The Reentry Partnership Initiative (RPI) was one of three early efforts by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to explore community-based models for offender reintegration. This article describes the RPI concept as developed in eight sites, and the issues that are encountered in reframing reentry to focus on community-oriented public safety goals. It begins with a discussion of the RPI concept and presents a reentry model that incorporates features identified by the researchers and practitioners as the core components of the RPI approach. Following a discussion of the methods used in the study, results of the sites' efforts to design and implement the reentry model are presented, including potential implications for future efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltschulerD., & ArmstrongT. (1994). Intensive aftercare for high-risk juveniles: A community care model (NCJ 144018). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
2.
AndrewsD., & BontaJ. (1998). The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing Company.
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2002). Probation and parole. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
ByrneJ. (1990). The future of intensive supervision probation. Crime and Delinquency36, 6–39.
5.
ByrneJ., & PattavinaA. (1992). The effectiveness issue: Assessing what works in the adult community corrections systems. In ByrneJ.LurigioA. & PetersiliaJ. (Eds.), Smart sentencing: The emergence of intermediate sanctions (pp. 281–303). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
6.
EnglishM. (2001, June). Introductory remarks: Reentry partnership development panel. Presentation at the Young Offender Initiative Grants Pre-Application Workshop, St. Louis, MO.
7.
FestingerD.S.MarloweD.B.LeeP.A.KirbyK.C.BovassoG., & McLellanA.T. (2002). Status hearings in drug court: when more is less and less is more. Drug and Alcohol Dependence68, 151–157.
8.
GottfredsonM., & HirschiT. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
9.
HolsingerA.LurigioA., & LatessaE.2001. Practitioner's guide to understanding the basis of assessing offender risk. Federal Probation65, 1, 46–50.
10.
MacKenzieD.L. (2000). Evidence-based corrections: Identifying what works. Crime and Delinquency37(4), 347–368.
11.
National Institute of Corrections. (2003). Thinking for a change. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
12.
National Institute on Drug Abuse. (1999). Principles of drug addiction treatment: A research-based guide. Rockville, MD: National Institutes of Health.
13.
PetersiliaJ. (1999). A decade with experimenting with intermediate sanctions: What have we learned?Perspectives, 23(1), 39–44.
14.
PetersiliaJ. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford Press.
15.
ProchaskaJ., & DiClementeC. (1986). Toward a comprehensive model of change. In MillerW. & HeatherN. (Eds.), Treating addictive behaviors: Processes of change. New York: Plenum Press.
16.
RhineE.HinzmanG.CorbettR.BetoD., & PaparozziM. (2001) The “broken windows” model of probation: A call for transforming community supervision. Perspectives, 30–34.
17.
SachwaldJ. (2000). Proactive community supervision: A plan for making Maryland communities safer. Baltimore, MD: Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services.
18.
ShermanL.GottfredsonD.MacKenzieD.EckJ.ReuterP., & BushwayS. (1997). Preventing crime: What works, what doesn't, what's promising: Report to Congress. Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs.
19.
SilvermanK.HigginsS.BroonerR.MontoyaC.ConeE.SchusterC. & PrestonK. (1996). Sustained cocaine abstinence in methadone maintenance patients through voucher-based reinforcement therapy. Archives of General Psychiatry53, 409–415.
20.
SimpsonD.D., & KnightK. (1999). TCU model of treatment process and outcomes in correctional settings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
21.
SimpsonD.D.WexlerH., & InciardiJ. (1999). Drug treatment outcomes for correctional settings, part 1. The Prison Journal79(3), 291–293.
22.
SteadmanH.J. (1992). Boundary spanners: a key component for the effective interactions of the justice and mental health systems. Law and Human Behavior, 16(1), 75–87.
23.
Surgeon General. (2000). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Washington, DC: Office of the Surgeon General.
24.
TaxmanF. (1998). Reducing recidivism through a seamless system of care: Components of effective treatment, supervision, and transition services in the community (NCJRS 171836). Washington, DC: Office of National Drug Control Policy.
25.
TaxmanF. (1999). Unraveling “what works” for offenders in substance abuse treatment services. National Drug Court Institute ReviewII(2), 93–134.
26.
TaxmanF. (2002). Supervision — exploring the dimensions of effectiveness. Federal Probation66(2), 14–27.
27.
TaxmanF., & BouffardJ. (2000). The importance of systems in improving offender outcomes: New frontiers of treatment I-integrity. Justice Policy Journal2(2), 37–58.
28.
TaxmanF., & ByrneJ. (2001). Fixing broken windows probation. Perspectives25(2), 22–30.
29.
TaxmanF.ByrneJ. M. & YoungD. (2003). Targeting for Reentry: Matching Needs and Services to Maximize Public Safety. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
30.
TaxmanF.SouleD., & GelbA. (1999). Graduated sanctions: Stepping into accountable systems and offenders. Prison Journal79(2), 182–204.
31.
TaxmanF.YoungD. & ByrneJ. M. (2003). Offender's Views of Reentry: Implications for Processes, Programs, and Services. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
32.
TaxmanF.YoungD.ByrneJ. M.HolsingerA. & AnspachD. (2003). From Prison Safety to Public Safety: Innovations in Offender Reentry. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
33.
ThannerM., & TaxmanF. S. (2003). Responsivity: The value of providing intensive services to high-risk offenders. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment24, 137–147.
34.
YoungD.ByrneJ. M., & TaxmanF. S. (2003). Engaging the community in offender reentry. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
