New Perspectives in Policing 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

j u l y 2 0 1 2 

National Institute of Justice 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry
 

Jeremy Travis, Ronald Davis and Sarah Lawrence 

Executive Session on Policing and 


Public Safety
 

This is one in a series of papers that will be published as a result of the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety. 

Harvard’s Executive Sessions are a convening 

of individuals of independent standing who take 

joint responsibility for rethinking and improving 

society’s responses to an issue. Members are 

selected based on their experiences, their reputation for thoughtfulness and their potential for 

helping to disseminate the work of the Session. 

In the early 1980s, an Executive Session on Policing 

helped resolve many law enforcement issues of 

the day. It produced a number of papers and 

concepts that revolutionized policing. Thirty years 

later, law enforcement has changed and NIJ and 

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government are 

again collaborating to help resolve law enforcement issues of the day. 

Learn more about the Executive Session on 

Policing and Public Safety at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/lawenforcement/administration/executive-sessions/ 

welcome.htm 

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/ 

criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm 

The past generation has witnessed a number of 

significant changes in the American approach 

to the twin challenges of reducing crime and 

administering justice. Arguably the two most 

important changes in the American criminal justice landscape have been the evolving role of the 

police and the use of incarceration as a response 

to crime, which brought with it the subsequent 

release of millions of people from prison. Much 

has been written about modern American policing and prisoner reentry individually, yet the 

intersection of the two has received relatively 

little attention. This paper explores this intersection and makes the case that there is a role for the 

police in the prisoner reentry movement. 

An obvious place to begin is with the question: 

Why should the police care about prisoner reentry? We know that recidivism rates of people 

returning from prison to their communities 

remain frustratingly high, we know that people 

who cycle in and out of prison commit a disproportionate amount of crime, and we know that 

in a world of declining resources, police departments continue to be challenged to do more with 

less. For these reasons, among others, the police 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 | New Perspectives in Policing 

should be fully engaged in local prisoner reentry 

Cite this paper as Travis, Jeremy, Ronald Davis and Sarah Lawrence, 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry, New Perspectives in 

Policing Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National 

Institute of Justice, 2012. NCJ 238337. 

efforts. 

Beginning in the 1980s, the nation embraced 

a new vision of the police as a problem-solving 

institution with an organizational goal of reducing crime. These crime reduction efforts have 

been marked by an explicit effort to engage 

community stakeholders, particularly in highcrime neighborhoods. Captured by the phrases 

“community policing” and “problem-oriented 

policing,” this new vision was embraced by police 

leaders, politicians and academics, promoted by 

a multibillion-dollar federal funding initiative in 

the 1990s, and heralded as an effective means for 

simultaneously bringing crime rates down and 

improving relationships between police and 

communities, particularly communities of color. 

At about the same time, the nation began to 

increase its use of incarceration as a response 

to crime, ultimately increasing the incarceration rate fourfold. As a consequence, the number 

of people released from prison has increased 

significantly. These individuals return mostly 

to the same high-crime neighborhoods where 

the policing philosophy calls for community 

engagement. The new reality that large numbers of Americans have spent time in prison has 

given birth to a new focus on prisoner “reentry,” a 

policy conversation marked, just as with policing, 

by a pragmatic, problem-solving ethos, a federal 

funding initiative and a commitment to engaging community stakeholders in improving public 

safety outcomes. 

It should be noted at the outset that, for many, 

this is an uneasy conversation across a deep 

institutional and cultural divide. Some police 

practitioners view their role as exclusively enforcers of the law. In this view, the relationship of the 

police to those in prison is limited: the police 

investigate crimes, arrest suspects and support 

the prosecution of criminal cases. Any governmental responsibility for returning prisoners to 

the community rests with parole and probation, 

not the police. Consistent with this view, expanding the role of the police to encompass even a 

shared responsibility for improving reentry 

outcomes would constitute inadvisable mission 

creep. On a deeper level, because the police are 

charged with protecting society against harm, 

some police find it difficult, perhaps inappropriate, to join those who champion the redemption 

of individuals who were convicted of crimes. In 

this view, the commission of crime that is sufficiently serious to warrant a prison term justifies 

continued vigilance against new criminal behavior, not the supportive “welcome home” offered 

by many organizations that work with former 

prisoners. 

The challenges of distrust and limited role definitions hamper interest in collaboration on the 

part of reentry practitioners as well. Some believe 

that the police are part of a larger, oppressive, 

racist criminal justice apparatus that is singlemindedly interested in harassing young men and, 

whenever possible, arresting them to send them 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 3 

to jail or prison, thereby stifling their chances for 

successful lives. In this view, collaboration with the 

police is tantamount to working with the enemy 

(Asbury 2011). In a less extreme stance, some reentry practitioners fear that involving the police 

in their work will only expose their clients to unnecessary surveillance, and that the “zero tolerance” 

stance of some police officials and departments is 

inconsistent with the view of the reentry process 

as one that often involves missteps, relapse and 

minor but perhaps excusable rule violations (U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs 

2000). 

Virtually every major national police organization — the International Association of Chiefs of 

Police (IACP), the Police Executive Research Forum 

(PERF), the Police Foundation and the Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) — 

has begun to participate in the reentry conversation 

(see “Publications on Police and Reentry”). A survey 

of best practices by the U.S. Conference of Mayors 

revealed that prisoner reentry collaborations with 

local law enforcement agencies are becoming more 

common (U.S. Conference of Mayors 2009). Despite 

the foundation for partnership, these collaborative efforts are underdeveloped and the role of the 

police is evolving. 

This paper is organized around two key elements. 

The first sets forth the basic parameters of the present-day reentry phenomenon in America, with a 

particular focus on two dimensions that intersect 

with the work of urban police departments: high 

recidivism rates and the concentration of returning prisoners in a few neighborhoods. The second 

explores two rationales for police involvement in 

prisoner reentry efforts: the promotion of public safety 

and the promotion of the legitimacy of the police. 

The Realities of Prisoner Reentry 

in America 

Over the last several decades the number of individuals incarcerated in prisons and jails has 

experienced remarkable growth. Consequently, 

there has been a parallel growth in the number of 

individuals who are released from a correctional 

facility and return home to their communities, 

as more than 95 percent of all state prisoners 

will eventually be released from prison (Hughes, 

Wilson and Beck 2002; Travis 2005). The number of 

individuals released from state prison in 2010 was 

708,677, which is more than four and a half times 

higher than in 1980 (figure 1) (Hughes and Wilson 

2001; Guerino, Harrison and Sabol 2011). Because 

most — four out of five — individuals released from 

prison are placed on parole supervision, there has 

been a commensurate increase in the number of 

people under community supervision, from 196,786 

in 1980 to 735,124 in 2010 (figure 1). The nature of 

community supervision has also changed, shifting 

the balance away from support toward surveillance, 

resulting in a significant increase in parole revocations, from 27,177 in 1980 to 227,311 in 2010 (figure 

1). These seismic shifts in American criminal justice practice have created an unprecedented state 

of the world: every year large numbers of individuals — mostly men — are arrested, incarcerated, 

released, placed on criminal justice supervision 

and returned to prison on parole violations. (For 

an examination of the somewhat different issues 

surrounding reentry from county jails, see “Reentry 

From County Jails.”) 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Publications on Police and Reentry 

Carter, Madeline M., Susan Gibel, Rachelle Giguere and Richard Stroker. Increasing Public Safety Through 

Successful Offender Reentry: Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in Corrections. Silver Spring, Md.: Center 

for Effective Public Policy, 2007. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for Law Enforcement. 

