsewhere, targets high-risk offenders under active 

community supervision.4 There, the message is bluntly communicated to ex-offenders that gun 

violence will no longer be tolerated, and that the law will be strictly enforced. It is explained to 

the ex-offender that various “levers” — such as proactive targeted law enforcement, harsher 

penalties, enhanced community supervision, and revocation of probation and parole — will 

be used to ensure compliance with conditions of release. Once the law enforcement message 

is communicated, ex-offenders are provided with community resources from faith-based and 

community groups that will support their efforts to conform their behavior to the law. 

SIDEBAR 6. PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS: A PLATFORM FOR POLICE 

REENTRY PARTNERSHIPS 

Information on the Project Safe Neighborhoods 

grant program can be found on the World Wide Web 

at http://www.projectsafeneighborhoods.gov/. 

Dalton (2003). 

1. 

2. 

McGarrell et al. (2004). 

For more information see Promising Strategies to 

Reduce Gun Violence. http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_ 

violence/contents.html. See also Braga et al. (2001). 

3. 

4. 
24 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

32 Bazemore (2004). 

33 Sullivan et al. (2002). 

34 Peter D. Hart Research 

Associates, Inc. (2001). 

35 Ibid. 

Engaging the Community 

As active agents in the community, police have the capacity 

to engage the public in activities that provide both formal and 

informal support and assistance in reentry efforts.32 The community 

is uniquely positioned to assist returning prisoners because it 

comprises their families, neighbors, and former and prospective 

employers, all of whom have the potential to exert “social control,” 

encouraging former prisoners to engage in prosocial behaviors and 

refrain from breaking the law.

33 

The police can encourage the community to engage in problemsolving partnerships by offering an opportunity for active 

participation in—and ownership of—the reentry effort. When police 

serve as a conduit for the involvement of community partners, both 

the community and the reentry program planners benefit. While 

the police may not be directly involved in implementing many of 

the initiatives resulting from the reentry partnership, they have an 

essential role to play in convening a diverse group of stakeholders, 

leading and directing the problem-solving initiative, and encouraging 

partners to identify resources, services, and mentors in the 

community. 

Another important role for the police is to educate the public about 

the topic of prisoner reentry and ways that state and local criminal 

justice agencies are addressing it. For many citizens, the issue of 

prisoners and their return to society may be met with fear; media 

coverage of released prisoners committing heinous crimes makes 

up the extent of many people’s knowledge of criminal offenders. Yet 

public opinion polls have shown that people are surprised by the 

paucity of treatment available to prisoners as well as the barriers 

to jobs, housing, and other stable institutions in the community.

34 

In fact, those polled on the topic support providing job training, 

work opportunities, treatment, and education to the ex-prisoner 

population.35 Further, police can educate the community about 

strategies in place to both support and supervise returning prisoners, 

enhancing the public’s confidence that the issue is being addressed 

in a comprehensive way. 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 25 

Restorative justice models are another way to bring members of 

the community (including former prisoners and victims) together 

with police and corrections officials to develop ways for returning 

prisoners to succeed on the outside.36 A restorative model 

designed to address prisoner reentry would focus on (1) holding 

returning prisoners accountable for their past and future actions 

(e.g., acknowledging harm caused, making amends to the victim 

36 and the community, and developing a plan for leading a crime- McWhinnie and Brown 

free life); (2) protecting victims and the community at large from (1999). 

37 Karp (2002); Taxman future victimization; and (3) helping returning prisoners to develop (2004).

competencies—work experiences, life skills, anger management— 38 

so that they can become productive members of society.

37 Police 39 

Scott (2000). 

For more information on 

have a role in this process through their links to community situational crime 

prevention, see Clarke resources, such as jobs and services that could increase a returning (1997).

prisoner’s competency, as well as through the more traditional police 40 Displacement is typically

role of preventing future victimization. defined as the shifting 

of crime to other places, 

times, tactics, or targets

Focusing on Places, Situations, and Contexts in response to a crimeprevention initiative or 

police intervention

In recent years, as more law enforcement agencies have come (Clarke 1997; Felson and 

to embrace community policing, many have realigned their patrol Clarke 1998). 

41 Clarke (1997); Felson allocations from large police districts to smaller patrol areas, such and Clarke (1998).

as police service areas that are defined by neighborhood rather 

than by census tract, voting district, or other arbitrary geographic 

boundaries. These smaller, neighborhood-based assignments, many 

of which center around police substations, create an opportunity to 

develop sustained and positive relationships with the community. 

They are also useful for supporting public safety efforts focused 

on the characteristics of places and targets that generate crime. 

Such place-based approaches are often used in the context of 

problem-oriented policing (POP). The vast majority of POP projects 

are defined not just by crime type but also by place,38 requiring an 

analysis of the characteristics of places that provide the opportunity 

for crime. Place-based prevention has its roots in situational crime 

prevention and opportunity theories of crime, both of which purport 

that most potential offenders are not highly motivated to commit 

crime but do so when they are presented with opportunities to offend 

easily, with little risk of detection.39 In turn, increasing the perceived 

effort and risk associated with committing crime and reducing the 

anticipated benefits of the crime will deter criminal behavior. These 

types of crime-prevention measures have succeeded in reducing 

crimes of all types, with minimal displacement,40 across a variety of 

settings.41 
26 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

42 Dickey and Klingele 

(2004). 

43 Cullen et al. (2002). 

44 Baker et al. (2001). 

45 Baker et al. (2001); 

Travis (2005). 

46 Baker et al. (2001). 

Applying situational crime prevention to prisoner reentry requires 

focusing 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.42 By 

way of illustration, consider two released prisoners with similar 

criminal backgrounds and risk factors. One returns to a crimeridden, gang-infested area with few public resources while the other 

returns to a relatively safe neighborhood that is rich in assets to 

assist in his return. These two individuals are likely to have very 

different prospects for successful reentry. This example perhaps 

states the obvious, but prisoner reentry initiatives often overlook 

the role of place. And yet community policing is well equipped to 

employ a place-based focus, because police can work in partnership 

with supervision agencies to identify the types of places and 

situations that are likely to increase a returning prisoner’s criminal 

opportunities and how those opportunities might be reduced.43 

Exchanging Information and Intelligence 

Partnerships formed through the community policing framework can 

promote information sharing that can help police suppress criminal 

activity and preemptively intercede in situations that could result 

in violence. Perhaps the most common exchange of information 

across agencies engaged in prisoner reentry is between community 

corrections and law enforcement agencies. Information exchange 

among police and parole officers can create new opportunities 

to intervene proactively and to mobilize resources in response to 

circumstances or behaviors that threaten stability or compliance 

with the conditions of supervision. Further, sharing information 

can advance efforts to enforce accountability by ensuring that 

appropriate sanctions are meted out quickly and consistently in 

response to noncompliant behavior. 

Similarly, information sharing between prisons and police can 

provide police with important information about a prisoner’s 

experiences. Relevant information can include the following: 

1. Classification records, which may provide information about a 

prisoner’s behavior and social service needs.44

2. Gang-related rivalries, which may prompt violence when 

prisoners return to the community.

45

3. Information about suicide attempts while in prison, which can 

inform effective prevention strategies for police responding to a 

suicide call.46 

4. Information about prisoners’ release dates and times— 

particularly for those released without supervision—to increase 

awareness of potential risks and opportunities for intervention. 
Why Should Police Have a Role in Prisoner Reentry? 27 

5. Notification of the release of sex offenders, which can help 

police work with the public to protect themselves against 

potentially dangerous sex offenders residing in their 

community.

47

6. Information about mental health status, which may be relevant 

for understanding subsequent crimes of disorder (e.g., when 

appropriate, police may direct the individual to a health provider 

rather than the county jail). 

Police are also uniquely positioned to share community-level 

information that can benefit and inform reentry strategies and 

educate residents. Cognizant of the risks that reside in places, 

associates, and local situations, police officers with knowledge 

of the community’s dynamics are essential when crafting release 

plans for returning prisoners. Previous interactions with returning 

prisoners also provide police officers with background knowledge 

of an individual’s temperament, peer and family relationships, and 

skills and weaknesses, all of which can be used in creating and 

implementing an effective strategy for reintegration. Moreover, police 

can exchange information with community residents, providing 

them with accurate information about the local concentration of 

returning prisoners, plausible risks and assets, and ways in which 

they can protect themselves and their neighborhoods from further 

victimization. 

Connecting to Social Services 

Police officers have several opportunities to link ex-offenders to 

social services. Many police organizations already have an existing 

role in community enrichment programs (e.g., athletic leagues 

and youth mentoring) designed for at-risk youth, and thus have 

built useful bridges to the social service community. In addition to 

direct links to specific community-based organizations, police are 

well positioned to broker new connections to resources, potential 

employers, and mentors in the community.

48 In fact, some law 

enforcement agencies have already made great strides in this 

arena by developing service referral protocols for police to follow 

when interacting with special populations who are involved in crime 

or disorderly behavior, such as those with mental illness or the 

homeless.49 For example, prior research has found that the first few 

hours after release are critical for returning prisoners, presenting 

both risks and opportunities.50 Police can take a role in connecting 

prisoners to social services during that important time.51 Finally, as 

discussed below, police can partner with service, faith, and safety 

organizations to provide a wide range of services that can help 

connect returning prisoners to positive support in the community. 

47 For more information on 

community notification of 

sex offenders, see 

Center for Sex Offender 

Management (2001). 

48 Allender (2004); 

McGarrell et al. (2004). 

49 Castellano-Hoyt (2003). 

50 Nelson, Deess, and Allen 

(1999). 

51 Thistlethwaite (2002). 
28 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

52 Herman and Wasserman 

(2001). 

53 Shapiro (1997); Staples 

(1997). 

54 Woods (2000). 

Assisting Victims of Crime 

The police role in reentry may also draw on their historical emphasis 

on helping the victims of crime. One way that police can continue 

their alliance with victims in the context of reentry is to encourage 

both individual victims and victims’ organizations to participate in the 

reentry process. To date, victims have had little voice in prisoners’ 

release to the community and often are not privy to information 

about parole proceedings and terms of an offender’s release.52 

Many people assume that victim participation in these processes 

would inevitably result in negative outcomes for prisoners.53 Yet 

victims share the same goal as other partners in a reentry effort: 

to prevent future victimization by released prisoners. Toward this 

end, victims can contribute important, offender-specific information 

to standard reentry plans. Some victims know their offenders well 

(e.g., victims of domestic violence and sexual assault by friends 

or acquaintances) and because the communities in which victims 

reside and to which prisoners return are often the same, victims may 

have helpful insights about how to manage the risks associated with 

a prisoner’s return. 

However, for victim involvement in reentry to be meaningful, the 

victim must know how to gain access to and participate in the 

criminal justice system. Police are typically the first to respond when 

an individual has been victimized and are tasked with addressing 

victims’ needs to feel safe, to express their emotions, and to know 

what happens next.54 Their involvement at the front end of the 

system makes police ideally suited to continue their relationships 

with victims through to prisoner reentry and to use the same 

approaches to assist victims in participating in the parole and reentry 

processes. Finally, the involvement of the victim and police in the 

reentry process is invaluable in those situations in which an order of 

protection is required prior to a prisoner’s return to the community. 
EXAMPLES FROM THE FIELD 
30 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

55 Reentry Policy Council 

(2005) 

56 Solomon et al. (2004) 

57 A complete list of 

references is on file with 

the authors. 

I

n an effort to provide concrete examples of how police are 

contributing to prisoner reentry efforts, we conducted a “scan of 

practice” on the topic. The examples that follow illustrate how 

police agencies have examined the characteristics and challenges 

of prisoner reentry in their communities and developed tailored 

approaches for improving reentry outcomes and increasing public 

safety. 

