Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Reentry is a challenging period associated with increased risk of mortality, drug overdose, and homelessness. Mobile reentry services offer rapid support at convenient locations for individuals released from custody. We conducted a needs-assessment of a Mobile Reintegration Service located outside a detention center in Ontario, Canada, through a focus group with staff members. Applying the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats methodology, the findings revealed strengths such as the mobile service's proximity to detention center, its peer support worker program, and provision of basic needs items. Mobile reentry services offer innovative ways to support the complex needs of individuals leaving correctional institutions.

Keywords

reentry mobile services staff jail detention

Introduction

People released from correctional facilities have a variety of health and social concerns that complicate community reentry, including poor mental health, substance use (SU), poverty, and homelessness (Begun et al., 2016; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2016, 2018; McLuhan et al., 2023; Semenza & Silver, 2022). The first days and weeks postrelease is a high-risk period for poor health outcomes, such as high rates of mortality due to drug toxicity and suicide (Groot et al., 2016).

These complex health and social challenges make timely access to health and social services critical during the postrelease period. Rapid connections to health and social services upon release may support better reentry outcomes for people leaving custodial settings (Hu et al., 2020). Individuals entangled with the criminal-legal system—a population often facing multiple barriers to services—need special consideration with respect to accessing services upon release (Herbert et al., 2015; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2016; Lutze et al., 2014). A handful of studies point to the importance of mobile and peer navigation services to improve access to care among hard-to-reach and high-risk drug using populations, including people with criminal-legal involvement (Islam & Conigrave, 2007; Krawczyk et al., 2019; Taweh et al., 2021). Research suggests that mobile models of service delivery (e.g., outreach trailers and traveling clinics) can improve access to health and social services among historically underserved populations (Hill et al., 2012; Islam & Conigrave, 2007; Khanna & Narula, 2016), such as racialized communities, women, youth, seniors, rural communities, and people living in service deserts (Khanna & Narula, 2016). Given that social and economic inequities can create barriers to accessing timely care, services that are mobile or are located near the target populations can reduce barriers to access, meeting people where they are (Cooper et al., 2009; Jackson & Strike, 2020; Rockwell et al., 1999).

Mobile services are the focus of a small body of reviews and evaluations of models of primary care, harm reduction, mental health, and crisis support services (Bartholomew et al., 2022; Mema et al., 2019; Regis et al., 2020). The findings of these evaluations shed light on the challenges in providing services to historically stigmatized and marginalized communities. The findings reveal important considerations for the planning and implementation of mobile services for these communities, such as engagement strategies, patient and client experience of the service, cost-effectiveness, and service uptake. For example, one study conducted in British Columbia, Canada, applied qualitative methods to evaluate a mobile supervised consumption service (Mema et al., 2019). The service used two retrofitted recreational vehicles to reach clients. Clients appreciated enhanced access to services and felt physically safe, but hours of operation fell short of the needs for half of the clients. Operationally, providers noted space constrictions impeded their ability to respond effectively to overdose events and to engage privately with clients. A mixed-methods evaluation of a mobile overdose prevention and harm reduction program in Massachusetts, United States, noted high use and acceptance of the service in the first 10 months (logging over 3,800 contacts) among a clientele that often contends with stigma in mainstream healthcare (Regis et al., 2020). In the qualitative investigation, clients described the service model as providing compassionate, predictable, and flexible care.

A few studies describe—but few evaluate—mobile services that specifically address the needs of individuals who are involved with the criminal-legal system (Islam & Conigrave, 2007; Krawczyk et al., 2019; Taweh et al., 2021). For example, Krawczyk et al. (2019) describe a mobile service that assists people involved in the criminal-legal system outside Baltimore City Jail by providing low-threshold buprenorphine treatment. While they describe the service and its clientele, there is no evaluation of the model. Similarly, the authors Dauria et al. (2024) describe a mobile van service—a part of the Rethinking Incarceration and Empowering Recovery (RIvER) Clinic—piloted during the COVID-19 pandemic in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania The RIvER Clinic provides medical and social services for adults leaving correctional facilities, including “…primary care services, substance use (SU) treatment, overdose prevention, financial support, [and] mental health care…” (Dauria et al., 2024, p. 421) in addition to peer recovery specialist services. As with the study by Krawczyk et al. (2019), the authors describe preliminary outcomes regarding client visits and demographic characteristics (Dauria et al., 2024) but do not evaluate the service.

Given the novel nature of mobile services and particularly mobile services that cater to individuals leaving custody, it is important to gather the perspectives of interest holders that are delivering these innovative interventions to understand barriers they experience in service delivery and how they maneuver to enhance service delivery and engagement. This information is important, not only for the service itself to enhance service delivery, but to provide information to the field of practice on pitfalls and bright lights in service delivery. There are a host of systemic and structural factors that can affect service delivery, including for example, how federal, state, provincial, and municipal funding is allocated as well as relationships between community agencies who deliver services and ministries responsible for the release of people from correctional institutions. These external forces coupled with internal workforce issues can affect the stability of community-based services. The purpose of this article is thus to describe the internal and external forces that influence one particular mobile service. To do this, we used the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats Matrix (SWOT) to design a needs-assessment and conducted a focus group with a small complement of agency staff who worked at the mobile service. This service trailer was located next to a superjail in Ontario, Canada. Below we describe the reentry service and discuss key themes derived from the perspectives of service providers.

