The purpose of this project was to explore how ex-offenders collectively leverage personal and community assets to transcend passivity and powerlessness in the face of reentry barriers, as well as to identify the personal milestones that signal social and community re-integration, post-incarceration. A qualitative inquiry utilizing interviews and a support group structure modeled on action research was used to generate two distinct products. The first product concerned a peer-group model that could be employed by ex-offenders as a form of community capacity building. The second product sought to identify reentry milestones utilized in the development of effective support programs to aid ex-offenders in the areas of employment and housing. Data collection points included the narratives elicited from participants during the intake and exit interviews, a grounded theory analysis fostered during each support group session with the intent to identify group curriculum, and the life stories revealed in the reflective journals all participants are asked to maintain. Narrative analysis was employed to understand the meaning participants provide to the work of the support group as well as the volunteer work they are asked to do to illustrate their commitment to community building. The participants utilized a grounded theory analysis to examine transcripts of group discussions in an effort to explicate the most important components of a peer-group model. / text

This study focuses on the process and complexities of disclosure and decision-making amongst HIV-positive ex-offenders. In addition, this study highlights the history and circumstances of HIV infection and how this influences disclosure. The process of disclosure was explored amongst seven HIV positive male ex-offenders who fell in the African racial category. Data was collected through qualitative in-depth interviews and analyzed using thematic analysis. Results revealed that within this target group disclosure initially occurred within prison and thereafter upon release from prison, continues depending on the contextual factors. Because disclosure initially took place within prison, the prison environment was a defining feature during the process of disclosure. Factors that enabled ex-offenders to disclose their HIV status included social support, witnessing of HIV – related deaths amongst other offenders, as well as the challenging nature of the prison environment. Factors that compromised the disclosure process included their access to treatment and a more nutritional diet. Upon release from prison, access to financial and material support and responsibility to significant others were reasons that facilitated the process of disclosure. Overall, stigma was a main barrier that contributed to non - disclosure. These findings highlight that the process of disclosure is a relational factor as it depends largely on the availability and accessibility of significant others. The conclusion that can be drawn from this study is that HIV disclosure is a process that occurs on a continuum whereby there is no clear end-point as ex-offenders weighed up the enabling factors against the barriers before disclosing. Once disclosure had occurred, ex-offenders had to integrate the outcomes and reactions from significant others into their lives. The process of HIV disclosure is also a never – ending process as there are always significant others to disclose to. It is recommended by this study that more research is conducted regarding how prison conditions influence HIVpositive offenders, how HIV-positive ex-offenders can be better re-integrated into the community and how significant others deal with the ex-offenders HIV disclosures.T / Thesis (M.A.)-University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 2010

Prisoner reentry is becomingly increasingly recognised as a significant societal problem. Almost all prisoners will be released will reenter the community and many will reoffend. Internationally, imprisonment rates continue to rise, compounding the challenge to the criminal justice system that the current system of incarceration and reentry creates. Gaps remain in our understanding of the reentry process and the challenges faced by released prisoners. Previous reentry research has tended to focus on specific issues such as accommodation or employment or have used prisoner interviews as the data source. The gaps in reentry literature are compounded by conflicting definitions of 'successful' reentry. Research was undertaken to examine the definition of 'successful reentry' and to determine the most important variables deemed to affect successful prisoner reentry. Semi structured interviews were conducted with twenty-four stakeholders with a variety of roles in prisoner reentry in Western Australia. Additional data was collected from published government reports, policy documents, research reports and academic literature. The interview findings determined that accommodation, employment, social networks and education and treatment programs were deemed to have the most significant impact on prisoner reentry. One of the most significant findings to emerge is the significance of social networks. This study has found evidence that the value of social networks has been neglected in reentry policy. One of the core issues examined throughout this process was the definition of 'successful reentry'. The term 'successful reentry' requires clarification, alongside elucidation of related goals and measurements. Measures of reentry 'success' need to be developed further or ameliorated by additional criterion as successful reentry is a more complex problem than existing recidivism measures can address. This thesis challenges the existing understanding of the needs of prisoners reentering the community and suggests strategies for improving the reentry process and related outcomes. Future reentry policy needs to give greater weight to the value of social networks and establish mechanisms to facilitate the development and maintenance of these networks, which will in turn, assist prisoners to secure accommodation and employment opportunities.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Ohio State University, 2008. / Title from first page of PDF file. Includes bibliographical references (p. 117-139).