These relatively new practices were identified in several ways. At 

the beginning of the project, COPS disseminated an announcement 

(Call for Reentry Sites) to all its grantees to solicit examples from 

law enforcement agencies engaged in reentry work. We also 

solicited nominations from Reentry Roundtable participants and 

organizations that work in the area of policing, such as the Police 

Executive Research Forum, the Police Foundation, the Institute 

for Law and Justice, the Center for Problem-Oriented Policing, the 

Regional Community Policing Institutes, the International Association 

of Chiefs of Police, and the National Sheriffs’ Association. Reports 

and publications from agencies such as the National Institute of 

Corrections, the American Correctional Association, and the National 

Institute of Justice were also reviewed. Additional key sources of 

information included the Report of the Re-Entry Policy Council,55 

Outside the Walls: A National Snapshot of Community-Based 

Prisoner Reentry Programs,

56 and program summaries of initiatives 

funded through grant programs such as the Serious Violent Offender 

Reentry Initiative and Project Safe Neighborhoods.57 

These search strategies revealed a breadth of police reentry 

initiatives currently in practice. Programs vary both on the extent 

of police involvement and the type of role that police play. For 

example, in many programs, the principal function of police centers 

on contributing to “notification” meetings and encouraging released 

prisoners to comply with the law and their conditions of release. 

In others, the police role includes activities such as coordinating 

services for released prisoners or sharing intelligence with partner 

agencies. Notwithstanding the range of strategies, there is a high 

level of consistency in the way most law enforcement agencies 

approach reentry, with information sharing, communication of a 

deterrence message, and enhanced surveillance central to the 

police role in most cases. 
Examples from the Field 31 

Additionally, we identified several police initiatives targeting 

probationers or parolees in efforts that had a broader focus than 

prisoner reentry. For example, many police agencies are involved in 

community prosecution partnerships that target habitual offenders 

yet do not take advantage of the prisoner release process as a 

prime opportunity to work with this population. While these types of 

partnerships are well positioned to add reentry components, they are 

not included in the examples that appear below. 

In the body of this report, we have highlighted strategies in which 

law enforcement plays a lead or key role in reentry. Although this 

narrow scope may exclude many reentry programs that include 

law enforcement, the limited focus demonstrates how police may 

proactively—and centrally—engage in reentry initiatives directed 

toward reducing crime and disorder in their communities. 

58 For each program 

highlighted below, 

telephone calls were 

made to agency contacts 

to clarify the nature 

of the program and 

level of police 

involvement. Summaries 

of each project were 

also shared with the law 

enforcement agencies to 

confirm their accuracy 

and that the key 

elements of the 

Each of the summaries provided below details the background and 

goals of the initiative, highlighting the police role.58 Few, if any, of 

programs were 

appropriately highlighted. these initiatives have been formally evaluated. Accordingly, these 

examples do not necessarily represent best practices or model 

programs. Rather, they illustrate examples from across the country 

of police practice in the area of prisoner reentry. 

Baltimore Police Department (Maryland) 

Boston Police Department/Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office 

(Massachusetts) 

Burlington Police Department (Vermont) 

Hampden County Sheriff’s Office /Springfield Police 

Department (Massachusetts) 

Indianapolis Police Department (Indiana) 

Knoxville Police Department (Tennessee) 

Lancashire Constabulary (United Kingdom) 

New Haven Police Department (Connecticut) 

Oakland Police Department (California) 

Ogden City Police Department (Utah) 

Racine Police Department (Wisconsin) 

Redlands Police Department (California) 

Redmond Police Department (Washington) 

Savannah-Chatham Police Department (Georgia) 

Winston-Salem Police Department (North Carolina) 
32 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Baltimore Police Department (Maryland)

Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative 

The Maryland Reentry Partnership Initiative is a collaboration of 

diverse public and private partners working to reduce recidivism, 

increase offender accountability, and harness community resources 

to meet the needs of recently released prisoners. The partnership 

works to create a continuum of services for participants who are 

returning to neighborhoods in Baltimore with disproportionately 

high crime levels. The primary role for police is to deter reoffending 

through exit orientation meetings, termed “notification sessions.” 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Twelve to 18 months before release, 

participants undergo a needs assessment to determine 

appropriate programs to support successful reentry (e.g., 

educational/vocational training, treatment programs, etc.). 

Individual structured service plans are developed for each 

participant by the case management staff within the Division 

of Correction. An additional assessment is conducted 

approximately 75 days before release. This information 

is used to create an after-care case plan, which is shared 

with the Division of Probation and Parole and the assigned 

community-based case manager (CM) and appointed 

advocate. From the first day of release, the CM and the 

advocate work closely together to support and monitor the 

participant’s progress throughout the post-release transition— 

reporting monthly for the first year of release, then every 2 

months for the remaining supervision period. 

» Encouraging Compliance. Participants are required to 

attend an exit orientation before release, during which they 

are notified about the consequences of reoffending as well as 

the community resources that are available to them to assist 

in the reentry process. 

» Connecting to Services. The CM or advocate may link 

participants to substance abuse treatment programs, mental 

health counseling, and vocational and educational training, 

and secure them identification, health services, and other 

urgent social services. Transitional housing (for up to 3 

months) is also available for roughly one-third of the program 

participants. 
Examples from the Field 33 

» Increasing Surveillance. A variety of corrections officials 

and community-based networks supervise participants upon 

release with the goal of fostering positive social influences 

while deterring them from committing new crimes. All program 

participants must report to a “Community Conference” 

within 72 hours of release. Convened in a nonthreatening 

venue within the community (e.g., at a recreation center), 

the conference is designed to provide former offenders and 

community stakeholders (residents, relatives, and program 

partners) an opportunity to demonstrate their commitment 

to each other in achieving successful reentry transitions. In 

addition, the conference provides a mechanism for regular 

compliance checks coupled with positive reinforcement. 

Partners include the Baltimore Police Department; the Enterprise 

Foundation; the Maryland Department of Corrections; the Mayor’s 

Office on Criminal Justice, Division of Parole and Probation; and the 

community development corporation. 

Contact Information 

Baltimore Police Department 

6776 Reisterstown Road 

Baltimore, MD 21215-2342 

410.585.3300 

http://www.baltimorepolice.org/ 
34 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

59 The juvenile component 

of the Boston Reentry 

Initiative (Metro Reentry 

Program) was added in 

2003. 

Boston Police Department/Suffolk County Sheriff’s 

Office (Massachusetts)

Boston Reentry Initiative 

The Boston Reentry Initiative (BRI) is a comprehensive reentry 

program supported by local, state, and federal partners aimed at 

reducing recidivism among serious and violent offenders.59 High-risk 

classification (“high-impact player”) is based on risk assessment 

protocols and intelligence-driven nominations by the Boston police 

based on likelihood to recidivate, history of gang involvement, 

and the neighborhood to which the prisoner is returning. While 

participation in BRI is voluntary, prosecutors often recommend it as 

a condition of release. 

The program offers returning prisoners comprehensive reentry 

planning and support and emphasizes individual accountability and 

the negative consequences of continued criminal involvement. While 

intensive post-release surveillance and increased accountability 

mechanisms are integral to the program, the initiative’s central 

focus is to provide individuals with the social support and resources 

needed to promote their successful reentry. The primary role 

for police includes intelligence sharing, enhancing a deterrence 

message, and providing advisory and assessment support 

throughout all stages of the reentry initiative. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Panel. Within 45 days of entering the Suffolk County 

House of Correction, program participants begin working 

on a “transition accountability plan” and attend one of the 

Initiative’s monthly community panel sessions. During the 

panels, representatives from law enforcement and criminal 

justice agencies, social service providers, and faith-based 

organizations form a semicircle and sit across from the 

10 to 20 inmate participants. Each member of the panel 

addresses the inmates from the unique perspective of his or 

her organization. Social service and faith-based organizations 

talk about the resources and support that they can provide 

to assist inmates with transition, both while they are in prison 

and post-release. Prosecutors, probation, and parole discuss 

the consequences that await inmates if they are caught 

committing crimes upon their return to their neighborhoods. 

Collectively, the panel conveys a unified message that the 

inmates have the power to choose their own destiny. Also, the 

panel serves to remind the inmates that they are not doing 
Examples from the Field 35 

their time anonymously and that information on their criminal 

histories, current incarceration, and planned release dates 

are shared among law enforcement agencies and with some 

community agencies. 

» Reentry Case Management. Following the panel, inmates 

are assigned caseworkers and faith-based mentors from 

the community, who begin meeting and working with them 

immediately in the prison setting. Enrollments in education, 

substance abuse, and other institutional programs are 

coordinated as part of their transitional accountability plans. 

On the day of release, the institution arranges for either a 

family member or a mentor to meet them at the door. The 

returning prisoners are encouraged to continue to work with 

their caseworkers, mentors, and social service providers 

during the reentry period. For those inmates who leave the 

prison on conditional supervision, the supervising agency is 

asked to incorporate participation in the BRI as part of their 

stipulations of release. 

» Day Reporting Center. Participants receive supervision 

and support services through a local Day Reporting Center. 

Each Day Reporting Center also has the capacity to house 

juveniles as a short-term sanction for those who fail to comply 

with the terms of their release. 

Partners include the Boston Police Department, the Suffolk County 

House of Correction, U.S. Probation Officer, the Massachusetts 

Department of Probation, the Massachusetts Parole Board, the 

Massachusetts Department of Youth Services, Suffolk County 

District Attorney’s Office, United States Attorney’s Office, various 

faith-based and community organizations, The Massachusetts 

Behavioral Health Partnership, Boston Public Health Commission, 

Boston Centers for Youth and Families, the Boston Private Industry 

Council, and Boston public schools. 

Contact Information 

Blake Norton 

Director, Public Affairs & Community Programs 

Office of the Police Commissioner 

Boston Police Department 

1 Schroeder Plaza 

Boston, MA 02120 

Phone: 617.343.4500 

E-mail: nortonb.bpd@ci.boston.ma.us 

Web site: http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/default.asp 
36 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Burlington Police Department (Vermont) 

Offender Reentry Project 

For many communities, crime—especially that of a violent nature— 

engenders feelings of vulnerability, anger, and mistrust, which in 

turn may impede the acceptance of a former prisoner back into 

a community. The Burlington Offender Reentry Project offers a 

holistic approach aimed to bridge the barriers created by criminal 

offending by offering a supportive environment for successful 

reentry. Following a community justice framework, community 

stakeholders (including victims, police, and other community 

representatives) actively engage in reentry planning and monitoring 

of serious and violent offenders who were incarcerated for at least 

1 year. The goal of the Offender Reentry Project is to allow both 

offenders and the community an opportunity to make amends for 

prior harms. It also allows former prisoners to demonstrate their 

achievements and ability to successfully reenter the community 

through active involvement in offender reentry planning that ensures 

victim safety and fosters opportunities for positive victim/offender 

interactions. While the Reentry Project is not directly involved 

in offender sentencing or institutional programming decisions, a 

reentry panel does make recommendations to these entities such 

as community placement, treatment programs, restitution, reentry 

planning, and conditions/stipulations of release that support victim 

safety. The involvement of police in this partnership provides 

valuable knowledge about ex-offenders in the community (e.g., 

criminal history, drug activity, and peer and gang associations). In 

addition, activities throughout all phases of reentry afford police 

an opportunity to interact with former prisoners in a positive way 

and to play a supportive role in helping them achieve successful 

reintegration outcomes. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Within 30 days of incarceration a 

correctional services specialist within the Department of 

Corrections works with offenders to develop an Offender 

Responsibility Plan. The Responsibility Plan is based on a 

needs assessment (e.g., substance abuse, mental health, 

life skills) and outlines a strategy for successful reintegration. 

Within 60 days of release, the reentry panel, in collaboration 

with the Department of Corrections, meets to review the 

Offender Responsibility Plans and Reentry Plans, which detail 

the components of the offender’s community placement, 

including housing and vocational and treatment services. The 

panel reviews each plan to ensure that the elements support 

victim and community safety, reflecting restorative justice 
Examples from the Field 37 

elements and victim input. Approximately 1 month prior to 

the offender’s release date, the reentry panel makes a final 

recommendation for a reentry plan. Notably, the panel may 

decline to accept an offender into the program if it disagrees 

with the Department of Corrections’ plan. 

» Encouraging Compliance. The panel meets regularly to 

monitor individual progress both before and after release. 

Mechanisms for monitoring include reviewing correctional 

department reports and videoconferencing with offenders. 

When released, the individual regularly meets with the reentry 

panel for a predetermined period of time. 

» Enhanced Supervision. Although there is no direct 

enhanced supervision component of the program, police 

are informed of release plans and release dates of program 

participants. This reduces the anonymity of former prisoners 

in the community and supports monitoring and supervision 

activities. 