Method

Setting

In April 2019, the John Howard Society of Toronto (JHS-T) began service delivery out of a mobile trailer located in the parking lot of the Toronto South Detention Centre (TSDC), a superjail detaining adult men and some transgender people who are on remand (awaiting to appear before the courts) or sentenced to 2 years less a day (Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2020). Designed to support men immediately at release from the TSDC, the Mobile Reintegration Services Trailer provides connections and warm referrals to housing, mental health, and substance treatment services, both within the JHS-T and across the Greater Toronto Area. The service also offered clothing, food/snacks, public transit tokens, access to email, phone charging, peer support worker accompaniment to services in the community, overdose prevention information, harm reduction education and tools, and naloxone kits. The TSDC and JHS-T mobile service operate in a suburb of Greater Metropolitan Toronto, which is a service and transit desert (Toronto, 2017). The JHS-T is an independent community-based service not affiliated with the TSDC.

Study Design, Recruitment, and Data Collection

Two coauthors (FIM and AM) conducted the focus group in April 2022 with three JHS-T staff who were involved with mobile service delivery. The research was scheduled for 2019–2020 but was delayed due to the closure of the service during the pandemic. We designed a needs-assessment using the SWOT matrix/methodology which allowed for an exploration of internal strengths and weaknesses of the mobile model as well as the external opportunities and threats facing the mobile service. The small complement of staff working at the service contacted the research team directly to participate in the study (note that the trailer was a small space and could not accommodate more than 2–3 onsite staff). Each received a $40 e-gift card or e-transfer for their participation. We conducted a 90-minute focus group using a discussion guide with four sets of open-ended questions aligned with the four dimensions of SWOT (see Supplementary File). The focus group was audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Participants provided informed written consent. The Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board [REB #19–334] approved the study.

Data Analysis

Four coauthors (HA, IF, SH, and SZ) independently coded one of four parts of the focus group data, which were thematically divided by service strengths, weaknessess, opportunities and threats, according to the focus group discussion guide and guiding methodology (Supplementary File). We conducted a thematic content analysis of the data (Hsieh & Shannon, 2005, p. 1278), combining a deductive approach—beginning with SWOT as a priori and orienting categories of analytical interest—and inductive approach—identifying emerging analytical patterns and themes within and across the SWOT categories to make sense of the data. In group meetings, the coauthors reviewed and discussed the emerging themes and codes in the SWOT analysis. A single coauthor (HA) integrated and refined those themes and codes into the analytical categories and narratives that structure the results. The data supporting the findings of this study are available within this article.

Results

Strengths

Drawing on the SWOT framework, we use the term “strengths” to refer to the key elements of program design and delivery that provide the greatest value to clients and staff and promote service reach and impact. Focus group participants identified three primary strengths of the Mobile Reintegration Services Trailer: (1) proximity to population, (2) peer-led service delivery, and (3) immediate basic supports.

Proximity to Population

Participants identified the trailer's proximity to the TSDC as a major strength of the mobile service model. For instance, participants discussed the visibility of the trailer to individuals being admitted to the detention center and the opportunity for staff to connect with individuals while they were in custody to promote mobile service awareness and access:

…you see the trailer as you’re coming into the jails and we talk about the trailer and the folks at the trailer while you’re incarcerated. Many of our programs there's opportunities for us to bring up the expectation or the opportunity that you can access the trailer upon release. So, we have the accessibility and we have the availability with folks that are inside the jails being able to quote-on-quote sell individuals on the benefits of connecting. (P1)

Participants felt that the proximity of the mobile service to the detention center improved service access upon release (as compared to the former brick-and-mortar location of the reintegration service, located a few blocks away from the detention center). One respondent recalled their ability to “see a lot more” clients immediately upon release at the mobile service and added that the sound of the jail door closing would prompt staff to check in with anyone who might have just been discharged:

…once [the service] was at the trailer you would see a lot more because we’re right kind of located outside of A&D [admissions and discharge] and like you can usually hear when the door kind of would close so you could kind of go check and see so [the service] was definitely way more visible that way. (P3)

Respondents also described the numerous risks clients faced upon release that may contribute to further criminal-legal involvement, including returning to housing precarity, SU, and neighborhoods and networks that threatened client safety, underscoring the importance of rapid connections to support upon release. For example, one individual emphasized the importance of rapid access to naloxone at the trailer, for some clients would not be comfortable asking for it from correctional officers:

…when I do speak with clients on the unit not everyone is going to feel comfortable asking…the correctional officers at admissions and discharge upon release for naloxone…so having those supplies right when they get out before they even get to a shelter, before they take the bus to go to wherever they’re going I think is an asset. (P2)

Peer-led Service Delivery

Participants identified peer-led service delivery as another strength of the mobile service. A substantial body of literature exists to support the positive impact of peer support workers for harm reduction services (Cos et al., 2020; LeBel, 2007; Ray et al., 2021). Studies suggest that the use of peer workers who possess experiences of social marginalization that are similar to the experiences of their clients can improve outcomes related to reach of services, their accessibility, and quality (Chang et al., 2021).

