Instituting Lasting Reforms for Prisoner Reentry in Philadelphia

• NCJ Number: 222738
• Author(s): John Roman; Michael Kane; Emily Turner; Beverly Frazier
• Date Published: June 2006
• Length: 135 pages
• Corporate Author: The Urban Institute
• Sale Source: The Urban Institute
• Publication Format: Document
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Downloaded on May 15, 2008

Annotation

This report examines the prisoner reentry phenomenon in the city of Philadelphia, focusing on the return of prisoners from the Philadelphia Prison System (PPS) and is designed to serve as a benchmark for use in broad policy discussions about the prisoner reentry phenomena by addressing several questions which frame the report.

Abstract

The findings indicate there is a substantial need for services within the Philadelphia Prison System (PPS). The prisoner interviews suggest that services are being delivered, and are generally well received, although the amount, intensity, and effect of those programs can not be determined. However, the administrative data suggest that many of the prisoners whom were interviewed for the survey will return to PPS again and again. The need exists for an integrated data system to assess and track inmates’ needs and service receipt. This will allow PPS to adjust programming to foster more effective prisoner reintegration. Prisoner reentry, which is the process of leaving prison and returning to society has become a prominent issue both in Philadelphia and nationwide. In 2002, almost one-third of all Pennsylvania State prisoners returned to Philadelphia, and at any given time, almost 40 percent of the State prison population is comprised of residents of Philadelphia. This report describes the characteristics of returning prisoners by analyzing data about prisoners returning from PPS, using data from the PPS and Philadelphia Adult Parole and Probation. As part of the mandate given by the PPS, the report describes the process of prisoner reentry in Philadelphia by examining trends in incarceration and prison releases within the city, the characteristics of the city’s returning prisoners, self-reported experiences with rehabilitative programming while incarcerated, prisoners’ expectations for their post-release experiences, the geographic distribution of returning prisoners, trends in community supervision, and characteristics of selected neighborhoods with high concentrations of return. Figures, tables and appendixes A-D