» Coordinating Services. The reentry panel provides 

participants with access to resource information and referrals 

to service providers or assistance programs, as needed. 

Partners include the Burlington Police Department, the Vermont 

Department of Corrections, the Burlington Housing Authority, 

Spectrum Youth and Family Services, the Vocational Rehabilitation 

Division, Vermont Associations of Business Industry and 

Rehabilitation, Howard Community Services, and Burlington 

Community Justice Center. 

Contact Information 

Lt. Don Lilja 

Burlington Police Department 

1 North Avenue 

Burlington, VT 05401 

Phone: 802.658.2704 ext. 173 

E-mail: DLilja@bpdvt.org 

Web site: http://www.police.ci.burlington.vt.us/ 

Sally Fox 

Burlington Community Justice Center 

82 South Winooski Avenue 

Burlington, VT 05401 

Phone: 802.865.7688 

E-mail: sfox@ci.burlington.vt.us 
38 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

60 The Criminal Justice 

Re-Entry Program is 

currently a pilot 

component of AISS 

directed toward high-risk 

offenders. 

61 Eligible participants are 

those that score 6 

or higher on the Level 

of Services Inventory 

(LSI) screening 

instrument and are 

considered dangerous. 

Program participants 

selected from the 

Massachusetts 

Department of 

Corrections must also 

meet the following 

eligibility criteria: (1) 

Sentenced from and 

planning to return to 

Hampden County; (2) 

Have at least 12 months 

remaining in their 

sentence; (3) Are 

classified at level 4 

security (medium) 

or lower; and (4) Would 

not require placement 

in segregation. Through 

the reentry process the 

goal is to graduate 

inmates to lower levels 

of security for a gradual 

supported and monitored 

release. 

Hampden County Sheriff’s Department/Springfield 

Police Department (Massachusetts)

After Incarceration Support Services Program 

Criminal Justice Re-Entry Program60 

The After Incarceration Support Systems Program (AISS) is a 

multiagency collaboration designed to meet the reentry needs of 

both jail and state prison inmates returning to Hampden County. 

All jail inmates are encouraged to participate in the structured 

AISS program within 90 days of their release date. Individuals in 

the custody of the Massachusetts Department of Corrections who 

were either sentenced from or returning to Hampden County are 

also provided opportunities to participate.61 The goal of AISS is to 

prepare individuals for successful reentry via prerelease planning 

and social service support followed by continued support and 

enhanced post-release supervision. The primary role for police 

centers upon eligibility decisions, intelligence sharing, and enhanced 

supervision. The police provide information and intelligence about 

high-risk releasees (e.g., propensity for violence, gang affiliations, 

drug activity) that is shared with partners via one-page summary 

briefs. Notification of releases are also provided to all applicable 

local police agencies and are accessible to all patrol units via incar technology systems. Accessible up-to-date information on 

high-risk offenders supports supervision and monitoring activities 

and increases the likelihood of detecting individuals who are 

demonstrating problems or challenges with reentry transitions. 

Key Program Elements 

» Release Planning. There are two phases of release 

planning. Release Planning I (RPI) informs eligible 

participants of the services provided through the program. 

Interested candidates are asked to respond to a selfassessment questionnaire to inform Phase II activities, which 

begin within approximately 1 week of Phase I. In Release 

Planning II (RPII), the release planning coordinator works 

with each program participant to develop individualized 

release plans. These plans are based on the participant’s 

self-assessment and recommendations from correctional 

staff who are familiar with the individual’s unique needs 

such as case managers, and mental health, vocation, 

and education staff. Based on these activities, the release 

planning coordinator compiles a comprehensive release plan. 

Participants then complete an individualized release plan 

and meet with the education reintegration counselor and a 

community staff member from AISS. 
Examples from the Field 39 

» Connecting to Services. AISS provides participants with 

unlimited access to information and resources available 

to support reentry needs such as residential programs, 

employment training, substance use programs (e.g., AA/NA). 

An electronic directory allows participants to identify services 

that are close to the area where they will be living upon 

release. 

» Encouraging Compliance. Upon release, high-risk AISS 

participants meet with police, probation/parole, and the 

Hampden County Sheriff’s chief of security to review 

reentry plans, stipulations of community supervision, and 

consequences of future offending. These sessions may take 

place either at police headquarters or at the Hampden County 

House of Corrections. The Public Safety Committee meets 

monthly to review each participant’s progress and provides 

recommendations for appropriate sanctions if the participant 

reoffends. 

» Enhanced Surveillance. The Springfield Police Department 

has developed the information-sharing technology to make 

one-page summary briefs available to their officers in 

the patrol cars. In addition, the sheriff’s officers hold joint 

meetings with the Massachusetts Department of Corrections 

officials and police departments in neighboring areas to share 

information about the recent releasees, including their name, 

photo, and criminal history. In addition, the district attorney’s 

office maintains a central file on each participant, which 

includes a copy of the reentry plan, probation/parole status, 

and other relevant information (i.e., criminal history and vital 

statistics). 

Partners include the Hampden County Sheriff’s Department, 

Springfield Police Department, the Massachusetts Department of 

Corrections, District Attorney’s Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, and 

District and Superior Probation. 

Contact Information 

Jennifer Sordi 

Assistant Deputy Superintendent 

Hampden County Sheriff’s Department 

After Incarceration Support Services Program 

311 State Street 

Springfield, MA 01105 

Phone: 413.733.5469 ext. 5201 

E-mail: jen.sordi@SDH.state.ma.us 

Web site: http://hcsdmass.org/aiss.htm 
40 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Indianapolis Police Department (Indiana)

Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership 

The Indianapolis Violence Reduction Partnership (IVRP) is a 

multitiered effort involving increased monitoring of persistent and 

violent offenders in high-crime neighborhoods; improved information 

sharing among agencies; rapid processing of new crimes or 

offenses; and enhanced social service programs for youth and 

young adults in the targeted communities. The primary role for 

police is to coordinate information and intelligence exchange among 

the IVRP partners. The police also lead the notification sessions 

for the IVRP reentry effort, which provides the collaborative with an 

opportunity to demonstrate to returning prisoners the strength of the 

partnership and the consequences of reoffending. Police activities 

that support the deterrence message include various specialized 

enforcement tactics. 

Key Program Elements 

» Increasing Surveillance. A working group of representatives 

from law enforcement organizations, the U.S. Attorney’s 

Office, the Aggravated Assault Unit, the Gang Unit, and 

the Narcotics Unit meets weekly to discuss the status of all 

program participants and the status of the neighborhoods 

under heightened supervision (e.g., any new crimes 

committed or nuisance/abatement calls). 

» Encouraging Compliance. Once released, program 

participants are required to attend a notification session, led 

by the deputy police chief of the neighborhood in which they 

reside, to reinforce the consequences of noncompliance. 

Additional statements by homicide detectives and community 

leaders support the initiative’s “zero tolerance” message on 

future offending. In response to homicides and/or increases 

of violence in the targeted areas, multiagency teams initiate 

geographically based responses, including frequent directed 

patrol. Additionally, the fugitive response team combs the 

neighborhood for offenders with outstanding warrants, and 

parole and probation officers increase the frequency of their 

visits with clients in the neighborhood. Juvenile curfews are 

also stringently enforced to decrease future crime in the area. 

» Exchanging Information. Participants in the Violence Impact 

Program Enhanced Response (VIPER) program (referred to 

as “VIPER offenders”) are tracked for outstanding warrants, 

parole or probation violations, arrests, and supervision 

status. The Indianapolis Police Department manages the 

database, accessible to all partners via a secured web site. If 
Examples from the Field 41 

a VIPER offender reoffends or commits a technical violation, 

information is shared among local, state, and federal 

agencies to assess the most expedient and successful 

avenue of prosecution of the offender. In addition, law 

enforcement partners coordinate efforts to dismantle drug and 

illegal arms markets. 

» Connecting to Services. Officials in the Police Action 

League work with at-risk youth in the community to connect 

them to positive social environments through mentorship 

and community programs, job opportunities, and faith-based 

programs. In conjunction with the community education and 

support programs, prior offenders will be contacted for brief 

meetings to inform them of the reinforced law enforcement 

presence in the community, the expectations for their 

behavior, and how to receive social support if needed. 

Partners include the Indianapolis Police Department; the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation; United States Marshal’s Office; Marion 

County Prosecutor’s Office; Marion County Justice Agency; 

Department of Corrections; Marion County Probation; Crime 

Stoppers; Hudson Institute Crime Control Policy Center; Marion 

Superior Court; Indiana State Police; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

and Firearms; Indiana University; U.S. Probation Office; Marion 

County Sheriff’s Department; U.S. Attorney’s Office; Drug 

Enforcement Administration; Indiana Department of Education; and 

various community and faith-based organizations. 

Contact Information 

Jason D. Hutchens 

Marion County Justice Agency 

200 E. Washington Street, Suite 1901 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Phone: 317.327.3131 

E-mail: jhutchens@indygov.org 

Web site: http://www.indygov.org/eGov/City/DPS/IPD/home.htm 
42 

62 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

The Knoxville Public 

Safety Collaborative was 

a finalist for the 

Innovations in 

Government Award in 

2003. 

Knoxville Police Department (Tennessee)

Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative62 

The Knoxville Public Safety Collaborative (KPSC) partnership was 

formed to respond to community concerns about crime committed 

by repeat offenders released from prison. Building on preexisting 

partnerships between corrections and probation/parole, the 

Knoxville Police Department joined the collaborative to develop 

a strategic response geared to improve the reentry success of 

high-risk individuals returning to the community. The KPSC offers 

a multidisciplinary case management approach that begins prior 

to release and continues with intensive post-release supervision. 

Release planning ensures that individuals receive appropriate 

services to support positive reentry including mental health, alcohol, 

and drug treatment, medical provisions (e.g., prescriptions), 

vocational or educational services, and housing. 

The Board of Probation and Parole issues an identification card to 

all released individuals; it must be carried at all times and produced 

when interacting with program staff, including parole officers and 

law enforcement. The identification cards ensure that information 

obtained via the various partner sources is accurately and efficiently 

shared among all partners. For example, if the police stop an 

individual or are conducting a compliance check, the interaction is 

logged into the Knoxville Police Department database and shared 

with the parole officer. This systematic tracking improves supervision 

and monitoring activities. The primary role for police is to use this 

identification card system and other intelligence to support the 

timely and accurate dissemination of information among partner 

agencies—particularly police officers, corrections officials, and 

treatment providers. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Before release, comprehensive, 

individualized case plans are developed to identify needs and 

services for successful reentry transitions. 

» Encouraging Compliance. After release, representatives 

from the collaborative perform joint site visits and frequently 

share information to ensure the careful monitoring of 

participants’ progress. 

» Exchanging Information. The police enhance supervision 

by providing up-to-date information to all partners. At the end 

of each shift, officers enter information into the database 

about any contacts with persons of interest. This information 
Examples from the Field 43 

is transmitted to the supervising corrections officer of the 

program participant and can be accessed electronically at 

any time. To assist in supervision activities, the police map 

residential addresses of the individuals under supervision and 

share this information with the Board of Probation and Parole. 

Partners include the Knoxville Police Department, the Knox 

County Sheriff’s Office, the Tennessee Department of Corrections, 

Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole, Child and Family 

Tennessee, Knox County Drug Court, Knoxville County Probation, 

U.S. Probation Office, the University of Tennessee School of Social 

Work, the Metropolitan Drug Commission, and various state and city 

agencies, social service providers, and community and faith-based 

organizations. 

Contact Information 

Lee Ragsdale 

Community Corrections Program Manager 

Knoxville Police Department 

P.O. Box 3610 

Knoxville, TN 37927 

Phone: 865.215.7521 

E-mail: lragsdale@cityofknoxville.org 

Web site: http://www.knoxsafety.org 
44 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Lancashire Constabulary (United Kingdom)

Tower Project 

The Tower Project was developed in response to a growing problem 

of increasing rates of burglary, auto crime, and street robberies in 

the Western Division of Lancashire, England. Using the tools of 

problem-solving analysis, the Lancashire Constabulary learned 

that almost 50 percent of persistent adult offenders test positive 

for drug use and that a small group of these persistent drug users 

accounted for a large proportion of crime. These findings led to the 

development of a targeted reentry initiative that combined intensive 

supervision with directed drug treatment to reduce recidivism. 