The JHS-T employed individuals with previous lived experience of involvement in the criminal-legal system to provide tailored and relevant support to clients visiting the mobile service. Peer workers helped clients feel comfortable to discuss needs and access services:

…the good thing was just like having peer staff there…being able to have those conversations in a very non-judgmental way, a very open way where if [clients] wanted to ask for supplies you know they felt comfortable to do so in most cases. (P3)

Peer workers communicated health-related knowledge to clients in ways that were understandable and credible, such as providing harm-reduction education to clients in “layman's terms”:

…we provide a level of knowledge when you come out of the institution and you connect with the trailer we’re able to explain…in layman's terms cause again [the staff are] peers that…your body is not, or may not be ready to go back to that degree of usage and it could be more harmful or detrimental. (P1)

Respondents also identified the mobile service's employment of people who have been involved in the criminal-legal system—who may otherwise face difficulties finding employment—as “one of the biggest benefits” of the service (P1).

Immediate Basic Supports

Another strength of the mobile service was its provision of immediate basic support (e.g., clothing, transportation tokens, and food gift cards) to clients upon release, in addition to harm reduction and referral services. When asked about what clients have said are the most beneficial aspects of the service, we were told that the service provided ready access to basic needs items, particularly among those who repeatedly return to custody. One participant suggested that clients who returned to custody also typically returned to the mobile service because they were able to access basic needs items upon release in the past:

…[those clients] have been there previously and some of them asked me hey, do you still have those Tim cards? Do you have, will you have boots this winter? Will you have the jacket? Last time I got released I got a jacket… by speaking with the clients those who are out and in very frequently they know the service is there and they’ve been there in the past and received supports immediate needs items…and so they return. (P2)

Given the forms of social and economic marginalization that many face when they are released from custody, the mobile service's provision of basic needs items is especially pertinent for their criminal-legal involved client base. While respondents described the supply of basic needs items as a prominent aspect of the service that clients appreciated, this strength was not immune to external limitations such as a lack of funding (see Threats).

Weaknesses

“Weaknesses” refer to the key elements of program design and delivery that challenge service experience and impact. Participants pointed to two primary weaknesses of the mobile service model: (1) challenges to everyday comfort and convenience and (2) challenges to staff–client interaction and rapport.

Challenges to Everyday Comfort and Convenience

Operating out of a mobile service (in contrast to a “brick-and-mortar” model) meant that certain infrastructural features—running water and reliable internet—were not readily accessible. One client summarized the challenges of operating out of a mobile service:

…there are no washrooms; we have no running water so we have to bring in water. Sometimes…extreme weather…making sure that the generator is on and people aren’t cold or too hot. Sometimes having to go into the institution to use the bathrooms…we used to have to go to the Intermittent Centre. So it's not kind of ideal sometimes. The Wi-Fi [connection to the internet] gets kind of [weak and wonky]…those are like internal challenges for staff. (P3)

Another challenge was related to the location of the detention centre (and thus, the location of the mobile service), for it introduced transportation challenges and safety concerns for staff:

…being on [service street address] where it's, you know, the transportation is very limited; one bus periodically so just from a health and safety perspective having staff out there we were challenged by that. (P1)

Challenges to Staff–Client Interaction and Rapport

The limited capacity of the trailer—a “tight” space in which to squeeze three staff members plus clients—presented staff–client safety and rapport challenges. For example, one respondent described safety concerns associated with working in the small space and emphasized the need for de-escalation training to manage and mitigate risk:

From a health and safety perspective, if something's happening or something goes wrong inside of the trailer…that can potentially be problematic… There was a time at the old trailer where the backdoor didn’t open. It didn’t work and there was a client who became upset but…we had a male, a peer support worker who… just knew how to de-escalate that situation very well so I think having colleagues as well as just being trained in de-escalation especially in that small space is crucial. (P2)

Participants also discussed how working in a small space affects building rapport with clients, an issue that was raised during a discussion of differences between operating out of the mobile service compared to a previous brick-and-mortar model. One participant, having worked in both spaces, described her time at the brick-and-mortar location and the benefits of having a larger space:

I know when we had the [brick and mortar location] because it was a bigger space we had intake rooms… when speaking with [some clients], engaging with them, once that motivational interviewing begins they would sit and stay in those intake rooms which is when we did used to do those needs identification assessment tools sort of just very short, short-term case management. Some clients need that. They appreciate that. (P2)

Another agreed, “…we had a lot of people drop in that would return [to the brick-and-mortar location]” (P3), which afforded opportunities to develop deeper, more sustained service provider–user relationships and rapport than the mobile service model would allow:

…there's one individual that used to come there and he…needed just a safe place to sleep because he was on the street and he actually…he's in our Homes for Good Program so there were cases where we could do like that deeper kind of work…and then…we used to take phone calls at that location and develop rapport…so that model worked for that piece. (P3)

The above examples of this “deeper kind of work” (P3) occurred in the context of the brick-and-mortar service model where clients could remain in the physical space for longer periods. One participant described this contrast—between the larger space and smaller mobile service—as a compromise. “The trailer is really good for immediate [services] but it is hard to really [develop rapport]…because it's in that tight space” (P3).