Alexandria, Va.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, and Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2007. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Offender 

Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and Their Agencies. Alexandria, 

Va.: International Association of Chiefs of Police, and Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, January 2007. 

Jannetta, Jesse, and Pamela Lachman. Promoting Partnerships between Police and Community Supervision 

Agencies: How Coordination Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 

of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, May 2011. 

La Vigne, Nancy G. Mapping for Community-Based Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement 

Agencies and Their Partners. Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation and U. S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, May 2007. 

La Vigne, Nancy G., Amy L. Solomon, Karen A. Beckman and Kelly Dedel. Prisoner Reentry and Community 

Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center and U.S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2006. 

Schwarzfeld, Matt, Deirdre Mead Weiss, Martha Plotkin and Laura Draper. Planning and Assessing a Law 

Enforcement Reentry Strategy. Report prepared by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the 

Police Executive Research Forum for the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of 

Justice. New York: Council of State Governments Justice Center, 2008. 

U.S. Conference of Mayors. Status of Ex-Offender Reentry Efforts in Cities: A 79-City Survey. Washington, D.C.: 

U.S. Conference of Mayors, 2009. 

Community Concentrations 

Individuals returning home from America’s 

prisons are not equally distributed across all 

communities. Rather, they are disproportionately concentrated in urban communities and 

often the poorest neighborhoods of color within 

those communities (Clear 2007). Research by the 

Urban Institute has documented these spatial 

concentrations. In Chicago, for example, six of 

the city’s 77 communities account for a third of 

all returning prisoners. In Baltimore, 36 percent 

of prisoners return to six of the city’s 55 community areas. In Houston, a quarter of all returning 

prisoners are concentrated in five of the city’s 185 

ZIP codes (Watson et al. 2004). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1. Releases From State Prison, Parole Population and Parole Violators

800,000

0

Releases From State Prison, Parole Population and Parole


Returned to State Prison Violators Returned to State Prison
 

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

1980 1990 2000 2010

Parole Population Prison Releases Parole Violators 

Sources: Glaze and Bonczar 2011; Guerino, Harrison and Sabol 2011; Hughes and Wilson 2001; West, 

Sabol and Greenman 2010. 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 5 

Reentry From County Jails 

The substantial flow of individuals in and out 

of local jails is another notable consequence of 

the modern incarceration phenomenon. Efforts 

around prisoner reentry have largely focused on 

releases from state and federal prisons; however, 

releases from county jails also have significant 

consequences for many communities and local 

law enforcement. Each day across the country 

approximately 34,000 people are released from 

a county jail, which equates to 12 million jail 

releases per year. 

Reentry from jail and reentry from prison, 

although similar in some aspects, are different in 

others, resulting in an additional set of issues relevant to police departments. The average length 

of stay in jail is relatively short — 81 percent of jail 

inmates stay less than one month — which limits 

jail inmates’ ability to participate in programs and 

pre-release planning while incarcerated. At the 

same time, however, less time away from families, friends and employers can help facilitate the 

reentry process, as ties to personal networks and 

support systems are not weakened to the extent 

they typically are during a prison sentence. Unlike 

prison systems, jails are often close to home for 

the individuals in custody, making it easier to 

maintain ties to the community. In addition, unlike 

release from prison in which a period of parole 

is common, community supervision is often not 

part of being released from jail. Lastly, with more 

than 3,300 independently operated jails across 

the country — compared to 51 prison systems 

— wide-scale change in jail-based policies and 

practices is difficult. 

For a comprehensive examination of jail reentry, see Solomon, Amy, Jenny Osborne, Stefan 

LoBuglio, Jeff Mellow and Debbie Mukamal, Life 

After Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the 

Community, Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 

May 2008. Available online: www.urban.org/ 

UploadedPDF/411660_life_after_lockup.pdf. 

On one level, the concentration of returning prisoners in a small number of neighborhoods is not 

surprising. These neighborhoods are typically 

also the neighborhoods with the highest crime 

rates, so why expect otherwise? This observation could be expanded to postulate a benefit 

for these communities: is it not better for community members that the people now returning 

from prison were arrested and incarcerated in 

the first instance? Were they not causing harm? A 

further extension of this reasoning: haven’t these 

communities experienced some of the greatest 

improvements in public safety as crime rates, and 

violent crime rates in particular, have plummeted 

over the past 20 years? 

Without delving into the debate over prisons’ contribution to the crime decline in America, and 

recognizing that communities can benefit from 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 | New Perspectives in Policing 

the removal of individuals engaged in criminal 

behavior, the fact remains that the unprecedented concentration of prisoner reentry poses 

a range of serious and negative consequences 

for these neighborhoods, the families of individuals sent to prison and the individuals who 

served time in prison. For example, children of 

incarcerated parents are often left in the care of 

the remaining parent, grandparents, extended 

families or foster care. The families of incarcerated individuals often lose their primary source 

of income. People returning from prison have difficulty finding work and are barred from entire 

sectors of the workforce. Because public housing 

regulations allow the exclusion of people with 

felony records, and because access to private 

rental markets is difficult for people with criminal 

records, returning prisoners experience difficulty 

finding stable, affordable housing. 

Some negative consequences are less concrete. 

In many states there are communities that lose 

votes and the civic engagement of their residents when a significant number of residents 

are sent to prison. Because modern-day community supervision is more far-reaching and 

intrusive, released offenders often experience 

limits on individual autonomy such as drug testing, curfews and stay-away orders. The fact that 

incarceration and reentry affect mostly men has 

created a “gender imbalance” in communities 

with large numbers of incarcerated males: for 

example, neighborhoods in Washington, D.C., 

with the highest rates of incarceration had only 

62 men for every 100 women, potentially resulting 

in long-term consequences for family formation and parenting (Braman 2002). According to 

some scholars, high incarceration rates have so 

weakened social institutions — such as family, 

attachment to work and civic engagement, which 

historically have contributed to crime reduction — 

that these policies now have the unfortunate effect 

of increasing crime rates (see, e.g., Clear, Rose and 

Ryder 2001). 