The goal of the program is to encourage desistance from crime by 

addressing risk factors of persistent drug use. 

The police are responsible for hosting and implementing the 

project. In addition to providing an advisory role in recruitment, the 

primary role for police is to collect and process intelligence gathered 

through enhanced supervision activities, such as surveillance and 

specialized enforcement. More important, the police facilitate the 

flow of intelligence information between the partner agencies. The 

program has changed how police handle persistent offenders who 

are problematic drug users by encouraging treatment in lieu of 

arrests and jail time. According to the Lancashire Constabulary, 

since the start of the Tower Project, crime committed by the target 

population has decreased by 30 percent. The program’s success 

has prompted expansion to additional jurisdictions throughout 

Lancashire. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Participants are recruited up to 3 months 

prior to release to develop a post-release drug treatment plan 

including treatment, abstinence support, accommodation, 

benefits, and employment and lifestyle skills. 

» Exchanging Information. The police provide critical support 

through analysis and assessment. They identify the most 

persistent offenders based on indicators including number 

of types of criminal justice contacts and types of offenses. 

They also engage in monitoring and surveillance activities, 

which are increased or decreased based on the individual’s 

progress. The information collected and shared among the 

partners is integrated into the police intelligence system. 

The police provide daily information briefings at the project’s 

main office. Each program participant is required to sign a 

consent form authorizing drug testing and free dissemination 

of personal information among the partner agencies. 
Examples from the Field 45 

» Encouraging Compliance. Monitoring and supervision 

activities begin immediately upon release. In many cases, the 

program staff meets the offender at the gate to ensure that 

there is no diversion to high-drug areas. “Drug action teams” 

monitor drug treatment progress. Additionally, a one-stop 

shop, based at the police station, connects persistent drug 

users to treatment providers. 

» Increasing Surveillance. Police engage in specialized 

enforcement activities, such as undercover operations. In 

addition, they increase surveillance through high-visibility 

patrol tactics. 

Partners include the Lancashire Constabulary, Western Division; 

National Probation Service Lancashire; Crown Prosecution 

Services; the National Association for the Care and Resettlement 

of Offenders; Housing Authority; and drug treatment and medical 

service providers. 

Contact Information 

Tower Project 

Multi-Agency Problem Solving Team 

Western Division Headquarters 

Bonny Street 

Blackpool FY1 5RL 

United Kingdom 

E-mail: lancashirepolice@lancashire.police.uk 

Web site: http://www.lancashire.police.uk 
46 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

New Haven Police Department (Connecticut)

Project One Voice 

Project One Voice is a partnership of local, state, and federal law 

enforcement and various service agencies created to address 

crime problems caused by persistent criminals in four New Haven 

neighborhoods. This place-based strategy focuses on individuals 

and gangs responsible for contributing to the violent crimes and 

drug activities in the community. The strength of the collaborative 

is derived from the commitment of the community to encourage the 

successful reentry of probationers and parolees returning to these 

areas. With the support of its partners, the community has formed 

management teams that are responsible for sharing community 

concerns and providing a mechanism for transferring intelligence 

to police. In addition, the community offers support to returning 

prisoners, such as employment and social service referrals. The 

primary role for police is to provide enhanced supervision and 

surveillance of high-risk offenders. Regular patrol and specialized 

enforcement gather intelligence on possible technical violations. A 

“palm card” system notifies probation and parole about violations 

identified by police. This involvement communicates to the 

community that police are aware of the problems and are proactively 

responding. It also promotes open communication between the 

criminal justice system and the community. 

Key Program Elements 

» Engaging the Community. Approximately once each month, 

residents meet with district managers in management teams 

to help the police identify areas at the local level that should 

be included in the program. In addition to targeting places 

that local residents identify, the management teams work 

with the New Haven Public Works Department and the New 

Haven Livable City Initiative to ensure that abandoned and 

blighted lots or properties are not used for illegal activities. 

» Encouraging Compliance. Strict bail conditions are set 

for these habitual offenders. Upon release, parole officers, 

probation officers, and police—oftentimes working together— 

closely monitor them to ensure compliance. The New Haven 

Housing Authority assists in a similar manner by enforcing 

lease conditions more strictly and improving and maintaining 

public housing. 
Examples from the Field 47 

» Exchanging Information. When police officers witness 

program participants violating their conditions of release, they 

issue participants fluorescent “palm cards” and tell them to 

report to their probation or parole officer the next day. Police 

also work with the community to develop intelligence on 

criminal activity in the neighborhood. 

Partners include the New Haven Police Department; the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives; Drug Enforcement Administration; Chief State’s 

Attorney’s Office; New Haven State Attorney’s Office; Connecticut 

Department of Public Safety; Connecticut Department of Correction; 

Connecticut Board of Parole; Connecticut Office of Adult Probation; 

Connecticut Office of Juvenile Probation—New Haven; Connecticut 

Bail Commission; the Office of Alternative Sanctions; the Housing 

Authority of New Haven; the New Haven Department of Public 

Works; and the New Haven Livable City Initiative. 

Contact Information 

Bonnie Winchester 

New Haven Police Department 

One Union Avenue 

New Haven, CT 06519 

Phone: 203.946.6271 

E-mail: bwinches@newhavenct.net 

Web site: http://www.cityofnewhaven.com/police/home.htm 
48 

63 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Similar initiatives are 

being implemented 

throughout California, 

including in Sacramento, 

Redlands, Vallejo, 

Stockton, and San 

Francisco. 

Oakland Police Department (California)

Police and Corrections Together (PACT)/Project Choice 

The Police and Corrections Together (PACT), in partnership 

with Project Choice, operates a comprehensive reentry program 

aimed at reducing recidivism among high-risk male offenders 

between the ages of 14 and 29.63 The initiative provides social 

support for reentering prisoners and aids compliance with terms of 

supervision and accountability for staying free of crime. The police 

play a supportive role in the program by enhancing the message 

about complying with conditions of release. In addition, the police 

are represented on the Project Choice advisory committee. The 

committee represents all facets of the community, including parole, 

corrections, employment, and health agencies, as well as a former 

prisoner, a community organizer, and faith- and community-based 

provider staff. This diverse partnership works to provide returning 

prisoners with access to services while communicating the 

importance of complying with conditions of release and desisting 

from crime. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Six to 12 months prior to release from 

prison, participants are required to develop “life plans” for 

successful reentry. Needs assessments are also conducted 

to support reentry planning. Once completed, life plans and 

assessments are forwarded to the Project Choice advisory 

committee for review and revision. 

» Encouraging Compliance. Once released, police partner 

with California Department of Correction (CDC) parole 

officers to track compliance of release conditions and 

encourage rehabilitative support. In addition, program 

participants must attend a PACT meeting (led by police 

and probation) within 1 week of their release, during which 

stipulations of release and program requirements are 

reviewed and reinforced. Participants are required to attend 

regular PACT meetings throughout their supervision period. 

If a participant fails to attend a PACT meeting, a team of 

Oakland Police Department officers and CDC parole officers 

are dispatched that day to the parolee’s address on record. 

» Connecting to Services. Services offered upon release 

include employment training, job referrals, adult education, 

and mental health and substance abuse treatment. 
Examples from the Field 49 

Partners include the Oakland Police Department, the California 

Department of Corrections, Alameda County Probation Department, 

California Youth Authority Institutional and Parole Divisions, Alameda 

County Behavioral Services, the Oakland Private Industry Council, 

community and faith-based organizations, and the Institute for 

Contemporary Studies. 

Contact Information 

Lt. Pete Sarna 

Oakland Police Department 

455 Seventh Street 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Phone: 510.238.3380 

E-mail: psarna@oaklandnet.com 

Web site: http://www.oaklandpolice.com/ 
50 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Ogden City Police Department (Utah)

Project T.E.A.M. 

Team Enforcement and Monitoring (Project T.E.A.M.) was formed 

in response to crime committed by the high number of individuals 

returning to a small area within Ogden City. Assessments of 

reentry patterns revealed that nearly 12 percent of the population 

in one eight-block neighborhood were under either probation 

or parole supervision. This high concentration of ex-offenders 

resulted in unmanageable caseloads for Weber County community 

supervision officers and restricted the amount of one-on-one 

contacts with clients. The goal of the Project T.E.A.M. collaborative 

is to improve the capacity of criminal justice agents to monitor 

and support reentry transitions by linking participants to social 

service organizations. To do so, the project has granted the police 

authority to act as community supervision agents. Although this 

authorization is contingent upon the individual signing a waiver, the 

incentive to participate is attractive to many releasees because it 

is often offered as an alternative to returning to prison for technical 

violations. The primary role for police includes strengthening 

the deterrence message communicated during the face-to-face 

introductory notification sessions, during which the consequences of 

noncompliance, especially for weapons offenses, are explained. In 

addition, police support supervision activities by conducting random 

curfew checks and home visits. This program benefits parole agents 

who typically have 60 to 80 offenders on their caseload, giving them 

extra support from the police to supervise higher risk parolees. For 

police, face-to-face meetings foster positive interactions with former 

prisoners and provide police with important context to individual 

circumstances of reentry. 

Key Program Elements 

» Encouraging Compliance. Individuals returning to Weber 

County on parole attend a meeting with police officers on the 

day of their release during which they are informed of the 

consequences of not abiding by the law. They are specifically 

informed that they may be federally prosecuted if they 

possess or use a firearm. If a parolee commits a technical 

violation, he or she is offered the option of joining the program 

instead of returning to prison. Participation in T.E.A.M. is 

contingent on the individual signing a contract that permits 

police officers to act in the capacity of parole officers and may 

include a curfew requirement or alcohol restrictions, among 

other stipulations. 
Examples from the Field 51 

» Increasing Surveillance. The police have the same powers 

that the parole officer has over the parolee, including the right 

to make unannounced visits and search without a warrant 

or consent if they believe the individual is participating in 

criminal activity. Twice a month a police officer joins a parole 

officer in conducting visits to every high-risk parolee in the 

county. 

» Connecting to Services. The program offers participants 

opportunities to receive education and employment support, 

including access to general equivalency diploma classes, 

computer courses, and career centers. Participants are linked 

with relevant social service organizations in the community 

during notification sessions. 

Partners include the Ogden City Police Department, all law 

enforcement agencies within Weber County, the Utah Department 

of Corrections, the Weber County Adult Probation and Parole Office, 

Ogden City’s Enterprise Community, Safe Haven, and the Utah 

Department of Workforce Services. 

Contact Information 

Lt. Mike Ashment 

Ogden Police Department 

2186 Lincoln Avenue 

Ogden City, UT 84401 

Phone: 801.629.8221 

E-mail: MikeA@ci.ogden.ut.us 

Web site: http://www.ogdencity.com/index.php?module=ibcms&fxn= 

police.main 
52 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Racine Police Department (Wisconsin)

Community Re-Entry Program 

The Community Re-Entry Program, a multiagency partnership 

spearheaded by the Racine Police Department, is designed 

to reduce recidivism among high-risk offenders released from 

state prison. Each month, four to five high-risk individuals with 

prior convictions involving violent crimes, weapons offenses, or 

gang crimes are selected for program participation. The program 

emphasizes individual accountability as well as employment 

assistance and mentoring opportunities. The role of police involves 

working directly with probation/parole in the four communitybased housing stations. The decentralization of supervision 

activities fosters consistent information sharing between police and 

supervision officers. In addition, police participate in notification 

sessions through which participants are made aware that the 

police and the community will be watching them carefully (thereby 

reducing their perceptions of anonymity). The program began in 

the fall of 2004, when the police began playing a substantial role in 

coordinating services and monitoring progress. Recently, the project 

has benefited from a project coordinator tasked with managing the 

day-to-day operations and facilitating weekly updates on individual 

cases between the police and probation/parole. According to Racine 

police, less than a quarter of those who have participated in the 

program to date have been rearrested for new crimes. 

