Offender reentry as correctional reform: finding the boundaries of meaning in post-prison supervision

ABSTRACT

The concept of offender reentry is seen as symbolic of correctional change. However, this acknowledgement belies the fact that the concept itself, and thus the parameters of that change, have not been well-defined. Several scholars consider this ambiguity in reentry’s meaning – beyond that of change – to be problematic for operating, evaluating, and sustaining efforts advanced in the name of reentry. When viewing these potential problems against claims of correctional change, the need to examine reentry’s meaning in an applied setting becomes all the more apparent. The current study does so from the perspective of post-prison supervision professionals employed with The Florida Department of Corrections. Survey questions explore reentry’s meaning on three dimensions. They include its status as a new guiding policy, its association with rehabilitation and other goals and activities, and organizational responsibility. The findings are interpreted within the context of understanding correctional change and future policy and research.

KEYWORDS:

• Offender reentry
• correctional reform
• community corrections

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. Parole eligibility contingencies have since been added including inmates who: (1) committed first degree murder, felony murder, or the crime of making, possessing, throwing, projecting, placing, or discharging a destructive device (or attempt of) prior to May 1994; (2) committed all other capital felonies prior to Oct.1995; (3) committed a continuing criminal enterprise prior to June 1993; (4) committed a murder of a law enforcement and other specified officers prior to Jan.1990; (5) murdered a judge prior to Oct. 1990; (6) committed a felony prior to Oct. 1983, or those sentenced ‘outside the guidelines’ for felonies prior to July 1984; and (7) received a habitual felony offender sentence prior to Oct 1988 (FDOC 2016).

2. A response category of ‘other’ was included in the 19-item questions, however, no useful data was provided. The item was usually left blank or included isolated or irrelevant responses.

3. Between 2003 and 2008, the FDOC implemented a zero-tolerance policy for every type of violation of community supervision, minor technical violations included (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability 2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Karol Lucken

Karol Lucken is an Associate Professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Central Florida. She is author of Rethinking Punishment: Challenging Conventions in Research and Policy and co-author of American Penology: A History of Control Her work has appeared in Criminology & Public Policy, British Journal of Criminology, Law & Policy, Crime & Delinquency, and Critical Criminology.

Ryan Fandetti

Ryan Fandetti is a student in the Department of Psychology at the University of Central Florida.