Public Safety and Recidivism 

Recidivism rates of released prisoners have 

been stubbornly high for decades. The largest 

recidivism study was conducted by the Bureau 

of Justice Statistics (BJS), which monitored prisoners from 15 states who were released in 1994 

for involvement with the criminal justice system 

three years after their release.1 The study includes 

three dimensions of recidivism: rearrest, reconviction and return to prison. As shown in table 

1, 67.5 percent of released offenders were rearrested for at least one offense within three years 

of their release. Many were charged with more 

than one crime during this period; in fact, they 

averaged four new crimes per person. Nearly half 

(46.9 percent) were convicted of a new crime, and 

a quarter (25.4 percent) were returned to prison 

with a new sentence (Langan and Levin 2002).2 

The returning prisoners in the BJS study were 

charged with a variety of crimes, including 

1 The sample of released prisoners included nearly 275,000 

individuals and represented two-thirds of all prison releases 

nationwide that year.
 2 The previous study of this magnitude tracked a cohort of 


released prisoners in 1983 (Beck and Shipley 1989). Recidivism 

rates of rearrest and reconviction were remarkably similar: after 

three years, 62.5 percent had been rearrested and 46.8 percent 

had been reincarcerated. Recidivism rates for those returned to 

prison cannot be compared between the two cohorts, as the 

1983 study included individuals who returned to county jails in 

addition to state and federal prisons, and the 1994 study only 

included individuals returned to state and federal prisons. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 7 

Table 1. Recidivism Rates of Prisoners Released in 1994 From Prisons in 15 States 

Rearrested Reconvicted Returned to prison 

Within six months 29.9% 10.6% 5.0% 

Within one year 44.1 21.5 10.4 

Within three years 67.5 46.9 25.4 

Source: Langan and Levin 2002. 

violent offenses (21.6 percent), property offenses 

(31.9 percent), drug offenses (30.3 percent) and 

offenses against the public order (28.3 percent). 

Some of these offenses were very serious: the 

released prisoners were charged with an estimated 2,900 homicides, 2,400 kidnappings, 2,400 

rapes, 3,200 other sexual assaults, 21,200 robberies, 79,400 drug possession violations and 46,200 

drug trafficking offenses, among other crimes 

(Langan and Levin 2002). 

Two dimensions of recidivism warrant special 

attention in this discussion of the role of the 

police in prisoner reentry. The first is the temporal dynamic of the overall “failure” rate. The 

rate of rearrest is not evenly distributed over the 

three-year period of the BJS study. Nearly 30 percent of released prisoners were rearrested within 

the first six months, and slightly less than half 

(44.1 percent) within the first year. The months 

immediately following release from prison clearly 

present the highest risk to public safety. If the 

police are interested in maximizing the crime 

prevention benefits of engaging in prisoner reentry initiatives, then this time frame presents 

the greatest opportunity. 

Second, data from the BJS recidivism study should 

be understood in the context of historically low 

crime rates in America. According to an analysis by Rosenfeld, Wallman and Fornango (2005) 

that used the BJS data for 13 states, the prisoners 

released in the three-year period prior to 1994 

accounted for 13 percent of all arrests in 1994 in 

those states. But looking at arrests in 2001, these 

scholars calculated that the prisoners released 

in the preceding three years accounted for more 

than 20 percent of all arrests (Rosenfeld, Wallman 

and Fornango 2005). This significant shift from 

13 to 20 percent over a short period of time can 

be attributed to the two simultaneous trends of 

more prisoners returning home and fewer overall arrests because crime rates decreased during 

this period. Starkly put, if the police are examining what drives their local crime rates, they have 

more reason now to focus on returning prisoners. This is not because the individuals returning 

home now are more prone to being arrested — on 

the contrary, the recidivism rate has not changed 

appreciably since the last BJS survey of a 1983 

release cohort (Beck and Shipley 1989). Rather, 

more of them are returning to communities that 

are now much safer than in the mid to late 1980s. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 | New Perspectives in Policing 

National Focus on Prisoner Reentry 

Given that people have been leaving prisons ever 

since prisons were first built in the 1820s and that 

successful reintegration has been a formal goal of 

the justice system since indeterminate sentencing legislation was first embraced in the late 19th 

century, this “new” phenomenon is actually not 

new. Yet, after years of increasing prison populations, policymakers, elected officials and criminal 

justice practitioners are now, belatedly, focusing on the consequences of that buildup. At the 

national level, both parties have demonstrated 

leadership. In 1999 Attorney General Janet Reno 

delivered a major national address calling for new 

approaches to prisoner reentry, emphasizing the 

importance of partnerships between corrections, 

police and community organizations. The last 

budget of the Clinton administration included 

seed funding for a reentry initiative. The Bush 

administration built upon this foundation with 

the Serious Violent Offender Reentry Initiative. 

Then, in the 2004 State of the Union Address, 

President Bush called upon Congress to create 

a reentry initiative, which subsequently became 

the Second Chance Act of 2007.3 This national 

leadership has been matched by initiatives in all 

50 states, a blossoming of reentry programs at 

the local level, and programmatic initiatives in a 

wide range of service sectors, ranging from public health agencies to faith institutions to child 

welfare organizations (Travis 2007). 

These initiatives share some striking characteristics. They are notably nonpartisan, nonideological 

and pragmatic. They take as a starting point the 

realities of reentry (prisoners are returning home 

in large numbers), recognize the possible harms 

(failure rates, including most notably re-engagement in criminal behavior, are high), and then 

ask the simple but profound question, “What can 

be done to improve these outcomes?” Second, 

because the questions are framed broadly, a 

wide variety of agencies have become engaged 

in devising strategies to reduce the rates of failure. 

Organizations not typically considered “reentry 

practitioners” have become involved, such as 

transitional housing providers, mental health 

clinics, supported work organizations, foster 

care agencies, workforce development corporations, community colleges and faith institutions. 

These organizations find themselves in new 

partnerships with parole, police and corrections 

departments. The development of these multisector collaborations has been supported by a 

remarkable array of federal agencies, including 

the National Institute of Corrections, the Office 

of Justice Programs and the Department of Labor. 

The academic community has responded to the 

call for research on “what works” in prisoner reentry, and an emerging body of empirical 

evidence is starting to guide programmatic initiatives (Petersilia 2004). Finally, in a notable 

indicator of programmatic maturity, the reentry 

movement now has its own infrastructure for best 

practices, the National Reentry Resource Center, 

operated by the nonpartisan Council of State 

Governments, with funding from the Second 

Chance Act.4 

3 Second Chance Act of 2007, Public Law 110-199, U.S. Statutes at 

Large 122 (2008): 657. 

4 For more information on the National Reentry Resource Center, 

see www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 9 

Prisoner Reentry Viewed Through a 

Policing Lens 

On an institutional level, police departments 

typically play a limited role in the formal process of releasing prisoners from custody. They are 

sometimes consulted on parole decisions but discretionary parole is on the wane in America, so 

the voice of the police in release decisions is not 

likely to be expanded (Travis and Lawrence 2002). 

In some jurisdictions, local police departments 

are notified by their counterparts in corrections departments of individuals returning from 

prison, although this practice begs the questions: 

What are the police expected to do with this information, and what information might be useful 

(Petersilia and Rosenberg 2007)? For some subcategories of offenders, such as sex offenders, the 

police have a defined role, such as managing registration and reporting requirements or notifying 

communities when and where a sex offender has 

taken up residence. However, these subcategories 

account for a relatively small share of all released 

prisoners. These formal institutional and legal 

roles for the police in the reentry process are 

narrow and do not begin to attain the positive 

benefits of more robust engagement. 