Key Program Elements 

» Encouraging Compliance. Upon release, participants are 

required to attend a notification session, during which they 

are informed of available social services as well as the fact 

that they will be monitored for subsequent criminal activity 

and that it will not be tolerated. These sessions are very 

well attended with approximately 100 to 150 community 

representatives present at each session. The coordinator 

makes follow-up contacts with each program participant 

within 30 days of release. 

» Connecting to Services. Participants are offered workforce development support such as donated clothing, job 

training, interview training, and employment referrals. 

Additional services include family support and links to faithbased organizations. The project benefits from a dedicated 

coordinator, bridging with partner agencies and brokering 

services to program participants. 
Examples from the Field 53 

Partners include the Racine Police Department, Racine County 

Sheriff’s Office, the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of 

Wisconsin, the Mayor’s Office, Wisconsin Department of 

Corrections, the Racine County Executive, Neighborhood Watch, 

Weed and Seed, numerous faith-based organizations, Racine 

County Workforce Development Center, private-sector employers, 

the United Way of Racine, and other community organizations. 

Contact Information 

Sgt. Steve Madsen 

Project Coordinator 

Racine Police Department 

730 Center Street 

Racine, WI 53403 

Phone: 262.635.7815 

E-mail: smadsen@cityofracine.org 

Web site: http://www.cityofracine.org/depts/police/ 
54 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Redlands Police Department (California)

Police and Corrections Team 

Redlands Police and Corrections Team (PACT) is a comprehensive 

approach to prisoner reentry that incorporates the tenets of 

community policing, community engagement, and organizational 

development. Redlands PACT focuses on the successful 

reintegration of prisoners returning home to Redlands. Prior to 

PACT’s inception, the majority of parolees arrested by the Redlands 

Police Department (RPD) were local residents. A recent analysis 

shows that 63 percent of all parolees arrested by RPD officers are 

nonresidents and live where similar PACT services are not available. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. The Department of Corrections requires 

all returning inmates to develop “life plans” prior to release 

to facilitate their successful reentry. Corrections staff also 

conduct individual-specific needs assessments that highlight 

areas of concern for each inmate.

» Encouraging Compliance. Within a week of release, 

parolees are required to attend the first of a two-part 

session to notify them of the consequences of violating the 

terms of their parole and the services available to facilitate 

their reentry. Parole agents, police officers, deputy district 

attorneys, service providers, and community leaders attend 

the sessions to provide the necessary notifications and 

information. 

» Increasing Surveillance. Two parole agents and a Redlands 

police officer work as partners, from an RPD office, to 

increase the frequency of contact with parolees and the 

level of support for reentry they and their families are given. 

Visits to parolee homes have increased more than 300 

percent since the program began. The team informs patrol, 

street crime, and community policing substation officers of 

the inmates’ return and their respective circumstances. This 

communication has dramatically increased the PACT team’s 

notification by RPD officers of parolee activities (both good 

and bad). 

» Engaging the Community. Redlands’ faith community 

has demonstrated tremendous support for prisoner reentry 

and drug court efforts. Recently, one church held a daylong 

festival that brought together 250 volunteers and more than 

600 parolees, drug court clients, and their families. Service 

providers, police recreation specialists, and community groups 

supported and celebrated the reentry progress of the “guests” 

with food, music, games and informational booths. A van 

was raffled off to one deserving—and previously car-less— 

parolee and his family. A separate makeover day, focusing 
Examples from the Field 55 

on increasing self-esteem in female parolees and drug court 

clients, treated these guests to hair styling, manicures, and 

fashion advice. Other faith groups have mentoring projects 

lined up. Reentry now is included in the department’s Citizens 

Police Academy curriculum. A specialized Citizens Reentry 

Academy, to further increase community understanding, 

is scheduled in 2006. Finally, through a series of public 

presentations, there has been a noticeable increase in the 

number of employers who have agreed to employ parolees. 

» Building Partnerships. In Redlands, community reentry from 

incarceration and drug addiction are closely linked. Through 

a partnership with the local drug court, addicted parolees are 

eligible for the 18-month drug court program in lieu of parole 

revocation. Early indications are that participating parolees 

are experiencing the same success rate—currently in excess 

of 85 percent—as traditional drug court clients. 

» Organizational Development, Knowledge Management, 

and Information Sharing. For the police to become a 

helpful participant in reentry efforts, organizational change 

within police departments must occur. Accordingly, the RPD 

has integrated reentry concepts into its field training and 

leadership development programs, promotional processes, 

and strategic planning efforts. In addition, reentry has been 

incorporated into the department’s Knowledge Management 

Initiative. For instance, all RPD PACT officers attend 

California’s Parole Agent Academy; parolee focus groups are 

conducted to capture parolee knowledge about crime, police 

legitimacy, and their reentry needs; and reentry publications 

are widely distributed throughout the department. The RPD 

also has integrated parolee information into its databases 

for easy access by street officers and uses its extensive 

analytical capacity to examine parolee activities via mapping. 

Partners include the Redlands Police Department, California 

Department of Corrections, San Bernardino County Probation 

Department, Redlands Drug Court, Cops and Clergy Network, 

Pathway Church, and a wide variety of community groups. 

Contact Information 

Officer Steve Starr 

Redlands Police Department 

P.O. Box 1025 

Redlands, CA 92373 

Phone: 909.798.7546 

E-mail: sstarr@redlandspolice.org 

Web site: http://www.redlandspolice.org/ 
56 

64 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Prerelease notifications 

are conducted through 

Project Safe 

Neighborhoods. 

Redmond Police Department (Washington)

SMART Partners Program 

The Supervision, Management, and Recidivist Tracking (SMART) 

program facilitates cost-effective surveillance and compliance 

checks for adults and juveniles returning to the community from 

prison and jail/detention facilities. The primary role for police 

is to provide enhanced supervision, intelligence gathering and 

assessment, and timely communication with their probation and 

parole partners. In addition, police visit high-risk offenders just 

prior to release to communicate the consequences of weapons 

violations.64 The SMART program has expanded to most of the 39 

counties in Washington, and plans to expand SMART to a state-wide 

data-sharing system are currently in development. 

Key Program Elements 

» Increasing Surveillance. Police provide supervision support 

for one to two high-risk supervised releasees residing within 

each patrol area. In additional to regular patrol, police conduct 

random monthly home visits for participants with curfew 

restrictions. Such home visits provide the SMART partners 

with up-to-date information about criminal activity, compliance 

with terms of supervision, current residence, and family 

circumstances. Documentation of home visits is forwarded to 

the participant’s corrections officer. 

» Exchanging Information. The Redmond Police Department 

has developed a systematic information-sharing mechanism 

among community corrections officers. Field Interview 

Report (FIR) cards recording all police stops (e.g., traffic, 

investigation, suspicious person) are systematically 

processed and checked against an active supervision case 

list provided by the Department of Corrections. Once verified 

by the supervising lieutenant, FIR records on active clients 

are copied and forwarded biweekly to the Department of 

Corrections for review and to identify possible compliance 

violations. Crime analysts within the police department also 

receive a copy of the FIR cards to track the criminal activity 

of supervised releases. In addition, community corrections 

officers and intelligence analysts have electronic access to 

police information systems and are also provided designated 

work stations within the police department. Community 

corrections officers are immediately informed when an 

individual under their supervision is released from a state 

correctional facility. The police also maintain the Homicide 

Intensive Tracking System (HITS), a centralized database of 

homicide and violent crime information collected by police 

and sheriffs across Washington. This database is accessible 

to all program partners. 
Examples from the Field 57 

Partners include the Redmond Police Department, the Washington 

State Department of Corrections Bellevue Field Office, King County 

Sheriff, Washington Department of Wildlife, King County Juvenile 

Rehabilitation Services, King County Department of Adult and 

Juvenile Detention, and the HITS Unit of the Washington State 

Office of the Attorney General. 

Contact Information 

Commander Terry Morgan 

Redmond Police Department 

8701 160th Avenue NE 

P.O. Box 97010 

Redmond, WA 98073-9710 

Phone: 425.556.2523 

E-mail: tmorgan@redmond.gov 

Web site: http://www.ci.redmond.wa.us/insidecityhall/police/ 
58 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

65 The Savannah Impact 

Program received the 

2003 IACP Community 

Policing Award for Best 

Practices in Community 

Policing Worldwide. 

Savannah-Chatham Police Department (Georgia)

Savannah Impact Program65 

The Savannah Impact Program (SIP) combines highly structured 

supervision with targeted support services to support successful 

reentry of individuals convicted in Chatham County. The Department 

of Corrections and the Department of Juvenile Justice administer 

assessment tools to identify high-risk juvenile and adult offenders. 

Once selected for the program, each individual is assigned to a 

team comprising of a probation/parole officer and a police officer. 

The team approach supports the partnership’s success on two 

fronts. First, team caseloads are kept low to allow time for frequent 

compliance checks, such as abiding with curfews and refraining from 

substance use. Second, the team approach unifies and strengthens 

the deterrence message that future crime will not be tolerated and 

guarantees a swift response from the collaborative. In addition, 

it provides opportunities to link participants to appropriate social 

services, such as life skills training, substance abuse treatment, and 

educational support. The program also emphasizes the importance 

of employment in supporting desistance from crime and assists with 

job placement for each program participant. 

The primary role of police in the partnership is to work closely with 

probation and parole throughout a participant’s reentry transition. 

Police also contribute to decisions on technical violations and 

provide programmatic assessments and analyses when needed. 

Currently, success of the program is measured by rates of 

revocation, employment, number of referrals, number of contacts 

with the SIP Team, and drug use. According to the Savannah– 

Chatham Police Department, almost all program participants have 

secured employment. In addition, revocation rates of program 

participants are reported to be less than half that of the general 

population (14 percent and 39 percent, respectively). 
Examples from the Field 59 

Key Program Elements 

» Encouraging Compliance. Participants attend a one-onone meeting with their assigned team followed up by a 

program orientation during which they are informed of the 

expectations of the program and the consequences if they 

reoffend. The program keeps the team’s caseloads to a 

manageable size to allow for more frequent contact and more 

intensive supervision, including drug screenings and curfew 

enforcement. As a result, notifications of technical violations 

are transmitted immediately. The team makes joint decisions 

on the outcomes of violations. 

» Connecting to Services. Services, such as life skills training, 

education, and substance abuse and behavior modification 

treatment, are made available to increase the odds that 

individuals will transition successfully to life in the community. 

A specialist from the Department of Labor is assigned full time 

to the program to assist with employment referrals. 

Partners include Savannah-Chatham Police Department, the 

Georgia Department of Pardons and Paroles, Georgia Department 

of Corrections, Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, Gateway 

Community Service Board, and the Georgia Department of Labor. 

Contact Information 

Keith Vermillion, Director 

Savannah Impact Program 

Savannah–Chatham Police Department 

Savannah, GA 31401 

Phone: 912.651.4350 

E-mail: keith_vermillion@savannahga.gov 

Web site: http://www.ci.savannah.ga.us/ 
60 

66 

Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Risk classifications 

are based on an arrest 

history point-scale 

system developed by the 

Violent Crime Task Force. 

Winston-Salem Police Department (North Carolina) 

Violent Crime Task Force/Project Re-Entry 

The Violent Crime Task Force (VCTF) is responsible for coordinating 

all violence reduction strategies used by the Winston-Salem 

Police Department. While there are more than a dozen local, 

state, and federal strategies currently in practice, Project ReEntry provides an opportunity for police to address recidivism of 

individuals returning to the community from prison. The goal of 

the Project Re-Entry Coalition is to facilitate successful reentry 

through focused release planning, structured support services, and 

intensive case management. The primary role of police currently 

draws on the support provided through numerous strategies 

directed toward individuals under active community supervision 

such as communicating a strong message against future offending 

via notification sessions (call-ins) (see sidebar Project Safe 

Neighborhoods). In addition, police provide enhanced supervision 

and outreach support for both program participants and highrisk individuals released without conditions of probation or parole 

residing in high-crime areas.66 Currently, Project Re-Entry is a pilot 

project implemented in several North Carolina counties. The role of 

police is planned to expand through prerelease notification sessions 

so that the deterrence message may be communicated to high-risk 

individuals released without conditions of probation or parole. 

Key Program Elements 

» Reentry Planning. Approximately 3 months prior to release, 

program participants enroll in a 12-week program and meet 

with Project Re-Entry staff to identify individual reentry needs 

and available support services. 