Opportunities

“Opportunities” refer to the financial, political, and social contexts, conditions, and contingencies external to the program that could contribute to its future expansion and sustainability. Participants identified two primary opportunities for the mobile service model: (1) expanding to other locations and (2) leveraging community partnerships.

Expanding to Other Locations

Respondents detailed several ways in which the service could expand its reach. One suggested that if the service “becomes [fully] mobile,” gaining the ability to travel to other locations, it would enhance its reach and impact:

I would like to see a space where [the service] becomes mobile. We could then identify what days or what times…we need to be at Toronto South [superjail] and maybe…now we can transport clients down to the shelter[s] instead of jumping on the transit with them. (P1)

As suggested by the same individual, an additional option to expand service reach would be to mirror the current service at the TSDC site at the Toronto East Detention Centre located in the east end of the city, either situating a second mobile service at this site or by allowing the current mobile service to travel between two detention centers:

I think we need to also embrace the very realistic possibility of having Toronto East Detention Centre be a part of what we do at Toronto South Detention Centre. So, getting the East Detention on board allowing the trailer to be mobile…or maybe even having another trailer there with a same model. (P1)

Both opportunities—developing the service so that it may travel to alternate locations and working with the Toronto East Detention Centre—have the potential to magnify the positive impact of the mobile service for clients.

Leveraging Community Partnerships

Participants spoke of the importance of collaborating with community agencies to support clients in custody and the possibility of pursuing more collaboration:

…building some more partnerships especially with other organizations that are going inside [the detention center] and trying to work together to support clients. I find when I’ve been…case managing with other organizations supporting them as a team and…not every organization can offer it all so kind of…working with agencies to support somebody has been highly effective. (P2)

This person also noted an opportunity for potential collaboration with shelters to designate short-term beds for clients in response to inadequate shelter accommodation and housing for clients who have been released from custody:

…I wish we could have beds designated short-term beds that were strictly for people upon release…we hear from the community re-integration officers, we hear it from the social workers you know everybody is looking for housing or that upon release. A lot of times they don’t feel safe going to some of the shelters you know that are in centered downtown locations and those are you know high-use and stuff…especially Toronto right now…it's very hard to find a bed [Laugh] unfortunately…that's where I think an opportunity could be is having an immediate service at least for three days until they can get into another shelter. (P2)

Threats

“Threats” refer to the external factors that have or are expected to negatively impact the service. Specifically, these factors may threaten the sustainability of the service or constrain opportunities for improvement. Participants identified two primary threats to the growth and sustainability of the mobile service: (1) funding sources and (2) release challenges.

Funding Sources

The biggest threat to the mobile service was funding. Participants described a few funding-related challenges and threats. One threat was overreliance on a single source of funding for the trailer:

Funding is something that is not guaranteed so we would definitely need to be actively pursuing funding…. I think I’ll put an asterisk beside funding because that one is probably our biggest threat right now…I think right now we’re at a one funding…source. (P2)

Respondents also illustrated the ways in which limited funding has challenged the service. For instance, limited funding constrains JHS-T's capacity to hire staff and expand the operating hours of the service:

The funding also is another concern… from a weakness perspective the limitation in funding also reduces the accessibility to hire more staff. (P1)

…[given] our ability to staff…we can go maybe 2:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. but we’re missing all of the individuals that are being released in the morning and because [the detention center] release[s] on a 24-h cycle we’re missing everybody after 9:00 p.m. (P1)

That's a lot [of people]. (P3)

While the provision of basic needs items was an important aspect of the service, the availability of these items was contingent upon adequate funding. The external threat of limited funding meant that the service could not provide consistent resources to clients:

From a client perspective… it's our resources. Sometimes we have clothing, sometimes we don’t. Sometimes we run out of tokens, sometimes we run out of cigarettes so being able to provide them with a consistent degree of you know clothing and tokens and some of the other things that they would require… our funding is geared specifically for harm reduction supplies but historically we’ve been able to, through other programs we’ve been able to leverage water, clothing, cigarettes, tokens; nothing, none of which we’re funded for through this particular program's scope. (P1)

One individual raised the concern of how losing funding coupled with competition with other social service agencies may result in the loss of the trailer space:

…if for some reason we don’t have funding…we lose that trailer. Any other…service agency they’re going to swoop in very quickly so…if we for whatever reason lost that [funding] any other social service agency will swoop in no problem. (P2)

Release Challenges

Participants shared with us the unpredictable nature of client releases. Even when clients are granted a planned release on a particular date, the timing of that release is often unclear or within a window of several hours. For example, participants may receive information that a client will be released “between 11:00 and 2:00” (P3):