Some of the leading policing organizations have 

begun to catalog police participation in reentry 

efforts. For example, an International Association 

of Chiefs of Police (IACP) review of the relationship between the police and reentry programs 

found that, typically, police departments have 

played and are playing a limited role in the 

reentry process. When police are included in 

reentry programs or initiatives, it is often as an 

afterthought and their decision-making abilities 

are limited (IACP 2007). Many reentry initiatives have been organized at a state level, often 

through gubernatorial task forces, and the police, 

as local entities, are frequently not included in 

these consortia. Faced with the practical realities of limited budgets and resources, police 

executives understandably hesitate to take on 

new responsibilities that arguably detract from 

core business. Finally, as mentioned above, the 

cultural divide between the police and groups 

working with people returning from prison, as 

well as the history of suspicion across that divide, 

has certainly contributed to the limited engagement of the police. 

What rationale linked to the mission of the police 

provides justification for their engagement in the 

process of released offenders returning to their 

communities? The affirmative case for a police 

role in the reentry process flows from an understanding that this role could contribute to the 

police mission in two significant ways: first, it 

could promote public safety and enhance police 

effectiveness by engaging in problem-oriented 

policing activities, and second, it could promote 

police legitimacy by strengthening relationships 

with communities, particularly communities of 

color, through engagement in community policing activities. 

Promoting Public Safety 

The police have a powerful voice on matters of 

public safety, and the respect many police departments have earned in connection with declining 

crime rates puts them in a position to assist with 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

10 | New Perspectives in Policing 

building community coalitions and be partially 

accountable for increasing reentry successes. The 

current, historically low crime rates have been 

well-documented by researchers, practitioners 

and the media. Despite public safety gains, many 

hard-pressed communities remain dangerous 

places to work and live, and these communities 

are often those to which large numbers of people are returning from prison. These individuals 

account for a disproportionate amount of crime, 

and their contribution to a jurisdiction’s overall arrest rate is higher than in the past. Faced 

with these truths, a police department could 

understandably claim that these failures are 

the failures of other criminal justice agencies, 

or should be attributed to larger social forces, or 

should be understood as reflecting the tendencies 

of hardcore criminals. But such a posture would 

seem inconsistent with the modern self-image of 

American policing as a problem-solving institution that uses analytical approaches to focus on 

underlying causes of crime (Braga 2008). 

Police involvement in prisoner reentry initiatives is very much in line with the philosophy 

and strategies related to problem-oriented policing (Goldstein 1990). Crime typically clusters in 

identifiable locations and is disproportionately 

committed by repeat offenders (Spelman and Eck 

1989). The police should embrace the reality of 

people returning to their communities as a public 

safety challenge and promote a problem-solving 

strategy for reducing the rearrest rates of people 

coming home from prison. Police engagement 

could yield valuable information about returning offenders and the places where they live, work 

and engage in criminal activity. Said another way, 

prisoner reentry efforts could be considered an 

important strategic opportunity for problemoriented policing efforts. For example, what if a 

COMPSTAT-like initiative were to use reducing 

the rearrest rates for a cohort leaving prison as 

one metric of success? 

The historic levels of growth in prisoners returning home over the last several decades mean that 

prisoner reentry is a relatively new phenomenon 

in the context of social science research. Given 

that, the research literature on the crime reduction impacts of reentry programs that are of high 

quality and are clearly defined is not well-developed. It is an emerging field of research filled with 

lots of experimentation, and the body of rigorous 

research will continue to develop. That said, the 

research literature on several programs and services that are often key components of reentry 

initiatives is more robust and continues to grow. 

As one example, researchers from the Washington 

Institute for Public Policy reviewed the findings 

of 545 evaluations of adult corrections, juvenile 

corrections and prevention programs in which 

an impact on crime was one of the measured outcomes (Drake, Aos and Miller 2009). The review 

identified several types of programs that resulted 

in statistically significant reductions in crime, 

including community-based employment and 

job training programs, community-based drug 

treatment programs, and prison-based general 

education and vocational education programs, 

among others. In addition, researchers identified programs that did not prove to be effective 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 11 

at reducing crime, including boot camps and 

Scared Straight programs. Notably, intensive 

community supervision models with no programming component and supervision models 

that were surveillance-oriented did not reduce 

crime; however, when intensive supervision 

was coupled with treatment-oriented programs, 

crime reduction benefits were achieved. 

Across the country a growing number of police 

departments are taking up the public safety 

challenge of released prisoners returning to 

their communities, yet they still account for a 

small share of all police departments (Byrne and 

Hummer 2004). Below are three examples of such 

partnerships that do not reflect a comprehensive 

review of police involvement in prisoner reentry 

but rather are cases in which the programs are 

well-developed and beginning to produce results: 

•	 The	Chicago	Project	 Safe	Neighborhoods	

initiative provides a good example of a 

collaborative effort, bringing together law 

enforcement agencies, community members 

and service providers around the goal of 

reducing crime rates among the reentry 

population. The Chicago team used a variant 

of the “call in” methodology pioneered in 

the Boston Ceasefire initiative, restricting 

participation in a call-in session to recently 

released prisoners coming back to two specific 

Chicago neighborhoods (Braga et al. 2001; 

Kennedy, Piehl and Braga 1996). This Chicago 

effort yielded impressive results. According to 

an independent evaluation, the homicide rate 

in these neighborhoods was cut by 37 percent 

compared to a control group (Papachristos, 

Meares and Fagan 2007). 

•	 The	Boston	Reentry	Initiative	(BRI)	relies	on	

partnerships among police and communitybased organizations to help facilitate the 

successful reintegration of former jail inmates 

to their Boston neighborhoods. BRI is unique 

in that it targets the most violent offenders for 

services. The Boston Police Department works 

in concert with BRI staff to identify offenders 

with violent offense profiles and makes 

recommendations for program participation. 

BRI uses a version of the “call in” methodology 

as well, offering case management and 

treatment to offenders. Findings from an 

evaluation of BRI show that the program 

participants experienced a 30-percent 

reduction in recidivism as compared to a 

control group of violent offenders (Braga, 

Piehl and Hureau 2009). 

•	 Baltimore’s	Reentry	Partnership,	a	coalition	

of community groups, organized a “welcome 

home” panel that met with all prisoners 

returning to their community about a month 

prior to their release dates. Members of the 

welcome home panel included social service 

providers, housing agencies, ex-offender 

organizations and the state parole agency, 

among others. Also present was a local beat 

officer from the Baltimore Police Department, 

and when his opportunity came to speak, he 

echoed the words of other members of the 

coalition by saying: “Welcome home. Like 

the others, I hope that you succeed and stay 

out of trouble. Like the others, I commit my 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12 | New Perspectives in Policing 

agency to working as part of this coalition for 

the next two years to help you succeed. But 

unlike the others, I have the power to arrest 

you if you engage in criminal behavior. I 

hope I do not have to use that power, but 

will do so if required.” This complex message 

sent an important signal that the police are 

committed to successful reentry, and that this 

commitment does not allow for the neglect of 

their law enforcement responsibilities. 

Police frequently do not know who is returning 

to the community, when they are returning and 

where they are going. One important benefit the 

police will derive from these reentry relationships will be opportunities for timely intelligence. 

For example, a closer working relationship with 

corrections and community supervision agencies 

may provide the police with the verified address 

of a returning prisoner, the names of individuals 

who visited him in prison and met him at the time 

of release, or the identities of criminal associates 

and gang members. This information may be 

useful in preventing crimes of retaliation, recurrence of domestic violence, relapses to drug use 

or reconnections with criminal peer networks. 