» Encouraging Compliance. Notification sessions provide 

police and other criminal justice and community stakeholders 

with an opportunity to address probationers and parolees 

of the risks of reoffending. The police organize and lead 

quarterly notification sessions. 

» Connecting to Services. Project Re-Entry staff monitor 

program participants to ensure appropriate links to social 

services including employment training, counseling, and job 

placement. 
Examples from the Field 61 

Partners include the Winston-Salem Police Department, the North 

Carolina Department of Corrections, North West Piedmont Council 

of Governments, Partnership for a Drug-Free North Carolina Inc., 

North Carolina Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, Goodwill 

Industries of North Carolina, Forsyth Technical Community College, 

and various county and city social service agencies. 

Contact Information 

Detective John W. Leone Jr. 

Violent Crimes Task Force 

Winston-Salem Police Department 

725 N. Cherry Street 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Phone: 336.773.7827 

E-mail: jleone@wspd.org 

Web site: http://www.ci.winston-salem.nc.us/psc/ 

Rebecca Sauter 

Program Manger 

Project Re-Entry 

North Piedmont Council of Governments 

2701 University Parkway 

P.O. Box 4299 

Winston-Salem, NC 27101 

Phone: 336.748.4666 

E-mail: rsauter@nwpcog.org 

Web site: http://www.nwpcog.org 
CHALLENGES FOR POLICE 

REENTRY PARTNERSHIPS 
64 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

67 Many of these barriers 

were identified and 

discussed in Parent and 

Snyder (1999). 

68 Ibid. 

69 Ibid. 

70 McGarrell et al. (1999) 

71 Such targeted initiatives, 

however, run the risk of 

racial profiling (see 

Manning 2003), and thus 

should be implemented 

with caution. 

Successful reentry initiatives promise considerable benefits for 

police departments and the public alike. Before police commit 

time, resources, and energy to the issue of prisoner reentry, 

however, they must first recognize the potential organizational and 

community-level challenges they are likely to face. Some of the 

most common barriers are not unique to police organizations, while 

others stem from the police organization itself, such as internal 

culture, chains of command, and sensitivity to external community 

or political forces. In this section, we present some potential 

obstacles to effective police involvement in reentry initiatives and 

discuss ways in which these barriers might be overcome.67 

Creating Realistic Goals and Operating with Limited Resources 

Because the challenges of reentry are so diverse, ranging from 

substance abuse to housing to employment issues, reentry efforts 

may take on comprehensive—and often unrealistic—goals and 

approaches. If plans are overly ambitious, an early-stage reentry 

program risks overextending itself and jeopardizing the integrity of 

the intervention. It is critical, therefore, to develop strategies that are 

realistic and do not reach beyond an agency’s capacity to fulfill both 

ongoing and new commitments fully and consistently. 

In many cases overly ambitious plans are curtailed by a lack of 

resources, which can limit the scope and nature of the intervention— 

sometimes for the better.

68 Researchers of police-corrections 

partnerships have observed that low-budget initiatives can 

sometimes lead to creative fundraising efforts69 and the sharing of 

both human and physical resources.70 

Fledgling reentry efforts might also consider targeting one segment 

of the reentry population for services, such as gang members or 

youthful offenders, or one specific geographic area that might have 

a disproportionate share of returning prisoners.71 Another approach 

is to address a single substantive area, such as job training and 

placement, for the reentry population in a given area. Often this pilot 

approach generates additional support and resources to expand the 

initiative. 
Challenges for Police Reentry Partnerships 65 

Overcoming Internal Organizational Challenges 

Organizational structures can present considerable obstacles 

to implementing reentry partnerships, limiting the nature of the 

strategies used, the amount and types of information that is shared, 

and the extent of resources that are available.72 In many respects, 

these structural limitations stem from the disparate missions of 

the partnering agencies, as well as from confusion about who the 

client really is.73 One way to resolve these structural problems is for 

reentry partners to agree on and accept a new collective goal (e.g., 

enhancing public safety by increasing the prospects that released 

prisoners will lead lawful lives) and a shared definition of the client 

(e.g., all community members, including returning prisoners). 

Accepting this new role among line staff will depend, in large part, on 

the extent to which this reentry philosophy is supported at multiple 

levels of each agency, and particularly by each agency’s chief 

executive. 

Agreeing on Data-Sharing Protocols 

While reentry partners may set out to share information, many 

agencies do not have the appropriate mechanisms in place for doing 

so. Even when agencies have modern equipment and software, 

secure transmission of information to an agency with a different level 

of technological sophistication or incompatible software platform 

requires extensive planning and cooperation.74 Agencies also tend 

to be reticent to share sensitive data that might compromise the 

confidentiality of their client base, the identity of informants, or the 

integrity of investigative intelligence. 

Prior research has identified several steps to breaking down these 

barriers to information and data sharing across law enforcement and 

other public agencies.75 When sharing information across agencies, 

agreements should be made about data distribution as well as 

security protocols.76 The first step in this process is to identify the 

requirements of existing confidentiality laws.77 Practitioners have 

noted that data-sharing barriers can be minimized once partners 

start communicating and realize that the obstacles to information 

exchange were based on the nature of their bureaucracies rather 

than any existing statutes.78 This review of local statutes could be 

followed by establishment of a memorandum of understanding 

72 Dickey and Klingele 

(2004). 

73 Ibid. 

74 La Vigne and Wartell 

(2001). 

75 Ibid.; Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

76 La Vigne and Wartell 

(2001). 

77 Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

78 Ibid. 
66 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

80 Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

81 La Vigne and Wartell 

(2001). 

82 Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

83 Taxman (2004). 

84 Mobley (2004). 

85 Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

86 Ibid. 

(MOU) among the partner agencies with regard to what data will be 

shared, with whom, and how. Limiting the scope of information to be 

shared and providing clear direction about what staff should do with 

the information once they receive it can help streamline the crafting 

of data-sharing agreements. 

While not all agencies develop formal written agreements on the 

nature of their data-sharing arrangements, those that do find that 

MOUs are useful for solidifying partnerships.79 Educating staff 

about the importance of increased information exchange is critically 

important—particularly for those who hold jobs that are essential to 

any changes in information flow.

80 Without staff cooperation, MOUs 

are simply pieces of paper. While many information obstacles are 

inevitable, identifying and facing them at the outset of the project— 

and using established, agreed-on procedures early on—can 

minimize delays and yield a great payoff down the road.81 

Overcoming Mistrust and Misinformation 

Mistrust and stereotypes about differing objectives and approaches 

are common among police-corrections partnerships,82 policecommunity relationships,83 and relationships between the police 

and former prisoners.84 This mistrust can thwart efforts to forge 

productive partnerships, hinder the free flow of information across 

partners, and in some cases reduce the public’s confidence in the 

police and their effectiveness. 

Police and Corrections Relationships 

Police may view parole officers as too lenient, while parole 

officers may believe that police harass parolees and hinder their 

efforts to reintegrate into the community.

85 One way to overcome 

stereotypes and develop trusting interagency relationships is to 

create opportunities for police, parole officers, and corrections staff 

to become more familiar with each other’s approaches. This can be 

accomplished by encouraging partners to explain their jobs to each 

other and talk candidly about past negative experiences and how 

they can be avoided in the future.86 Activities that allow partners to 

view each other in action, such as ride-alongs or joint home visits, 

can be also be an effective means of breaking down barriers of 

misinformation and mistrust. 
Challenges for Police Reentry Partnerships 67 

Police and Resident Relationships 

Community residents may also be wary of police involvement in 

reentry initiatives. Often police-corrections partnerships in reentry 87 Byrne and Hummer result in the police serving as additional “eyes and ears” on the (2004).

street, which in turn can enhance the likelihood of detection of new 88 Young, Taxman, and 

crimes committed by parolees or technical violations of parole, Byrne (2002). 

increasing the number of parolees returned to prison. Because many 89 La Vigne and Kachnowski 

reentry initiatives are focused in high-crime, minority communities (2003). Serious crimes 

were defined as crimes 

that receive high numbers of returning prisoners, this type of listed as Part I offenses 

police involvement can give the appearance of racial profiling.87 under the FBI’s Uniform 

Crime Reports: murder, 

For this reason, reentry partners have raised concerns about the rape, robbery, 

involvement of police when police do not clearly articulate specific aggravated assault, 

burglary, larceny (theft), 

ways in which they can serve a supportive function in reentry and motor 

programs.88 vehicle theft. 

90 It should be noted that 

the concentrations of Part 

On the other hand, prisoner reentry may rekindle fear, anger, and I crimes in both 

resentment among some community residents and particularly Cleveland and 

Baltimore may reflect the

victims. Perceptions of the threat of victimization posed by returning concentrations of 

desirable targets (e.g., prisoners may need to be tempered by presenting maps and cars to steal, businesses

information that clarify the threat and present it within the context to rob). It could well be 

that returning prisoners of crime prevention. For example, a study using the addresses are commuting from their

of released prisoners in Baltimore found that the communities homes to these areas to 

receiving the greatest numbers of former prisoners are not in the commit their crimes. 

same geographic areas as those experiencing the highest rates 

91 As measured by police 

arrests, which are

of serious crimes.89 Research in Cleveland found similar results naturally more likely to be 

police-initiated than are for neighborhoods where serious crimes were committed,90 but Part I crimes. 

also found that the locations of drug-related crimes91 were much 92 La Vigne and Thomson 

more closely aligned to where released prisoners lived.92 While (2003). 

these studies demonstrate that former prisoners do not necessarily 93 La Vigne (2004). 

cause a one-for-one increase in crime in the communities to which For more information 

on mapping prisoner

they return, they also indicate that the relationship between where reentry at the local level, 

released prisoners live and where crime occurs may vary by both also see http://www. 

urban.org/reentryjurisdiction and crime type. Given these findings, police officials and mapping/index.cfm for 

their partner agencies could benefit from doing their own mapping a description of the Urban 

Institute’s Reentry 

and analysis of the issue.93 Examining where released prisoners live Mapping Network, a 

and where crimes occur can help educate the public—often allaying partnership of 12 

jurisdictions engaged

fears of victimization—and can also lead to more effective police-led in mapping and analyzing 

corrections and public reentry efforts. safety data to help 

inform local prisoner 

reentry initiatives. 
68 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

When engaged in these mapping and related reentry activities, 

police must engage in a delicate balancing act between protecting 

victims while communicating to the families and friends of returning 

prisoners that they are there to help. This message is best 

communicated in a public forum that enables residents to voice 

their concerns and to learn from the police and other members 

94 McGarrell et al. (2004); of the reentry partnership that their collective goal is successful 

Mobley (2004). reintegration, not reincarceration. At the same time, police—as the 

95 Taxman (2004). first responders when a resident is victimized—are ideally suited 

96 Tyler (2004). to encourage and assist victims in participating in the parole and 

97 Ibid. reentry processes. 

98 Taxman (2004). 

99 McGarrell et al. (2004). Police and Former Prisoner Relationships 

Hostility and mutual distrust often characterize relationships between 

police and former prisoners.94 Many former prisoners believe that 

police unfairly target them, and they perceive their interactions with 

law enforcement as sending the message that the system lacks 

confidence in their ability to succeed.95 These interactions make 

it difficult for former prisoners to feel positive about adopting new 

pro-social identities as employees, parents, or community members, 

and underscore the need for police to consider released prisoners’ 

perspectives when interacting with them in the community. 

Research on police “legitimacy” has demonstrated that the way 

people are treated by the police affects whether they accept the 

enforcement of rules and decisions made by police.96 When police 

actions are deemed fair, people are more willing to accept their 

decisions voluntarily and are more likely to comply with the law 

over the long term.97 The procedural justice model—for which 

both undesirable behaviors and the sanctions resulting from them 

are clear and agreed on—is one approach that can be used to 

communicate to the returning prisoner that he is being treated 

equitably.

98 Virtually any form of contract or binding agreement that 

clearly states roles, expectations, and outcomes can enhance the 

perception that the system is fair.