[Detention Centre] advise that they’re not in the position to confirm when folks are going to be discharged. So, the lack of our ability to gain insight into the release plan or the discharge time becomes a major weakness for our ability to connect [with clients]…we don’t know the number of clients that we lose contact or lose access to based on us not knowing when they’re being released. (P1)

One respondent said that when a client is set to be released after operating hours, staff will leave a bag of basic needs items “behind the wheel of the trailer” in place of providing in-person services (P2). While this may serve as a temporary solution, one participant expressed the significance of missing clients that are released at late hours in a remote area without overnight supports:

Because to tell you the truth even if we’re open from 9:00 to 10:00 [at night]…people are being released even after… those are actually the biggest gaps and the most important because they’re getting released without supports at a time where there's no…not a lot of things are open…if we were more privy to like when like okay, these people are on the bail list, they’ll be released between… at least give us a time [Laugh] range then we could be more proactive and it's just really hard. We’re just waiting. We don’t know…there's no consistency…it's really hard to reach especially those ones that probably need it the most. (P3)

Staff spoke about gaps in client reach as a pain point of the service; what is unknown is the number of clients who were not able to access the service due to unpredictable and/or late release times. Participants expressed a desire to develop their relationship with TSDC to enhance service reach and impact within the context of client release.

Discussion

This needs-assessment uncovers key considerations for the JHS-T mobile reentry service in Ontario, Canada, from the perspectives of staff. Service strengths included the mobile service's proximity to the TSDC, the peer support worker program, and provision of basic needs items. Participants characterized service weaknesses as trade-offs inherent in the mobile service model, including staff challenges with infrastructural inconveniences as well as limitations in their approach to client engagement due to the small trailer space. Untapped opportunities included expansion of the service by pursuing a fully mobile service model as well as a reimagining of important partnerships with other community agencies. The overarching threats that concerned participants pertained to limited funding and unpredictable releases of clients from the TSDC making it challenging to know when the mobile service should be staffed—especially since releases can happen late at night.

Aligned with previous research, the findings of this investigation point to the potential for low-barrier reentry services to meet the needs of those released from custody. For example, a handful of qualitative studies suggest that individuals face difficulties during reentry due to a lack of coordination between correctional facilities and service providers, as well as stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings (Kendall et al., 2018). The current study participants describe the trailer service as an accessible and nonjudgmental environment for harm reduction support and basic needs. Given the complex health and social needs of those leaving custody (Begun et al., 2016; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2016, 2018; McLuhan et al., 2023; Semenza & Silver, 2022), it is imperative that reentry services work to address the challenges commonly experienced at reentry.

In addition, one of the primary strengths of the service was the proximity of the trailer to the TSDC. Previous research has discussed harm reduction services that are proximal to their target communities and how they may help to minimize barriers to care. For example, Krawczyk et al. describe the “case for expanding mobile buprenorphine” treatment, especially for those leaving custody, citing that compared to fixed-site programs, mobile methadone treatment programs have previously retained vulnerable patients for longer, including those facing homelessness (Greenfield et al., 1996; Hall et al., 2014; Krawczyk et al., 2019, p. 2). Although the mobile trailer described here does not travel to other locations, its proximity to the TSDC provides a unique opportunity for service providers to meet clients where they are. This eliminates the need for clients to travel to a fixed site—one of the primary selling points of mobile service models broadly. Through coordination between the TSDC and the JHS-T, service providers were able to discuss the trailer with clients in custody, reach clients upon release, and provide warm referrals to services to facilitate continuity of care in the community. Previous research describes reentry as a “…period characterized by poor continuity of care” and notes the importance of continuity of care as an essential part of long-term community reintegration (Binswanger et al., 2012; Kendall et al., 2018, p. 2).

Implications for Practice

Research suggests inadequate discharge planning may negatively affect a client's access to the services they require (Binswanger et al., 2011; Hu et al., 2020). Given the findings of this investigation, the development of comprehensive client release planning may enhance the impact of similar services that work closely with correctional facilities. With relevance to this study particularly for the Ontario jurisdiction, a partnership between the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Human Services Justice Coordinating Committee announced in 2023 will see to the creation of Community Reintegration Planning Tables at four correctional facilities in Ontario (Lakovic, 2023). The Planning Tables are intended to “…support a person-centered, collaborative, multidisciplinary and multisectoral approach to reintegration planning and support for high needs individuals being released from correctional institutions” (Lakovic, 2023, para. 1). A longer-standing example of reentry services includes link-worker programs piloted and evaluated in the United Kingdom. Designed with a special focus on complex needs and traumatic brain injury (Ramos et al., 2018), these programs seek to establish rapport with clients while they are incarcerated and facilitate the transition from custody to community (Chitsabesan et al., 2015; Glorney et al., 2018).