Although these issues may seem novel because 

they arise in the reentry context, in many ways 

they are familiar topics for the police, particularly for those organizations that have engaged 

in problem-solving, collaborative efforts with 

community partners. 

As police agencies increasingly become 

involved in reentry initiatives, and parole and 

probation agencies shift their focus to more surveillance and stricter enforcement of supervision 

conditions, the missions of these agencies appear 

more closely aligned. For decades the police 

have collaborated with community corrections 

agencies, particularly as probation and parole 

have used their extensive legal powers to conduct searches not permissible for the police. A 

premier example of cross-agency collaboration 

was Boston’s Operation Nightlight, where police 

officers assigned to the gang task force rode with 

probation officers assigned to that agency’s gang 

unit in a successful effort to reduce gang violence 

(Corbett 2002). Notwithstanding the potential 

benefits, the risks require specification. Certainly 

the police should not become an extension of the 

supervision mission of parole and probation nor 

should those agencies simply adopt a law enforcement stance. 

Finally, this discussion of respective roles 

between police and community corrections 

highlights another lacuna in the justice system — 

unsupervised individuals returning from prison 

and jail. At a national level, only four in five individuals leaving state prison are released to parole 

supervision. The remainder are simply released. 

In some cases, these are highly dangerous individuals. As Piehl documents in her study of 

reentry in Massachusetts, some prisoners with a 

history of mental illness who were denied parole 

release or chose not to apply for discretionary 

release went directly from solitary confinement 

to the streets without any government agency 

taking responsibility for their transition (Piehl 

2002). In the case of local jails, the issue of transition without government accountability is even 

more acute. Few people leaving jail are placed on 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 13 

community supervision and, for the vast majority, their transition home has no governmental 

support. Given these legal realities, the role of the 

police — or, for that matter, any traditional reentry organization — in promoting public safety 

for this population remains an open debate of 

public policy. 

Practical considerations, ethical considerations 

and questions of identity are likely to present 

challenges to police participation in reentry 

efforts. The police could encounter barriers to 

marshaling the support of local service providers and employers who may be wary of police 

leadership and participation. The police could 

encounter questions related to sharing intelligence about reentry program participants. The 

police could encounter issues of capacity in 

the face of new collaborative efforts. The police 

could encounter questions of legal authority 

and oversight in the context of “unsupervised” 

individuals returning to the community and presenting a public safety challenge. Needless to say, 

the role of the police in reentry efforts is a work 

in progress. The opportunities to prevent new 

crime among — and against — the population 

of returning prisoners are enormous. For police 

organizations that engage in problem-oriented 

policing and are committed to crime reduction, 

the prospect of taking on this challenge is consistent with their view of public accountability for 

results. Although collaboration, not direction, 

is the name of the game, it comes with issues of 

unclear organizational boundaries and ethical 

propriety. 

Promoting Police Legitimacy 

Communities with the highest rates of incarceration and the highest rates of returning prisoners 

are concentrated in a small number of neighborhoods in urban America, most typically African 

American and Latino neighborhoods. These are 

often the same neighborhoods that suffer high 

crime rates and consequently experience high 

levels of police presence and intervention. These 

neighborhoods often have a history of strained, 

sometimes violent, relationships between the 

police and the residents. For a variety of reasons, these strains are frequently perceived on 

both sides in racial terms. The police — and, by 

extension, other criminal justice agencies — are 

often viewed as agents of an unjust system deeply 

rooted in the history of racial oppression. The 

community, broadly defined, is often viewed by 

the police as tolerant of criminal behavior and 

resistant to police intervention. 

The community policing philosophy explicitly 

recognizes this racial divide and emphasizes 

collaboration between the police and community 

stakeholders. The promotion of mutual respect 

and trust between the police and the members 

of the community they serve is an important outcome of the community policing strategy. In other 

words, community policing efforts generally promote the “legitimacy” of the police. Legitimacy in 

this context is the notion that most people obey 

the law and defer to legal authorities because they 

view it as legitimate. Increasingly, research is supporting the notion that legitimacy is an important 

factor in the effectiveness of law (Tyler 2006), and 

the establishment and maintenance of legitimacy 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14 | New Perspectives in Policing 

are particularly important in the context of 

policing (Skogan and Meares 2004). Community 

policing efforts and prisoner reentry efforts are 

in sync in that they both center on collaboration 

and meaningful partnerships with community 

stakeholders and engage in proactive activities 

that address identified public safety issues. Thus, 

police involvement in prisoner reentry efforts 

can provide an opportunity for the police to 

strengthen their legitimacy in the eyes of the 

communities they serve. 

The consequences of prisoner reentry can be felt 

at a community level. Indeed, in some neighborhoods, more than half of the men have felony 

convictions, and the high rates of incarceration and reentry affect essentially every family 

in high-crime neighborhoods. According to an 

analysis of prison and jail admissions in Brooklyn, 

on “high-incarceration blocks,” one in eight 

parenting-age males (ages 18 to 45) is arrested 

and incarcerated each year (Cadora, Swartz and 

Gordon 2003). When Clear, Rose and Ryder (2001) 

interviewed 100 residents of two communities in 

Tallahassee, nearly all experienced — or expected 

to experience — the return of a family member 

from prison. In Cleveland, Lynch and Sabol 

calculated that, in high-incarceration neighborhoods, 8 to 15 percent of African American men 

between the ages of 18 and 29 were incarcerated 

on a given day (Lynch and Sabol 2001). 

The pervasiveness of incarceration brings a profound question into focus: Has the high rate 

of incarceration undermined respect for the 

police and for the rule of law? This question 

can be posed in more direct, operational terms: 

Has the involvement of the police, by arresting 

large numbers of community members who are 

then sent away to prison at record levels, weakened the community’s willingness to cooperate 

with police investigations? Although the body 

of research on this specific question is limited 

and there is still much to be learned, it seems 

plausible. We do know from research that prison 

can be a “delegitimizing” experience and, subsequently, high incarceration rates work against 

legal authority that is grounded in a legitimacybased model (Tyler 2010). 

When community members view the police as 

a legitimate legal entity, they are more likely 

to cooperate with the police (Tyler and Fagan 

2008). Given this, police should take advantage 

of opportunities to increase legitimacy through 

the eyes of the communities they serve. Positive 

interaction with the police has been shown to 

increase legitimacy in the eyes of the communities that they serve (Tyler and Fagan 2008). 

Police participation in collaborative reentry 

efforts, therefore, represents one such opportunity for more frequent positive interactions 

between the police and community stakeholders. Notably, police legitimacy can also increase 

even when the police deliver “negative outcomes,” 

as long as those outcomes are in concert with 

fair procedures (Tyler and Fagan 2008). This is 

particularly relevant in the context of prisoner 

reentry efforts, as inevitably police will be in situations in which reentry program participants 

are rearrested. Not all interactions with the police 

during the reentry process need to be positive 

for those interactions to have a positive impact 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 15 

on legitimacy. For example, if reentry partners 

and community members observe their police 

partners making sincere efforts to improve the 

chances of successful reintegration, then any 

sanctions against reentry participants, such as 

rearrest, will be more palatable to their community partners. It may be that, in their eyes, the 

police tried to provide support and opportunity, 

but a reentry program participant’s behavior left 

the police no other choice but to make an arrest. 

