This article explores a central finding from a process evaluation of a federal reentry court programme entitled the Supervision to Aid Reentry (STAR) programme in Philadelphia, PA, USA. Using inductive and deductive analyses, results revealed that the STAR programme helps participants build social capital by encouraging family involvement as well as the development of relationships among programme participants. Family involvement and relationships among participants were found to offer participants social and emotional support as well as access to felon-friendly employment opportunities.
AdamsWRothJ (1998) Federal Offenders under Community Supervision, 1986−1997. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
2.
Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008) BJS’ Federal Justice Statistics Resource Center. Available at: http://fjsrc.urban.org.
3.
ClearT (2007) Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. New York: Oxford University Press.
4.
ClearTRRoseDRRyderJA (2001) Incarceration and community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency47(3): 335–351.
5.
CloseDWAubinMAlltuckerK (2008) The District of Oregon Reentry Court: Evaluation, Policy Recommendations, and Replication Strategies. Portland, OR: US District Court of Oregon.
6.
ColemanJS (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital.The American Journal of Sociology94: S95–S120.
7.
CoteSHealyT (2001) The Well-being of Nations. The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
8.
FarrallS (2004) Social capital and offender reintegration: Making probation desistance focused. In: MarunaSImmarigeonR (eds) After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing.
9.
HarperR (2002) The Measurement of Social Capital in the United Kingdom. London: Office for National Statistics.
10.
LIFERS Public Safety Steering Committee of the State Correctional Institute at Graterford, PA (2004) Ending the culture of street crime. The Prison Journal84(4S): 48S–68S.
11.
LindquistCHardisonJLattimorePK (2003) Reentry Court Process Evaluation (Phase 1). Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.
12.
LynchJPSabolWJ (2001) Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
13.
McNeillF (2006) A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice6(1): 39–62.
14.
PetersiliaJ (1999) Parole and prisoner reentry in the United States. In: TonryMPetersiliaJ (eds) Prisons. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
15.
PetersiliaJ (2003) When Prisoners Come Home. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
PiehlAMLoBuglioSF (2005) Does supervision matter? In TravisJVisherC (eds) Prisoner Reentry and Crime in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
PortesA (1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern society. Annual Review of Sociology24: 1–24.
18.
RobertsDE (2004) The social and moral cost of mass incarceration in African American communities. Stanford Law Review56: 1271–1305.