Strengths and Limitations

We note several strengths of the current study. First, the goal was to examine the JHS-T Mobile Reintegration Service Trailer—a unique service model for people leaving custody; these types of interventions are scarce in the reentry research literature. Notably, existing studies of reentry programs focus mainly on fixed-site/brick-and-mortar services (Barrenger et al., 2021; Kendall et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2014), while studies on van- or trailer-based programs are limited. Even more limited are evaluations of mobile services. The small set of studies on mobile services—whether explicitly focused on criminal-legal involved populations or not—often center on opioid use disorder treatments (Bartholomew et al., 2022; Hall et al., 2014; Islam & Conigrave, 2007; Krawczyk et al., 2019; Mema et al., 2019). This article discusses a novel empirical case that simultaneously addresses these literature gaps. The unique intersection of mobile service research and reentry service research sheds light on a promising, cross-sectoral approach to addressing the challenges people face when leaving custody.

Additionally, this needs-assessment contributes to a small body of literature on reentry services (Kendall et al., 2018; Wright et al., 2014), using a SWOT analysis to assess service efficacy, sustainability, and scalability, a focus often disregarded or backgrounded in recidivism-focused reentry program evaluations (Barrenger et al., 2021). Although the SWOT method is rarely used in reentry research it can provide practical information for interest holders—including other researchers interested in this area of work, service providers in the field, and policymakers. Investigations that provide lessons learned and recommendations for improvement may play a crucial role in the design, development, implementation, and evaluation of similar mobile services.

We also note several limitations of this research. The data were derived from a focus group of three staff from the JHS-T mobile service. While this sample size is small, the number of staff working at the mobile service was not much larger and the SWOT analysis revealed rich data with a wide-ranging set of themes. Furthermore, the findings provide many insights from the perspectives of staff at the mobile service but lack direct insights into the client experience which is a direction of future research. Although the scope of the needs-assessment excludes data from service users, the results highlight service SWOT from an essential staff perspective. Participants provided valuable insights based on intimate knowledge of service delivery within the mobile service.

Conclusion

Upon release from jail, individuals contend with an abrupt transition from custody to community (Hu et al., 2020; Kouyoumdjian et al., 2018) that often includes challenges with continuity of healthcare, housing instability, social support, and underemployment (Kendall et al., 2018). Addressing these challenges requires comprehensive reentry programs that facilitate a safer transition to the community (Kendall et al., 2018). The cycle of (re)incarceration not only leaves people to contend with trauma, stigma, and physical and mental health challenges (Kouyoumdjian et al., 2016; McLuhan et al., 2023) but it also generates significant financial costs. The cost of Federal incarceration in Canada is upward of $100,000 annually or $314 daily per incarcerated person (PSC, 2017; Segel-Brown, 2018). Effective programs are needed to support the successful reintegration of those leaving custody. Mobile reentry programs may provide an innovative approach to addressing the complex needs of individuals entangled within the criminal-legal system (Krawczyk et al., 2019). Further evaluative work in this area is needed to expand the evidence-base on existing reentry services while informing the development of future services.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-tpj-10.1177_00328855251355503 - Supplemental material for Rapid Reentry Resources: Needs Assessment of a Mobile Reentry Service Trailer for People Leaving a Superjail

Supplemental material, sj-pdf-1-tpj-10.1177_00328855251355503 for Rapid Reentry Resources: Needs Assessment of a Mobile Reentry Service Trailer for People Leaving a Superjail by Hodman Abukar, Arthur McLuhan, Idin Fakhrjahani, Sherry Hao, Shahroze Zafar, Madison ford, and Flora I. Matheson in The Prison Journal

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the staff at John Howard Society Toronto, including those involved with the mobile reintegration service who shared their experiences to inform this article. Special thanks to the staff from John Howard Society of Toronto for support with participant recruitment.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Government of Ontario and the Ontario Trillium Foundation [SD104983]. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. https://otf.ca; . All authors declare there are no conflicts of interest to disclose.

ORCID iDs

Hodman Abukar

Arthur Mcluhan

Idin Fakhrjahani

Sherry Hao

Shahroze Zafar

Madison Ford

Flora I. Matheson

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Hodman Abukar, BA, is a law student at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. She is a research assistant with MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto. Her interests include knowledge translation of criminal-legal and gambling research.

Arthur McLuhan, PhD, is senior research associate at MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto. A sociologist of culture and interaction, he employs qualitative methods to examine the patterns of interaction that shape involvements, identities, and inequities.

Idin Fakhrjahani, BMSc, is a master's student at the Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto. With education in epidemiology and biostatistics, he applies statistical methods to derive meaning from data and understand the experiences of marginalized populations.

Sherry Hao, MPH, is a research assistant at the Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Clinical Public Health Division, University of Toronto. She has extensive experience in applied health research and advocacy for people experiencing homelessness, criminal justice involvement, and interpersonal violence.

Shahroze Zafar, BSc, is a law student at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, and a research assistant at the MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto. He is interested in research-based solutions that improve outcomes for people with complex needs and lead to long-term legal reforms.

Madison Ford, MPH, is a research coordinator at the MAP Centre for Urban Health Solutions, Unity Health Toronto, focusing on projects supporting individuals with traumatic brain injury involved in the Ontario criminal legal system.