Police will have opportunities to demonstrate to 

the community that they are not solely interested 

in removing young men from their neighborhood 

but rather prefer to see them transition to being 

positive members of their community. 

The challenge for the police and their involvement in reentry efforts is particularly acute in 

their relationships with formerly incarcerated 

individuals. As part of its Returning Home study, 

the Urban Institute interviewed returning prisoners to gauge their attitudes toward the police. Half 

(49 percent) viewed the police in their neighborhoods as racist. Half (53 percent) said the police 

did not respond properly to crime victims. More 

than half (60 percent) thought the police did a 

poor job of preventing crime. A similar percentage (62 percent) thought the police brutalized 

people in their neighborhoods (Visher, La Vigne 

and Travis 2004). 

Most research on legitimacy to date has focused 

on law-abiding citizens’ perceptions. However, 

recent research has begun to examine views 

of legitimacy through the eyes of offenders. 

Papachristos, Meares and Fagan (2009) found 

that although offenders and nonoffenders have 

similar views about the law overall, their views 

are significantly different when it comes to the 

police specifically, as offenders have a much more 

negative view of the police. Importantly, in the 

context of police participation in prisoner reentry 

efforts, perhaps police can have a positive impact 

on offenders’ perceptions of police legitimacy by 

allowing for increased interactions that are not 

necessarily confrontational or negative. 

Given the growing body of evidence on the importance of legitimacy of the police and legitimacy of 

the rule of law, police departments’ exploration of 

new and creative strategies to increase legitimacy 

would seem to be a worthwhile endeavor. The 

opportunity to increase police legitimacy in the 

eyes of community members, reentry partners 

and reentry program participants in particular is 

significant and should be given serious attention 

by police departments (see “East Palo Alto Police 

Department: A Case Study in Police Involvement 

in Prisoner Reentry”). 

Conclusion 

As is often the case in public policy, dramatic 

changes in the “state of the world” that take place 

in relatively short time periods can be leveraged 

as occasions for experimentation. New policies 

and practices intended to improve the effectiveness of public agencies can be tested and adopted 

during periods of change. Prisoner reentry should 

be considered one such occasion for the field of 

policing. Two of the most fundamental objectives 

of policing can be addressed by the police engaging in formal, strategic roles in prisoner reentry 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

16 | New Perspectives in Policing 

East Palo Alto Police Department: A Case Study in Police Involvement 

in Prisoner Reentry 

In 2006 in East Palo Alto, Calif., a city of approximately 30,000 people, following the murder of a police officer 

by a recently released parolee, the Police Department and the family of the slain officer worked together for the 

enactment of a bill that required the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to establish 

a prisoner reentry pilot program with the East Palo Alto Police Department.* This was the first instance of the 

CDCR contracting with a local police agency to provide reentry services. As part of the program, an East Palo 

Alto police officer was designated as a parole reentry officer (PRO) whose first task was to conduct parolee 

home visits and invite them to participate in the reentry program. The Police Department subcontracted with 

community and faith-based organizations to operate a Day Reporting Center that provided a variety of services, 

including cognitive life-skills training, anger management training, substance abuse education, parenting and 

family integration, personal budgeting, and job training and placement. For more than three years, the PRO, 

counselors and program staff worked collaboratively to provide effective reentry services. 

This pilot program is a good example of police acting in a nontraditional role by emphasizing rehabilitation and 

redemption compared to the traditional role of enforcement by focusing on returning parolees to prison. At 

the outset, community members, representatives of local government, and even some members of the Police 

Department questioned whether the police should engage in reentry services. For some, prisoner reentry was 

not a local issue but rather the responsibility of the state; for others, the notion of bringing parolees back into 

the community — even though they were East Palo Alto residents — generated a “fear of prisoner reentry,” also 

characterized as a Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) mentality. Within the Police Department, the idea of the police 

engaging in reentry services beyond enforcement was viewed initially as a distraction to the core business of the 

police. Yet, there was a common thread on which all stakeholders could agree: efforts to successfully reintegrate 

released prisoners back into the community, regardless of whoever was responsible, were simply not working. 

The Police Department’s leadership is viewed as one of the key reasons the reentry program operated with 

community support. The Police Chief and the Department embracing the concept of redemption and portraying 

prisoner reentry as a public safety strategy increased residents’ comfort level with and, ultimately, their support 

for the reentry program. The Chief’s advocacy was reinforced by local community and faith-based organizations 

that had been providing services for years and were highly respected in the community. This unified support for 

the program helped the city’s residents overcome the NIMBY mentality. 

Improved relationships between the Police Department and the community turned out to be an important 

outcome of the program. In fact, when budget cuts threatened the program, the City Council, in an effort to 

save the program, voted to expand the program to include parolees from outside the city of East Palo Alto. In 

addition, East Palo Alto police officers came to view the PRO as a critical component of Department operations. 

For example, information about parolees was accessible through the PRO, a welcome source of intelligence in 

an environment where information was often stifled by a “don’t snitch” mentality. The Department now views 

collaborative efforts related to prisoner reentry as critical to police operations and as an effective crime prevention and intervention strategy. 

*California Assembly Bill 2436 (2006). 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 17 

efforts: namely, promoting public safety and promoting police legitimacy. 

In addition, engagement in reentry efforts is 

well-aligned with the tenets of two current-day 

policing strategies: problem-oriented policing 

and community policing. The release of large 

numbers of prisoners, who are often repeat 

offenders, returning to a select, concentrated set 

of neighborhoods, which are often already facing 

unacceptable levels of crime, is an opportunity 

for police to engage in problem-oriented policing 

activities. At the same time, given the collaborative nature of reentry efforts across the country, 

police playing a role in prisoner reentry initiatives 

is an opportunity to engage in community policing activities. 

Across the country more and more police departments are engaging in reentry efforts in a variety 

of ways including, but not limited to, serving as a 

source of information for parole officers regarding 

parolees’ adherence to conditions of community 

supervision; operating as a source of information 

for returning prisoners about local services, programs and employment opportunities; assisting 

in locating parole absconders; participating in 

“call in” panels targeted at returning offenders; 

and meeting with individuals around the time 

of release to inform them of police knowledge 

of their return and offer assistance to increase 

their chances of a successful reintegration, while 

making clear their ability to rearrest should an 

individual engage in criminal activity. 

Despite these few examples, police playing a formal role in prisoner reentry is largely uncharted 

territory and, therefore, the appropriate and most 

effective roles for police are still being debated. As 

with most policing strategies, the specifics largely 

depend on the community in which they are 

deployed. The types of offenders, local labor market, available programs and services, strength of 

community relations, and other community risks 

and assets are all factors that should shape local 

prisoner reentry activities. 

