NCJ Number
222733
Date Published
November 2006
Length
76 pages
Annotation
This report examines prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia within the context of housing and housing-related issues, assessing both the social fabric within communities that have a high percentage of returning prisoners and exploring the housing landscape for prisoners within these areas and throughout the city.
Abstract
General highlights of report findings include: (1) in 2004, 2,204 men and women were released from prison into some type of community supervision in the District of Columbia; (2) the majority of releases were male (92 percent), African-American (95 percent), and single (75 percent); (3) close to 60 percent of these individuals were unemployed at some time during the year; (4) 8 census tracts had 10 or more returning prisoners per 1,000 residents and 7 of the 8 were located on the eastern side of the city; and (5) many of the neighborhoods where prisoners lived upon release were disadvantaged. In addition to these general findings, providers surveyed believe that unemployment and lack of income is inextricably linked with housing problems for returning prisoners. The overwhelming majority of organizations (87 percent) report that the current housing landscape available to individuals returning home from prisons in the District of Columbia does not adequately meet the needs of returning prisoners. Three recommendations for progress with regard to the development and expansion of housing and housing-related services for individuals released from prison, applying to practitioners, policymakers, and researchers in the city and elsewhere include: use of data to improve services and programming, educate the community about the problems facing returning prisoners, and encourage and reward collaboration across systems. This report examined the housing landscape of prisoner reentry in the District of Columbia using census tract data. Specifically, it (1) documents the geographic concentrations of returning prisoners in the District; (2) develops an assessment of housing and community-based capacity in District neighborhoods where prisoners return in large numbers; (3) explores the nature of housing-related reentry programming; and (4) draws attention to the larger policy issues of building supportive neighborhood environments for returning prisoners. Tables, figures, references and appendixes A and B