Title from title screen (viewed April 17,2010). / "March 2010." "The Harlem Parole Reentry Court was established in June of 2001 in response to the high concentration of parolees returning to the East Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan. Created by the Center for Court Innovation in cooperation with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Division of Parole, the Reentry Court provides intensive judicial oversight, supervision and services to new parolees during the first six months following release from state prison. The goal of the program is to stabilize returning parolees in the initial phase of their reintegration by helping them to find jobs, secure housing, remain drug-free and assume familial and personal responsibilties. Following graduation, participants are transferred to traditional parole supervision, where they may continue to receive case management services voluntarily through the Reentry Court." -- Executive summary. "The Reentry Court seems to have had a positive effect with regard to preventing new crimes as measured by rearrests and reconvictions. However, participants were found to have higher rates of revocations. In particular, program participants were more likely to be revoked for technical violations of parole conditions. Given the lower caseload and greater intensity of the program, it is assumed that :"supervision effects" are partially responsible for the higher rate of technical violations. In other words, the Harlem Parole Reentry Court may be detecting violations that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. This suggests that reentry courts may want to explore enhancing the use of alternative sanctions in lieu of revocation. Furthermore, reentry courts should explore the possibility of providing greater feedback to parole officers and case managers, making them aware of potential unintended consequences when supervision is increased." -- Executive summary. Includes bibliographical references (p. 35-40).

Title from title screen (viewed April 17,2010). / "March 2010." "The Harlem Parole Reentry Court was established in June of 2001 in response to the high concentration of parolees returning to the East Harlem neighborhood of Manhattan. Created by the Center for Court Innovation in cooperation with the New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services and the Division of Parole, the Reentry Court provides intensive judicial oversight, supervision and services to new parolees during the first six months following release from state prison. The goal of the program is to stabilize returning parolees in the initial phase of their reintegration by helping them to find jobs, secure housing, remain drug-free and assume familial and personal responsibilties. Following graduation, participants are transferred to traditional parole supervision, where they may continue to receive case management services voluntarily through the Reentry Court." -- Executive summary. "The Reentry Court seems to have had a positive effect with regard to preventing new crimes as measured by rearrests and reconvictions. However, participants were found to have higher rates of revocations. In particular, program participants were more likely to be revoked for technical violations of parole conditions. Given the lower caseload and greater intensity of the program, it is assumed that :"supervision effects" are partially responsible for the higher rate of technical violations. In other words, the Harlem Parole Reentry Court may be detecting violations that might otherwise have gone unnoticed. This suggests that reentry courts may want to explore enhancing the use of alternative sanctions in lieu of revocation. Furthermore, reentry courts should explore the possibility of providing greater feedback to parole officers and case managers, making them aware of potential unintended consequences when supervision is increased." -- Executive summary. Includes bibliographical references (p. 35-40).

Thesis (M. Soc. Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1990.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2009. / Document formatted into pages; contains x, 146 p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.Soc.Sc.)--University of Hong Kong, 1990. / Also available in print.

The grounded theory method is used to generate a theory of leaving crime (“going straight”) from 24 women and men who were interviewed for this study. The main concern for ex-offenders is the degree to which residuals of a stigmatized, past self can be transcended. This residual self is comprised of three interrelated phenomena: i) the visible evidence pointing to a disreputable past, ii) the remnants of disreputable character traits, thinking patterns and emotional states which persist into the present, and iii) the social interactions which stigmatize ex-offenders. Ten of the research respondents are “hardcore” ex-offenders because their former immersion in criminal identities left residuals that are more apparent or knowable to others. The other 14 have criminal identities that were transient, or limited in time and the extent to which they subscribed to criminal values. For both types of offenders, a self-crisis preceded the decision to go straight. Ex-offenders import an exculpatory conversation from helping others that interprets their past harms as the result of the disease of addiction, early childhood trauma, or as lives unfolding within some greater plan by God or fortune. Hardcore offenders seek enveloping forms of help which occupy their ongoing daily consciousness and routines, whereas transient criminal offenders use help for transitory and pragmatic ends. The more that a past, residual self is knowable to others and subjectively problematic, the greater the difficulty that ex-offenders will have negotiating their stigmatized identity. An ongoing process of interpreting and negotiating one’s identity with self and others lies at the core of going straight. The outcome of going straight is credentials which consist of clean time, official pardons for criminal records, amends made with others or society in general, the performance of good works, and most importantly, making distinctions between who I was and who I am. The self presented today is an authentic one, unlike the criminal identity which they now see in retrospect as inauthentic. The degree to which a residual self remains with ex-offenders varies, with hardcore ex-offenders more likely to show or report signs and traits which can be stigmatized by evaluative audiences. However, it is also apparent that the residual self can be used for pragmatic and credentializing purposes, especially when one’s current identity is linked to who one was in the past. The problem of the residual self is differentially negotiated through culturally endorsed narratives of reform. To the degree that ex-offenders discriminate who I was from who I am in familiar stories of change, the greater will be their success in resolving the problems of the residual self. The theory of the residual self fits with recent findings in developmental theories in criminology, and offers optimism about the possibilities for change in adulthood criminal pathways suggested by life-course theories. This study, and others like it, can help promote a wider discourse to counter the “once a con, always a con” thinking which stigmatizes ex-offenders. / Graduate