Prominent roles on the parts of police chiefs and 

command staff in reentry efforts are vital to the 

success of those efforts. Police leaders need to 

promote the idea that everyone benefits when 

reentry is successful. This stance will likely 

seem counterintuitive to many who have years 

of experience interacting with a police department, but it is precisely this feature that makes 

police involvement so powerful. Police leaders 

have many key roles to play, including communicating how participation in these efforts supports 

a department’s mission; establishing that these 

new activities are priorities for the department; 

making the public and local community groups 

aware of their interest and commitment to these 

partnerships; and helping to shape the nature 

of police involvement so as to maximize public 

safety benefits and make the best use of existing 

resources. In short, the arguments presented in 

this paper are unlikely to stand without the leadership of police chiefs and their command staff. 

Police participation in prisoner reentry initiatives 

necessitates that the police articulate a rationale 

for involvement beyond crime prevention. As 

acknowledged early on, this discussion is an 

uneasy one for many, as it touches on some of 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18 | New Perspectives in Policing 

the most complex and highly debated challenges 

related to cultural divides, histories of mistrust, 

particularly in communities of color, scope of the 

mission and interagency relationships. However, 

the reality is that while the growth in the prison 

population seems to be stabilizing, for years to 

come hundreds of thousands of prisoners will 

continue to return to neighborhoods that are 

facing considerable challenges. For police not 

to acknowledge this certainty and address it 

head on is, quite simply, a missed opportunity to 

repair the distrust, improve the effectiveness of a 

department, and increase the safety of the community members it serves. 

References 

Asbur y, Bret. “Anti-Snitching Norms and 

Community Loyalty.” Oregon Law Review 89 (4) 

(2011): 1257-1312. 

Beck, Allen, and Bernard Shipley. Recidivism of 

Released Prisoners in 1983. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

1989. 

Braga, Anthony A. Problem-Oriented Policing and 

Crime Prevention, 2nd ed. Boulder, Colo.: Lynne 

Rienner Publishers, 2008. 

Braga, Anthony A., David M. Kennedy, Elin J. 

Waring and Anne M. Piehl. “Problem-Oriented 

Policing, Deterrence, and Youth Violence: An 

Evaluation of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire.” 

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 38 

(3) (2001): 195-225. 

Braga, Anthony A., Anne M. Piehl and David M. 

Hureau. “Controlling Violent Offenders Released 

to the Community: An Evaluation of the Boston 

Reentry Initiative.” Journal of Research in Crime 

and Delinquency 46 (4) (2009): 411-436. 

Braman, Donald. “Families and Incarceration.” In 

Invisible Punishment: The Collateral Consequences 

of Mass Imprisonment, ed. Marc Mauer and Meda 

Chesney-Lind. New York: The New Press, 2002, pp. 

117-135. 

Byrne, James, and Don Hummer. “Examining 

the Role of the Police in Reentry Partnership 

Initiatives.” Federal Probation 68 (2) (2004). 

Cadora, Eric, Charles Swartz and Mannix 

Gordon. “Criminal Justice and Health and 

Human Services: An Exploration of Overlapping 

Needs, Resources, and Interests in Brooklyn 

Neighborhoods.” In Prisoners Once Removed: The 

Impact of Incarceration and Reentry on Children, 

Families, and Communities, ed. J. Travis and M. 

Waul. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute 

Press, 2003, pp. 285-312. 

Carter, Madeline M., Susan Gibel, Rachelle 

Giguere and Richard Stroker. Increasing Public 

Safety Through Successful Offender Reentry: 

Evidence-Based and Emerging Practices in 

Corrections. Silver Spring, Md.: Center for 

Effective Public Policy, 2007. 

Clear, Todd. Imprisoning Communities: How 

Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged 

Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Ox ford 

University Press, 2007. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 19 

Clear, Todd, Dina Rose and J. Ryder.“Incarceration and the Community: The Problem of 

Removing and Returning Offenders.” Crime and 

Delinquency 47 (3) (2001): 335-351. 

Corbett, Ronald. “Reinventing Probation and 

Reducing Youth Violence.” In Securing Our 

Children’s Future: New Approaches to Juvenile 

Justice and Youth Violence, ed. Gary S. Katzmann. 

Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution 

Press and Governance Institute, 2002, pp. 175-199. 

Drake, Elizabeth K., Steve Aos and Marna G. 

Miller. “Evidence-Based Public Policy Options 

to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: 

Implications in Washington State.” Victims and 

Offenders 4 (2009): 170-196. 

Glaze, Lauren, and Thomas Bonczar. Probation 

and Parole in the United States, 2010. Bulletin. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2011. 

Goldstein, Herman. Problem-Oriented Policing. 

New York: McGraw-Hill, 1990. 

Guerino, Paul, Paige Harrison and William Sabol. 

Prisoners in 2010. Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

December 2011. 

Hughes, Timothy A., and Doris James Wilson. 

Trends in State Parole, 1990-2000. Special Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 2001. 

Hughes, Timothy A., Doris James Wilson and 

Allen J. Beck. Reentry Trends in the United States: 

Inmates Returning to the Community After 

Serving Time in Prison. Washington, D.C., U.S. 

Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 

October 2002. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police. 

Building an Offender Reentry Program: A Guide for 

Law Enforcement. Alexandria, Va.: International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, and Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, 2007. 

International Association of Chiefs of Police and 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. 

Offender Re-Entry: Exploring the Leadership 

Opportunity for Law Enforcement Executives and 

Their Agencies. Alexandria, Va.: International 

Association of Chiefs of Police, and Washington, 

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services, January 

2007. 

Jannetta, Jesse, and Pamela Lachman. Promoting 

Partnerships between Police and Community 

Supervision Agencies: How Coordination 

Can Reduce Crime and Improve Public Safety. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 

May 2011. 

Kennedy, David M., Anne M. Piehl and Anthony 

A. Braga. “Youth Violence in Boston: Gun Markets, 

Serious Youth Offenders, and a Use-Reduction 

Strategy.” Law and Contemporary Problems 59 

(1) (1996): 147-196. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

20 | New Perspectives in Policing 

Langan, Patrick, and David Levin. Recidivism 

of Prisoners Released in 1994. Special Report. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, June 2002. 

La Vigne, Nancy G. Mapping for CommunityBased Prisoner Reentry Efforts: A Guidebook for 

Law Enforcement Agencies and Their Partners. 

Washington, D.C.: Police Foundation and U. S. 

Department of Justice, Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services, May 2007. 

La Vigne, Nancy G., Amy L. Solomon, Karen A. 

Beckman and Kelly Dedel. Prisoner Reentry and 

Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing 

Public Safety. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute 

Justice Policy Center and U.S. Department of 

Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services, 2006. 

Lynch, J.P., and W.J. Sabol. Prisoner Reentry 

in Perspective. Crime Policy Report, vol. 3. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, September 

2001. 

Papachristos, Andrew V., Tracey Meares and 

Jeffrey Fagan. “Attention Felons: Evaluating 

Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago.” Journal 

of Empirical Legal Studies 4 (2) (July 2007): 

223-272. 

Papachristos, Andrew V., Tracey Meares and 

Jeffrey Fagan. “Why Do Criminals Obey the Law? 

The Influence of Legitimacy and Social Networks 

on Active Gun Offenders.” Yale Law & Economics 

Research Paper No. 373; Columbia Public Law 

Research Paper No. 09-199, January 2009. 

Petersilia, Joan. “What Works in Prisoner Reentry? 

Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence.” 