99 
Challenges for Police Reentry Partnerships 69 

In 2004, the COPS Office requested that the Mid-Atlantic Regional Community Policing 

Institute (MARCPI), affiliated with Johns Hopkins University, develop a 2-day course modeled 

after a highly successful MARCPI youth/police curriculum for ex-offenders. MARCPI staff, in 

collaboration with the COPS Office, held a focus group of faith-based reentry program directors 

and others to develop a training curriculum for both released prisoners and members of the 

community. The training was designed to create a nonadversarial environment within which 

former prisoners, police officers, parole/probation officers, social workers, clergy, and citizens 

can develop trust, support, and guidance to identify and use all the available support networks 

and services for successful reentry. 

The 2-day course comprises five interactive modules: 

Module 1: Perceptions and Understanding. By examining perceptions of each participating 

group, an understanding of the values, beliefs, symbols, and mission (e.g., culture) of each 

group can be achieved, increasing the levels of trust between groups. 

Module 2: Challenges of Reentry. By sharing information and identifying similarities and 

differences between each group’s experience with reentry, understanding and sensitivity will be 

increased, leading to more positive working relationships among participating groups. 

Module 3: Ethics and Responsibilities in Reentry. By examining the qualities and components 

of a healthy, safe community, participating groups can explore their own roles, rights, and 

responsibilities as members of the community. 

Module 4: Decision Making. By learning a specific, structured process for decision making, 

more positive and productive decisions can be made, which will improve the experience and 

outcome of the reentry process for each group and for the community. 

Module 5: Resources. By sharing information and learning methods for locating resources, 

each group can become empowered both independently and in partnership with other groups, 

producing more positive outcomes in the reentry process. 

A draft curriculum was developed and the training piloted in Washington, D.C., in December 

2004 in partnership with the Metropolitan D.C. Police Department, faith-based organizations 

from the community, and ex-offenders. The curriculum consists of both an instructor’s manual 

and a participant’s manual and is available through MARCPI. 

For further information, visit http://www.marcpi.jhu.edu/. 

SIDEBAR 7. COPS OFFICE REENTRY INTEGRITY TRAINING 
70 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

100 Mc Garrell et 

al. (2004). 

101 Parent and Snyder 

(1999). 

102 Ibid. 

Forging Strong and Sustainable Partnerships 

As the above barriers indicate, confidentiality issues, competing 

organizational goals, clashing organizational cultures, and mistrust 

often complicate effective partnerships among police, social service 

providers, supervision agencies, and the public. And while the goal 

of reentry efforts is to increase self-sufficiency and promote lawful 

behavior among former prisoners, such efforts take time to develop 

and require long-term engagement. One-time interventions are 

unlikely to result in positive reentry outcomes, and they do little 

to forge lasting productive partnerships among agencies and the 

public. 

These obstacles can be minimized—and in some cases overcome— 

by ensuring clear, consistent, and ongoing communication, 

outlining specific agency responsibilities for each partner in the 

reentry initiative.100 These open lines of communication should 

occur at all staff levels: managers need to engage in honest, 

ongoing dialogue about operational concerns, territorial issues, and 

procedural difficulties, and line staff need to be open to each others’ 

perspectives and be willing to find common ground on which to 

operate in the community. 

Sharing resources and joint efforts to assess circumstances that 

affect the safety of community residents (e.g., by concentrating 

caseloads geographically to mirror those of community police 

officers) can strengthen partnerships. Successful and sustainable 

partnerships are those that take time to articulate the anticipated 

benefits of the effort to each partner at the table.101 Delegating 

authority to line-level staff who are open to new ideas and tend to 

question current ways of doing business can also aid in developing 

strong and long-term partnerships; this approach is also consistent 

with the community policing philosophy of giving more authority to 

line officers.102 
LOOKING FORWARD 
72 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

This report has presented information on why prisoner reentry 

is an important issue for the policing profession and has 

described, with the support of examples from the field, various 

models for police involvement in reentry. Whether harnessing 

community policing partnerships for the purpose of prisoner reentry, 

participating in prerelease reentry planning, or joining parole 

officers in supervision activities, police are crucial partners in the 

pursuit of successful prisoner reintegration. The benefits of police 

reentry partnerships can be tremendous, the most important of 

which are crime reduction and improved prospects for released 

prisoners leading productive and law-abiding lives. In addition to 

these key outcomes, the various methods of reentry partnership 

may yield considerable benefits across all types of police activities. 

For example, increased information sharing and cross-agency 

collaboration generated from a police reentry partnership is likely 

to make other types of public safety initiatives more efficient and 

effective as well. Likewise, police involvement in prisoner reentry 

may have the collateral effect of increasing public confidence in all 

aspects of policing far beyond those of prisoner reentry. 

While the promise of police involvement in reentry initiatives is great, 

so too are the challenges. From forging effective partnerships, to 

overcoming barriers, to data sharing, engaging in reentry efforts 

can be a difficult undertaking for organizations already strained 

by the demands of community safety in the post-9/11 era. At the 

same time, it is encouraging to observe a significant number of law 

enforcement agencies engaged in reentry efforts in some fashion, 

with police at the table alongside colleagues from corrections, 

service and faith-based organizations, victims, and community 

members. Many of these efforts bring the police’s enforcement 

capacities to bear, relying on traditional police roles of surveillance, 

deterrence, and apprehension, while also embracing community 

policing’s philosophy of engaging in collaborations that involve 

a broad array of agency and community actors. While these are 

important contributions, additional efforts to harness the spirit of 

police problem solving by considering the context and place in which 

crime occurs may produce even more effective responses and more 

sustainable partnerships. 
Looking Forward 73 

As police scholars have observed, applications of problem-oriented 

policing tend to be weak with regard to both the analysis and 

assessment stages of the SARA process.103 These same deficits are 

evident in our review of police reentry initiatives, with very little focus 

on identifying the underlying cause of the problems stemming from 

reentry and scant attention to outcome measures. Police reentry 

partnerships should be assessed not just by whether offending 

behaviors have declined among the target population or by whether 

crime rates have declined in the geographic area of the intervention. 

These critical outcome measures should be enhanced by examining 103 Scott (2000). 

whether the reentry effort achieved its intermediate goals, such 

as increasing employment and reducing drug use among former 

prisoners. 

Also important is an assessment of the costs of the intervention 

relative to its benefits. Even a cursory analysis of costs and benefits 

can go a long way toward building support for sustainability of the 

reentry initiative over time. Indeed, perhaps one of the greatest 

challenges of any type of reentry initiative is obtaining continued 

financial support. For example, several of the programs we had 

originally intended to highlight in the text of this report were excluded 

because a telephone inquiry revealed that after start-up funding 

ended, so too did the initiatives. This is discouraging, as many of 

the models of police involvement in reentry highlighted in this report 

required little in the way of additional resources, relying primarily on 

leadership from all ranks, starting from the top. 

Fortunately, the COPS office has funded several companion 

initiatives to the Urban Institute’s Community Policing Reentry 

project that may serve to leverage police leadership on this topic. 

The Council of State Governments, for example, received a COPS 

grant to partner with the Police Executive Research Forum to 

develop a toolkit to help law enforcement agencies determine their 

level of readiness for involvement in reentry efforts and to guide 

them through the steps it will take to launch a reentry initiative. The 

International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) also received 

a COPS grant and is planning a Prisoner Reentry Summit, inviting 

about 120 police chiefs and other law enforcement officials to 

discuss and present recommendations on how police might take a 

lead role in prisoner reentry. IACP is also in the process of surveying 

its membership on the attitudes of police on the topic of reentry. This 
74 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety

survey project, which is funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(the technical assistance arm of the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs), can help inform efforts to overcome 

organizational, cultural, and attitudinal barriers to police involvement in 

this issue. 

These initiatives are representative of the enormous momentum in the 

area of prisoner reentry. Policymakers from across the country—from 

statehouses to the White House—are seeking bipartisan solutions 

to the multiple challenges reentry brings to the fore. Practitioner 

leaders in the fields of corrections, health, housing, and workforce 

development are claiming reentry as a top priority, as is the faith 

community. An active role for police in reentry initiatives can only 

increase the country’s prospects of improving outcomes for released 

prisoners while safeguarding communities and protecting victims of 

crime. 

Prisoner reentry has been at the forefront of policy discussions for the last several years. Listed 

below are some of the major national reentry initiatives that are under way across the nation. 

COPS Value-Based Reentry Initiative 

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Value-Based Reentry Initiative (VBRI) 

supports projects that partner law enforcement agencies and community and faith-based 

organizations to build safer and healthier communities through the successful reintegration 

of offenders. The Value-Based Reentry Initiative sponsors five sites in Oakland, California; 

Washington, D.C.; Boston, Massachusetts; Detroit, Michigan; and Kansas City, Missouri. For 

more information see http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=188. 

Prisoner Reentry Policy Academy 

Coordinated by the National Governors Association (NGA), the Reentry Policy Academy works 

with seven states (Georgia, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, 

and Virginia) to assist governors and other state policy makers in their efforts to develop 

reentry strategies that reduce recidivism and improve access to key services and supports. 

NGA is currently expanding the Policy Academy to include additional states and state-local 

partnerships. For more information see http://www.tinyurl.com/fu7az. 

Reentry Mapping Network 

The Reentry Mapping Network is a partnership among community-based organizations and 

The Urban Institute designed to create community change through the mapping and analysis 

of neighborhood-level data on reentry and community well-being. The Networks’ 12 partner 

sites use mapping to pinpoint neighborhoods that experience high concentrations of returning 

prisoners and examine the extent to which such communities are equipped to address the 

challenges that prisoner reentry creates. For more information see http://www.urban.org/content/ 

PolicyCenters/Justice/Projects/reentry-mapping/. 

SIDEBAR 8. NATIONAL REENTRY INITIATIVES 
Looking Forward 75

Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign 

The purpose of the Reentry National Media Outreach Campaign is to expand public awareness 

and dialogue and facilitate discussion and decision-making around reentry programs. The 

campaign partners with local organizations that engage in initiatives to strengthen families and 

neighborhoods and provides media-based resources that highlight innovative programs across 

the nation. The Campaign has developed a resource guide that describes relevant research and 

promising practices. For more information see http://www.reentrymediaoutreach.org/. 

Re-Entry Policy Council 

Established by the Council of State Governments in 2001, the Re-Entry Policy Council assists 

state government officials in developing reentry policies and practices to address the growing 

numbers of prisoners returning to the community. The landmark Report of the Re-Entry Policy 

Council reflects the results of a series of meetings among 100 of the most respected workforce, health, housing, public safety, family, community, and victim experts in the nation. The 

report offers hundreds of bipartisan recommendations to help make prisoners’ transition from a 

correctional facility to the community safe and successful. For more information see http://www. 

reentrypolicy.org/. 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) 

SVORI is a national effort that addresses the preparation of reentry of both juvenile and adult 

serious and violent offender populations. SVORI is supported by the U.S. Department of Justice, 

Health and Human Services, the Departments of Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs, as well 

as Housing and Urban Development and the Social Security Administration. SVORI provides 

funding to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate reentry strategies with the goal of 

community safety and reducing violent and serious crime. For more information see http://www. 

ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/ and http://www.svori-evaluation.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=dsp_home. 

Transition from Prison to the Community (TPCI) 

Abt Associates, in a collaborative effort with the National Institute of Corrections (NIC), 

developed the Transition from Prison to the Community Model to provide technical assistance 

to corrections and community corrections administrators. Missouri and Oregon were selected to 

pilot test this model, and based on these experiences, NIC selected four additional sites in North 

Dakota, Rhode Island, Michigan, and Indiana. 

http://nicic.org/resources/topics/transitionfromprison.aspx. 

SIDEBAR 8. NATIONAL REENTRY INITIATIVES (continued) 
REFERENCES 
78 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Allender, David M. “Offender Reentry. A Returning or Reformed 

Criminal?” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin 73 (2004) (12): 

1–10. 

Baker, R., R. Hingst, J. Howard, and J. Hoyt. “Information 

Sharing Increases Correctional Safety and Security: 

Technology Update.” Corrections Today (June 2001). Lanham 

(Maryland): American Correctional Association. 

Bauer, Lynn. Justice Expenditure and Employment in the 

United States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2002. 

Bazemore, Gordan. “A Civic Engagement Model of Reentry: 

Involving Community through Service and Restorative 

Justice.” Federal Probation 68 (2004) (2): 14–24. 

