Book•
But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry
12 Apr 2005-
TL;DR: Travis as mentioned in this paper proposes organizing the criminal justice system around five principles of reentry to encourage change and spur innovation, and argues that the impact of returning prisoners on families and communities has been largely overlooked.
Abstract: As our justice system has embarked upon one of our time's greatest social experiments?responding to crime by expanding prisons?we have forgotten the iron law of imprisonment: they all come back. In 2002, more than 630,000 individuals left federal and state prisons. Thirty years ago, only 150,000 did. In the intense political debate over America's punishment policies, the impact of these returning prisoners on families and communities has been largely overlooked. In But They All Come Back, Jeremy Travis continues his pioneering work on the new realities of punishment in America vis-a-vis public safety, families and children, work, housing, public health, civic identity, and community capacity. Travis proposes organizing the criminal justice system around five principles of reentry to encourage change and spur innovation.
Citations
More filters
Posted Content•
TL;DR: The Huikahi Restorative Circle is a group process for reentry planning that involves the incarcerated individual, his or her family and friends, and at least one prison representative.
Abstract: The Huikahi Restorative Circle is a group process for reentry planning that involves the incarcerated individual, his or her family and friends, and at least one prison representative. The process was originally called Restorative Circles, but was renamed Huikahi Restorative Circles to distinguish Hawaii’s reentry planning process from other restorative processes. In Hawaiian, hui means group, and kahi means individual. Together the word huikahi, for purposes of this process, signifies individuals coming together to form a covenant.
18 citations
Cites background from "But They All Come Back: Facing the ..."
...Many corrections experts have called for a “public health” approach to deal with criminal behavior (Zimbardo, 2007; Schwartz, 2009), and specifically for dealing with prisoner reentry (Travis, 2005)....
[...]
...“Each of the five principles requires action: prepare for reentry;1. build bridges between prisons and communities;2. seize the moment of release;3. strengthen the concentric circles of support; and4. promote successful reintegration” (Travis, 2005, p. 324).5....
[...]
TL;DR: A New Way of Life Reentry Project as discussed by the authors offers housing and support to women coming home from prison through a critical and holistic framework, one that attends simultaneously to the physical, mental and social contexts that shape lived experiences before, during and after prison.
Abstract: Despite decades of critical reframings, policy and practice on prisoner (re)entry often remains situated within a framework of individual responsibility that fails to acknowledge the structural drivers of criminalization. Attending to individual symptoms rather than root social, political and economic causes, such approaches may ultimately reinforce the inequalities and injustices that fuel imprisonment. This article presents a case study of an alternative approach. It examines A New Way of Life Reentry Project, a nonprofit organization in South Los Angeles, California, that offers housing and support to women coming home from prison through a critical and holistic framework—one that attends simultaneously to the physical, mental and social contexts that shape lived experiences before, during and after prison. Drawing from 7 years of observation and participation, supplemented by ten in-depth interviews, I argue that a critical, holistic approach can have a significant positive impact for people returning home from prison.
18 citations
Cites background from "But They All Come Back: Facing the ..."
...…stamps and student loans, discrimination in public and private rental housing and employment, restrictions on the right to become an adoptive parent, serve on a jury, obtain an occupational license, or vote (Harris and Keller 2005; Mauer and Chesney-Lind 2002; Oyama 2009; Pager 2007; Travis 2005)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this article, the authors describe the prevalence of suicide for incarcerated adults, factors associated with suicide risk, methods for assessing suicide risk in this vulnerable population, and current protocols for suicide prevention programs in jails and prisons.
Abstract: Although prison suicide is not a likely occurrence, it is the leading cause of preventable death in jails and correctional facilities (Way, Miraglia, Sawyer, Beer, & Eddy, 2005. Inmates are particularly at risk during the first 24 hr under custody as they face the reality of incarceration (Hayes, 1995). The risk further increases for detainees and offenders when they are held in detention centers or lockups with no way to post bail, particularly if this is the first incarceration for felony offenses. At this point, inmates are faced with compounded stressors. The jail environment embodies fear, distrust, lack of control, isolation, and shame and is often dehumanizing. Coping with entering this environment, inmates often feel overwhelmed and hopeless, leading some of them to choose suicide as a way to escape. Furthermore, offenders are likely to have several risk factors that predispose them to suicidal behavior, including preexisting thought disorders, alcohol or substance abuse problems, mood disorders, and previous suicide attempt histories (Way et al., 2005). Additionally, Tartaro and Lester (2005) found that prison suicide rates are correlated with suicide rates for adult males in the general U.S. population, pointing to the importance of societal risk factors alongwith individual factors. This article describes the prevalence of suicide for incarcerated adults, factors associated with suicide risk, methods for assessing suicide risk in this vulnerable population, and current protocols for suicide prevention programs in jails and prisons.
18 citations
Cites background from "But They All Come Back: Facing the ..."
...prison population was 258,165 in 1978, increased to 969,216 in 1996, andwas over 2million in 2005 (Tartaro&Lester, 2005; Travis, 2005)....
[...]
...The U.S. prison population was 258,165 in 1978, increased to 969,216 in 1996, andwas over 2million in 2005 (Tartaro&Lester, 2005; Travis, 2005)....
[...]
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used receiver operating characteristic curves to test the predictive validity of a generic risk-needs scale designed for felony recidivism on technical violation outcomes and found that the male-specific scale performs significantly worse when predicting nonserious and serious violations among the male sample.
Abstract: A long-held assumption in corrections is that parole technical violations (TVs) serve as a proxy of an offender’s potential of committing a new crime. Considering this notion has yet to be empirically tested coupled with recent research indicating a patterned difference between violators and recidivists, a test of this foundational assumption of community corrections is warranted. The current study aims to test this assumption using male and female offender samples from Washington State. Receiver operating characteristic curves are used to test the predictive validity of a generic risk–needs scale designed for felony recidivism on TV outcomes. Results suggest that the male-specific scale performs significantly worse when predicting nonserious and serious violations among the male sample. A female-specific scale, however, showed no significant difference in predicting female violations. The findings provide evidence that violations are not necessarily a proxy of new crime, and therefore offer wide implicat...
18 citations
Cites background from "But They All Come Back: Facing the ..."
...That is to say, the return will be meaningful to the parolee and therefore promote specific deterrence (Travis, 2005)....
[...]
...Focus afforded to violations is typically encapsulated in more general discussions of supervision strategies and reentry (e.g., Petersilia, 2003; Travis, 2005; Travis & Lawrence, 2002)....
[...]