Federal Probation 68 (2) (2004): 4-8. 

Petersilia, Joan, and Richard Rosenfeld. Parole, 

Desistance f rom Crime, and Communit y 

Integration. Washing ton, D.C.: Nat iona l 

Academies Press, 2007. 

Piehl, Anne Morrison. “From Cell to Street: A 

Plan to Supervise Inmates After Release,” John F. 

Kennedy School of Government Working Papers 

Series, January 2002. 

Rosenfeld, Richard, Joel Wallman and Robert 

Fornango. “The Contribution of Ex-Prisoners to 

Crime Rates.” In Prisoner Reentry and Crime in 

America, ed. J. Travis and C. Visher. New York: 

Cambridge University Press, 2005, pp. 80-104. 

Schwarzfeld, Matt, Deirdre Mead Weiss, Martha 

Plotkin and Laura Draper. Planning and Assessing 

a Law Enforcement Reentry Strategy. Report 

prepared by the Council of State Governments 

Justice Center and the Police Executive Research 

Forum for the Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. 

New York: Council of State Governments Justice 

Center, 2008. 

Skogan, Wesley, and Tracey Meares. “Lawful 

Policing.” The Annals of the American Academy 

of Political and Social Science 593 (2004): 66-83. 

Solomon, Amy, Jenny Osborne, Stefan LoBuglio, 

Jeff Mellow and Debbie Mukamal. Life After 

Lockup: Improving Reentry from Jail to the 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Exploring the Role of the Police in Prisoner Reentry | 21 

Community. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 

May 2008. 

Spelman, William, and John Eck. “Sitting Ducks, 

Ravenous Wolves, and Helping Hands: New 

Approaches to Urban Policing.” Public Affairs 

Comment 35 (2) (1989): 1-9. 

Travis, Jeremy. But They All Come Back: Facing the 

Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. Washington, D.C.: 

Urban Institute Press, 2005. 

Travis, Jeremy. “Ref lections on the Reentry 

Movement.” Federal Sentencing Reporter 20 (2) 

(December 2007): 84-87. 

Travis, Jeremy, and Sarah Lawrence. Beyond 

the Prison Gates: The State of Parole in America. 

Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute, 2002. 

Tyler, Tom. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton, 

N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2006. 

Tyler, Tom. “‘Legitimacy in Corrections’: Policy 

Implications.” Criminology and Public Policy 9 (1) 

(February 2010): 127-134. 

Tyler, Tom, and Jeffrey Fagan. “Legitimacy and 

Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police 

Fight Crime in Their Communities?” Ohio State 

Journal of Criminal Law 6 (2008): 231-275. 

U.S. Conference of Mayors. Status of Ex-Offender 

Reentry Efforts in Cities: A 79-City Survey. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Conference of Mayors, 

June 2009. 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs. Promising Strategies to Reduce 

Substance Abuse. Issues and Practices Report. 

Washington, D.C., U.S. Department of Justice, 

Office of Justice Programs, September 2000. 

Visher, Christy, Nancy La Vigne and Jeremy Travis. 

Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of 

Prisoner Reentry, Maryland Pilot Study: Findings 

from Baltimore. Research Report. Washington, 

D.C.: Urban Institute, January 2004. 

Watson, Jamie, Amy Solomon, Nancy La Vigne 

and Jeremy Travis with Meagan Funches and 

Barbara Parthasarathy. A Portrait of Prisoner 

Reentry in Texas. Research Report. Washington, 

D.C.: Urban Institute, March 2004. 

West, Heather, William Sabol and Sarah 

Green ma n. Prisoners in 2009. Bu l let i n. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 

Bureau of Justice Statistics, December 2010. 

Author Note: Jeremy Travis is President of 

the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City 

University of New York. Ronald Davis is Chief of 

the East Palo Alto Police Department, East Palo 

Alto, Calif. Sarah Lawrence is Director of Policy 

Analysis and Program Evaluation at the Chief 

Justice Earl Warren Institute on Law and Social 

Policy, University of California, Berkeley, School 

of Law. 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

   

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

National Institute of Justice 

Washington, DC 20531 *NCJ~238337*

Official Business 

Penalty for Private Use $300 

presorted standard 

postage & fees paid 

doJ/niJ 

permit no. g –91 

MAILING LABEL AREA 


(5” x 2”) DO NOT PRINT THIS 


AREA (INK NOR VARNISH)
 

Members of the Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety 

Chief Anthony Batts, Oakland Police 

Department 

Professor David Bayley, Distinguished 

Professor, School of Criminal Justice, 

State University of New York at Albany 

Dr. Anthony Braga, Senior Research 

Associate, Lecturer in Public Policy, 

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and 

Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Chief William J. Bratton, Los Angeles 

Police Department 

Chief Ella Bully-Cummings, Detroit Police 

Department (retired) 

Ms. Christine Cole (Facilitator), Executive 

Director, Program in Criminal Justice Policy 

and Management, Kennedy School of 

Government, Harvard University 

Commissioner Edward Davis, Boston 

Police Department 

Chief Ronald Davis, East Palo Alto 

Police Department 

Chief Edward Flynn, Milwaukee 

Police Department 

Colonel Rick Fuentes, Superintendent, 

New Jersey State Police 

Chief George Gascón, San Francisco 

Police Department 

Mr. Gil Kerlikowske, Director, Office of 

National Drug Control Policy 

Chief Cathy Lanier, Washington, D.C. 

Metropolitan Police Department 

Dr. John H. Laub, Director, National 

Institute of Justice 

Ms. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc, Visiting 

Scholar, New York University 

Professor Tracey Meares, Walton Hale 

Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School 

Chief Constable Peter Neyroud, Chief 

Executive, National Policing Improvement 

Agency (U.K.) 

Ms. Christine Nixon, Chair, Victorian 

Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery 

Authority (Australia) 

Chief Richard Pennington, Atlanta Police 

Department 

Mayor Jerry Sanders, City of San Diego 

Professor David Sklansky, Professor of 

Law, Faculty Co-Chair of the Berkeley Center 

for Criminal Justice, University of California, 

Berkeley, School of Law 

Mr. Sean Smoot, Director and Chief Legal 

Counsel, Police Benevolent and Protective 

Association of Illinois 

Professor Malcolm Sparrow, Professor of 

Practice of Public Management, Kennedy 

School of Government, Harvard University 

Chief Darrel Stephens, CharlotteMecklenburg Police Department (retired) 

Professor Christopher Stone, Guggenheim 

Professor of the Practice of Criminal Justice, 

Kennedy School of Government, Harvard 

University 

Mr. Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay 

College of Criminal Justice 

Mr. Rick VanHouten, President, Fort Worth 

Police Association 

Professor David Weisburd, Walter E. Meyer 

Professor of Law and Criminal Justice; 

Director, Institute of Criminology, Faculty 

of Law, The Hebrew University; and 

Distinguished Professor, Department of 

Criminology, Law and Society, George 

Mason University 

Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, 

Police Executive Research Forum 

Learn more about the Executive Session at: 

NIJ’s website: http://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/administration/executive-sessions/welcome.htm
 

Harvard’s website: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/criminaljustice/executive_sessions/policing.htm
 

NCJ 238337