Flora I. Matheson, PhD, is scientist and Chair of Housing, Homelessness and Health, Unity Health Toronto, and associate professor, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto. She co-designs solutions with communities facing harms associated with disordered gambling and criminal-legal involvement.

References

Barrenger

S. L.

Kriegel

Canada

K. E.

Blank Wilson

(2021). What gets measured in reentry research? A scoping review on community reentry from jail and prison for persons with mental illnesses. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(3), 259–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854820983844

Bartholomew

T. S.

Andraka-Cristou

Totaram

R. K.

Harris

Doblecki-Lewis

Ostrer

Serota

D. P.

Forrest

D. W.

Chueng

T. A.

Suarez

(2022). “We want everything in a one-stop shop”: Acceptability and feasibility of PrEP and buprenorphine implementation with mobile syringe services for Black people who inject drugs. Harm Reduction Journal, 19(1), 133. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-022-00721-6

Begun

A. L.

Early

T. J.

Hodge

(2016). Mental health and substance abuse service engagement by men and women during community reentry following incarceration. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 43(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0632-2

Binswanger

I. A.

Nowels

Corsi

K. F.

Glanz

Long

Booth

R. E.

Steiner

J. F.

(2012). Return to drug use and overdose after release from prison: A qualitative study of risk and protective factors. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 7(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1940-0640-7-3

Binswanger

I. A.

Nowels

Corsi

K. F.

Long

Booth

R. E.

Kutner

Steiner

J. F.

(2011). “From the prison door right to the sidewalk, everything went downhill,” a qualitative study of the health experiences of recently released inmates. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 34(4), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.07.002

Chang

Shelly

Busz

Stoicescu

Iryawan

A. R.

Madybaeva

de Boer

Guise

(2021). Peer driven or driven peers? A rapid review of peer involvement of people who use drugs in HIV and harm reduction services in low- and middle-income countries. Harm Reduction Journal, 18(1), 15–15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-021-00461-z

Chitsabesan

Lennox

Williams

Tariq

Shaw

(2015). Traumatic brain injury in juvenile offenders: Findings from the comprehensive health assessment tool study and the development of a specialist linkworker service. Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 30(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.1097/HTR.0000000000000129

Cooper

H. L. F.

Bossak

Tempalski

Des Jarlais

D. C.

Friedman

S. R.

(2009). Geographic approaches to quantifying the risk environment: Drug-related law enforcement and access to syringe exchange programmes. International Journal of Drug Policy, 20(3), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2008.08.008

Cos

T. A.

LaPollo

A. B.

Aussendorf

Williams

J. M.

Malayter

Festinger

D. S.

(2020). Do peer recovery specialists improve outcomes for individuals with substance use disorder in an integrative primary care setting? A program evaluation. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 27(4), 704–715. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-019-09661-z

10.

Dauria

E. F.

Lapinski

Hawk

Egan

J. E.

Venkat

Robertson

(2024). RIvER clinic: Rethinking incarceration and empowering recovery—an innovative postincarceration care delivery model implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 30(3), 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000001877

11.

Glorney

Jablonska

Wright

Meek

Hardwick

Williams

(2018). Brain injury linkworker service evaluation study: Technical report .

12.

Greenfield

Brady

J. V.

Besteman

K. J.

De Smet

(1996). Patient retention in mobile and fixed-site methadone maintenance treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 42(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/0376-8716(96)01273-2

13.

Groot

Kouyoumdjian

F. G.

Kiefer

Madadi

Gross

Prevost

Jhirad

Huyer

Snowdon

Persaud

(2016). Drug toxicity deaths after release from incarceration in Ontario, 2006-2013: Review of coroner's cases. PLoS One, 11(7), e0157512. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157512

14.

Hall

Neighbors

C. J.

Iheoma

Dauber

Adams

Culleton

Muench

Borys

McDonald

Morgenstern

(2014). Mobile opioid agonist treatment and public funding expands treatment for disenfranchised opioid-dependent individuals. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 46(4), 511–515. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2013.11.002

15.

Herbert

C. W.

Morenoff

J. D.

Harding

D. J.

(2015). Homelessness and housing insecurity among former prisoners. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 1(2), 44–79. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4762459/pdf/nihms-729845.pdf. https://doi.org/10.7758/RSF.2015.1.2.04

16.

Hill

Zurakowski

Bennet

Walker-White

Osman

J. L.

Quarles

Oriol

(2012). Knowledgeable neighbors: A mobile clinic model for disease prevention and screening in underserved communities. American Journal of Public Health, 102(3), 406–410. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300472

17.

Hsieh

H. F.

Shannon

S. E.

(2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732305276687

18.

Jurgutis

Edwards

O'Shea

Regenstreif

Bodkin

Amster

Kouyoumdjian

F. G.

(2020). “When you first walk out the gates…where do [you] go?”: Barriers and opportunities to achieving continuity of health care at the time of release from a provincial jail in Ontario. PLoS One, 15(4), e0231211. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0231211

19.

Islam

M. M.

Conigrave

K. M.

(2007). Assessing the role of syringe dispensing machines and mobile van outlets in reaching hard-to-reach and high-risk groups of injecting drug users (IDUs): A review. Harm Reduction Journal, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7517-4-14

20.

