Offenders returning to the community face a multitude of barriers in the reentry process, including limited resources for mental health treatment, restricted employment opportunities, difficulties with housing, and community stigma. Considering the impact of such barriers, it comes as little surprise that approximately two-thirds of returning citizens are rearrested within three years of release. There are unique, but often unexamined, challenges for offenders returning to rural communities, including lack of transportation, limited access to public or private healthcare, and often extreme poverty. It is also possible that exacerbated barriers to successful treatment and reintegration occur for offenders who have committed specific offenses (i.e., sexual crimes). Treatment providers who work regularly with offenders are familiar with challenges that their clients face, offering unique perspectives from their field of work. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 38 treatment providers in social work, counseling, clinical psychology, marriage and family therapy. Using NVivo 10 software, interview footage was transcribed by trained research assistants. Qualitative data were subjected to a two-stage thematic analysis. Initial themes were identified and then examined for overlap and commonality. Similar themes were then condensed into more distinct themes and subthemes, which were then coded from transcripts. Given the additional barriers for offenders returning to a rural community, the purpose of this study is to qualitatively explore the specific impact of rurality on reentry from the perspective of those providing court-ordered treatment services. This was done via the examination of subthemes that emerged under the general theme of "Rural Needs." Each subtheme will be defined and explored individually, as well as in the general context of rural needs, to provide more in-depth understanding of rural offender reentry. A majority of the research on policy and programming for offenders is based in urban areas; however, translating urban models of care to rural communities is difficult. Implications for the impact of rurality on successful reentry in terms of the criminal justice system and treatment will be discussed.

The United States is home to a large percentage of incarcerated individuals, a majority of whom re-offend upon release. Reentry efforts focus on lowering recidivism through policy and programming to help returning citizens successfully reintegrate into society and become productive, law abiding citizens. Although research on reentry has increased, the primary focus has been on urban reentry programming. Thus, the unique challenges that plague rural reentry, such as rural employment, housing, treatment and healthcare, transportation, and cultural qualities have been largely neglected. The current policy analysis used the rational model of policy analysis in which information on existing policy and programming was gathered via an extensive literature and policy review, then thoroughly described; problems within these current practices related to rural reentry were identified; and alternative strategies to amend policy to aid rural reentry were reported or recommended. Per the current analysis, most policies and programs are designed for, and examined in, urban communities. While there were several domains in which existing policy was, in fact, beneficial to rural returning citizens, all domains demonstrated need for improvement. A major limitation for the current analysis was the lack of research in rural communities. Future directions include examining reentry policy through the lens of specific offense-types for rural offenders, studying the effect of privatized prisons on U.S. rural reentry, and exploring reentry efforts in other countries as a model for change in the U.S. correctional system.