Beck, Allen J. “State and Federal Prisoners Returning to the 

Community: Findings from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.” 

Paper presented at the First Reentry Courts Initiative Cluster 

Meeting, Washington, D.C., April 13, 2001. 

Beck, Allen J., and Bernard E. Shipley. “Recidivism of 

Released Prisoners in 1983.” Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 1989. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr83.pdf. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. Waring, and Ann M. 

Piehl. “Problem-Oriented Policing, Deterrence, and 

Youth Violence: An Evaluation of Boston’s Operation 

Ceasefire.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 

38 (2001) (3): 195–225. 

Byrne, James M., and Don Hummer. “Examining the Role of 

Police in Reentry Partnership Initiatives.” Federal Probation 

68 (2004) (2): 62–69. 

Castellano-Hoyt, Don W. Enhancing Police Response 

to Persons in Mental Health Crisis: Providing Strategies, 

Communication Techniques, and Crisis Intervention 

Preparation in Overcoming Institutional Challenges. 

Springfield (Illinois): Charles C. Thomas, 2003. 
References 79 

Center for Sex Offender Management. “Sex Offender 

Notification and Education” 2001. 

http://www.csom.org/pubs/notedu.html.

(Accessed January 24, 2006.)

Clarke, Ronald V. Situational Crime Prevention: Successful 

Case Studies, 2nd ed. Monsey (New York): Criminal 

Justice Press, 1997. 

Cullen, Francis T., John E. Eck, and Christopher T. Lowenkamp. 

“Environmental Corrections: A New Paradigm for 

Effective Probation and Parole Supervision.” Federal 

Probation 66 (2002) (2): 28–37. 

Dalton, Erin. “Lessons in Preventing Homicide.” Project Safe 

Neighborhoods: Making America’s Communities Safer. 

Lansing: Michigan State University, 2003. 

Dickey, Walter, and Cecelia M. Klingele. “Promoting Public 

Safety: A Problem-Oriented Approach to Prisoner Reentry.” 

Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Prisoner Reentry 

and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public 

Safety, Washington, D.C., May 12–13, 2004. 

Ditton, Paula A. Mental Health and Treatment of Inmates and 

Probationers. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1999. 

Eck, John, and William Spelman. Problem-Solving: ProblemOriented Policing in Newport News. Washington, D.C.: Police 

Executive Research Forum, 1987. 

Felson, Marcus, and Ronald V. Clarke. Opportunity Makes 

the Thief: Practical Theory for Crime Prevention. Police 

Research Series paper 98. London: Home Office, 1998. 

Hammett, Theodore M., Cheryl Roberts, and Sofia Kennedy. 

“Health-Related Issues in Prisoner Reentry.” Crime and 

Delinquency 47 (2001) (3): 390–409. 

Harlow, Caroline Wold. Profile of Jail Inmates 1996. 

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 1998. 
80 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Harlow, Caroline Wold. Education and Corrections 

Populations. NCJ 195670. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 2003. 

Harrison, Paige M. and Allen J. Beck. Prisons in 2003. 

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2004. 

———. “Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear, 2004.” 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 2004. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/pjim04.htm. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Harrison, Paige M., and Jennifer C. Karberg. “Prison and Jail 

Inmates at Midyear, 2003.” Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2004. 

Herman, Susan, and Cressida Wasserman. “A Role for 

Victims in Offender Reentry.” Crime and Delinquency 

47 (2001) (3): 428–45. 

Holzer, Harry, Steven Raphael, and Michael Stoll. 

“Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders.” Paper prepared 

for the Reentry Roundtable, The Employment Dimensions 

of Prisoner Reentry: Understanding the Nexus Between 

Prisoner Reentry and Work, New York, May 19-20, 2003. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410855. 

Hughes, T., and Doris J. Wilson. “Reentry Trends in the United 

States.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/reentry.htm. 

(Accessed June 29, 2005.) 

James, Doris J. Profile of Jailed Inmates, 2002. Washington, 

D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of 

Justice, 2005. 

Johnson, Jean, and John Immerwahr. “The Revolving 

Door: Exploring Public Attitudes Toward Prisoner Reentry.” 

Presentation prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Prisoner 

Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing 

Public Safety, Washington, D.C., May 12–13, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900743. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 
References 81 

Karberg, Jennifer, and Doris J. James. Substance 

Dependence, Abuse, and Treatment of Jail Inmates, 2002. 

Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

U.S. Department of Justice, 2005. 

Karp, David R. The Offender/Community Encounter: 

Stakeholder Involvement in the Vermont Reparative Boards. 

In What Is Community Justice? Case Studies of Restorative 

Justice and Community Supervision, edited by David R. Karp 

and Todd R. Clear. Thousand Oaks (California): Sage 

Publications, Inc, 2002. 

Kelling, George L., and Catherine M. Coles. Fixing 

Broken Windows. Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in 

Our Communities. New York: Free Press, 1996. 

Langan, Patrick A., and David J. Levin. Recidivism of 

Prisoners Released in 1994. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of 

Justice Statistics, 2002. 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

La Vigne, Nancy G. “Why Map Prisoner Reentry?” Crime 

Mapping News 6(4): 1–3. Washington, D.C.: The Police 

Foundation, 2004. http://www.policefoundation.org/. 

La Vigne, Nancy G., and Vera Kachnowski. A Portrait of 

Prisoner Reentry in Maryland. Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute, 2003. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410655. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

La Vigne, Nancy G., and Cynthia A. Mamalian. A Portrait of 

Prisoner Reentry in Illinois. Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute, 2003. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410662. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

La Vigne, Nancy G., and Gillian L. Thomson. A Portrait of 

Prisoner Reentry in Ohio. Washington, D.C.: The Urban 

Institute, 2003. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410891. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

La Vigne, Nancy G. and Julie Wartell. Mapping Across 

Boundaries: Regional Crime Analysis. Washington, D.C.: 

Police Executive Research Forum, 2001. 
82 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

La Vigne, Nancy G., Christy Visher, and Jennifer Castro. 

Chicago Prisoners’ Experience Returning Home. 

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311115. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Lynch, James P., and William J. Sabol. Prisoner Reentry in 

Perspective. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410213. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Manning, Peter. Policing Contingencies. Chicago: 

University of Chicago Press, 2003. 

McGarrell, Edmund F., Steven Chermak, and Alexander Weiss. 

Targeting Firearms Violence Through Directed Police 

Patrol. Indianapolis (Indiana): Crime Control Policy Center, 

Hudson Institute, 1999. 

McGarrell, Edmund F., Steven Chermak, and Alexander Weiss. 

Reducing Gun Violence: Evaluation of the Indianapolis 

Police Department’s Directed Patrol Project. 

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 2002. 

McGarrell, Edmund F., C. Zimmerman, Natalie Hipple, and Nicholas 

Corsaro. “The Roles of the Police in the Offender 

Reentry Process.” Paper prepared for the Reentry 

Roundtable, Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: 

Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety, Washington, D.C., 

May 12–13, 2004. 

McWhinnie, A. J., and R. E. Brown. Restorative Justice 

Alternatives to Parole Suspension. Perspectives (Fall). 

Lexington (Kentucky): American Parole and 

Probation Association, 1999. 

Mobley, Alan. “Turning ‘Weeds’ Into ‘Seeds.’ ” Paper prepared 

for the Reentry Roundtable, Prisoner Reentry and Community 

Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety, 

Washington, D.C., May 12–13, 2004. 

Mumola, Christopher J. Substance Abuse and Treatment, 

State and Federal Prisoners, 1997. Washington, D.C.: 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, 

1999. 
References 83 

Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. The First 

Month Out: Post-Incarceration Experiences in New York City. 

New York: The Vera Institute of Justice, 1999. 

Parent, Dale, and Brad Snyder. “Police-Corrections Partnerships.” 

Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice, 1999. 

Peter D. Hart Research Associates, Inc. Changing Public 

Attitudes toward the Criminal Justice System. Telephone 

survey of 1,056 U.S. adults and six focus groups 

Open Society Institute, 2001. 

Re-Entry Policy Council. “Charting the Safe and Successful 

Return of Prisoners to the Community.” 2005. 

http://www.reentrypolicy.org/. (Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Ritchie, B. “Issues Incarcerated Women Face When They 

Return to Their Communities.” Paper presented at the Urban 

Institute Reentry Roundtable, Washington, D.C., 

October 2000. 

Rosenfeld, Richard, Joel Wallman, and Robert Fornango. 

“The Contribution of Ex-Prisoners to Crime Rates.” In 

Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America, edited by Jeremy 

Travis and Christy Visher (80–104). London: 

Cambridge University Press, 2005. 

Rossman, S., S. Sridharan, C. Gouvis, J. Buck, and E. Morley. 

Impact of the Opportunity to Succeed (OPTS) Aftercare 

Program for Substance-Abuse Felons: Comprehensive Final 

Report. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1999. 

Scott, Michael S. Problem-Oriented Policing: Reflections on 

the First 20 Years. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

2000. 

Shapiro, Carol. La Bodega: A Neighborhood Center of 

Services to Families of Drug Offenders. New York: Vera 

Institute of Justice, 1997. 

Solomon, Amy, Michelle Waul, Ashley Van Ness, and Jeremy Travis. 

Outside the Walls: A National Snapshot of CommunityBased Prisoner Reentry Programs. Washington, D.C.: The 

Urban Institute, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410911. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.)
84 Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

Solomon, Amy, Kelly Dedel Johnson, Jeremy Travis, and Elizabeth 

McBride. From Prison to Work: The Employment 

Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: The 

Urban Institute, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/publications/411097.html. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Staples, W. The Culture of Surveillance. New York: St. 

Martin’s Press, 1997. 

St. Gerard, Vanessa. “New Study Proves Jails Are an 

Important Component of the Reentry Equation.” 

On Line 28 (2005):1–2, American Correctional Association. 

Sullivan, Eileen, Milton Mino, Katherine Nelson, and Jill Pope. 

Families as a Resource in Recovery from Drug 

Abuse: An Evaluation of La Bodega de la Familia. 

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2002. 

http://www.vera.org/publications/publications_ 

5.asp?publication_id=163. (Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Sunshine, Jason, and Tom R. Tyler. “The Role of Procedural 

Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for the 

Policing.” Law and Society Review 37 (2003):513–48. 

Taxman, Faye. “Brick Walls Facing Reentering Offenders.” 

Paper prepared for the Reentry Roundtable, Prisoner Reentry 

and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public 

Safety, Washington, D.C., May 12–13, 2004. 

Thistlethwaite, Edward. “The Tower Project. Submission for 

the Nick Tilley Problem-Oriented Policing Award.” Blackpool 

(United Kingdom): Blackpool Central Police Station, 2002. 

http://www.popcenter.org/Library/Tilley/2002/02-33.pdf. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Thoennes, N. The El Paso County Parent Opportunity 

Project (POP): An Evaluation. Denver (Colorado): Center for 

Policy Research, 2002. 

Travis, Jeremy. But They All Come Back: Facing the 

Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: 

Urban Institute Press, 2005. 
References 85 

Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. Beyond the Prison 

Gates: The State of Parole in America. Washington, D.C.: 

The Urban Institute, 2002. 

Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. From 

Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of 

Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Press, 

2001. 

Tyler, Tom R. “Enhancing Police Legitimacy.” Annals of the 

American Academy of Political and Social Science 

593 (2004) (1): 84–99. 

Tyler, Tom R., and Yuen J. Hou. Trust in the Law. 

New York: Russell Sage, 2002. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, “What is Community Policing?” 

http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=36. 

(Accessed January 24, 2006.) 

Visher, Christy, Nancy G. La Vigne, and Jeremy Travis. 

Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner 

Reentry. Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore. 

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2004. 

http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=410974.

(Accessed January 24, 2006.)

Woods, Timothy O. First Response to Victims of Crime: A 

Handbook for Law Enforcement Officers on How to Approach 

and Help. Washington, D.C.: Office for Victims of Crime, 

2000. 

Young, Doug, Faye Taxman, and James Byrne. Engaging 

the Community in Offender Reentry. College Park: University 

of Maryland, Bureau of Governmental Research, 2002. 
Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety 

For More InForMatIon: 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the 

COPS Office Response Center at 800.421.6770 

e12051219 

ISBN: 1-932582-61-4