Jackson

L. A.

Strike

(2020). Harm reduction 'On the move': What is the role of environmental influences? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 31(2), 519–529. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2020.0039

21.

Kendall

Redshaw

Ward

Wayland

Sullivan

(2018). Systematic review of qualitative evaluations of reentry programs addressing problematic drug use and mental health disorders amongst people transitioning from prison to communities. Health & Justice, 6(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40352-018-0063-8

22.

Khanna

A. B.

Narula

S. A.

(2016). Mobile health units: Mobilizing healthcare to reach unreachable. International Journal of Healthcare Management, 9(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/20479700.2015.1101915

23.

Kouyoumdjian

F. G.

Cheng

S. Y.

Fung

Orkin

A. M.

McIsaac

K. E.

Kendall

Kiefer

Matheson

F. I.

Green

S. E.

Hwang

S. W.

(2018). The health care utilization of people in prison and after prison release: A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada. PLoS One, 13(8), e0201592. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6075755/pdf/pone.0201592.pdf. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201592

24.

Kouyoumdjian

Schuler

Matheson

F. I.

Hwang

S. W.

(2016). Health status of prisoners in Canada: Narrative review. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 62(3), 215–222. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27427562

25.

Krawczyk

Buresh

Gordon

M. S.

Blue

T. R.

Fingerhood

M. I.

Agus

(2019). Expanding low-threshold buprenorphine to justice-involved individuals through mobile treatment: Addressing a critical care gap. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 103, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2019.05.002

26.

Lakovic

T. F.

, Sara; Vena, Candace; Brahimi; Yasmine; Zimmer, Nolan. (2023). Community Reintegration Planning Tables Project Human Services and Justice Coordinating Committee Conference, Virtual. https://hsjcc.on.ca/community-reintegration-planning-tables-project-2023-11-15/

27.

LeBel

T. P.

(2007). An examination of the impact of formerly incarcerated persons helping others. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(1-2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509670802071485

28.

Lutze

F. E.

Rosky

J. W.

Hamilton

Z. K.

(2014). Homelessness and reentry: A multisite outcome evaluation of Washington State’s reentry housing program for high risk offenders. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(4), 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813510164

29.

McLuhan

Hahmann

Mejia-Lancheros

Hamilton-Wright

Tacchini

Matheson

F. I.

(2023). Finding help and hope in a peer-led reentry service hub near a detention centre: A process evaluation. PLoS One, 18(2), e0281760. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281760

30.

Mema

S. C.

Frosst

Bridgeman

Drake

Dolman

Lappalainen

Corneil

(2019). Mobile supervised consumption services in Rural British Columbia: Lessons learned. Harm Reduction Journal, 16, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12954-018-0274-2

31.

Ontario Human Rights Commission (2020). Report on conditions of confinement at Toronto South Detention Centre .

32.

PSC (2017). Corrections and conditional release: Statistical overview, 2016 (Cat. No.: PS1-3E-PD). P. W. a. G. S. Canada. https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2016/ccrso-2016-en.pdf

33.

Ramos

S. D.

Oddy

Liddement

Fortescue

(2018). Brain injury and offending: The development and field testing of a linkworker intervention. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(7), 1854–1868. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X17708351

34.

Ray

Watson

D. P.

Salyers

M. P.

Victor

Sightes

Bailey

Taylor

L. R.

(2021). Peer recovery services for persons returning from prison: Pilot randomized clinical trial investigation of SUPPORT. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 126, 108339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2021.108339

35.

Regis

Gaeta

J. M.

Mackin

Baggett

T. P.

Quinlan

Taveras

E. M.

(2020). Community care in reach: Mobilizing harm reduction and addiction treatment services for vulnerable populations. Frontiers in Public Health, 8, 501. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00501

36.

Rockwell

Des Jarlais

D. C.

Friedman

S. R.

Perlis

T. E.

Paone

(1999). Geographic proximity, policy and utilization of syringe exchange programmes. Aids Care, 11(4), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540129947811

37.

Segel-Brown

(2018). Update on costs of incarceration. Government_Canada. https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2018/dpb-pbo/YN5-152-2018-eng.pdf

38.

Semenza

D. C.

Silver

I. A.

(2022). Stuck in the cycle? Assessing a reciprocal model of incarceration, health, and relative risk over twenty-five years. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101963

39.

Taweh

Schlossberg

Frank

Nijhawan

Kuo

Knight

Springer

S. A.

(2021). Linking criminal justice-involved individuals to HIV, Hepatitis C, and opioid use disorder prevention and treatment services upon release to the community: Progress, gaps, and future directions. International Journal of Drug Policy, 96, 103283. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drugpo.2021.103283

40.

Toronto (2017). Central Etobicoke hub preliminary report. S. P. Toronto.

41.

Wright

B. J.

Zhang

S. X.

Farabee

Braatz

(2014). Prisoner reentry research from 2000 to 2010: Results of a narrative review. Criminal Justice Review, 39(1), 37–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016813501192

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.28 MB