Game Changer? The Impact of the Reentry Movement on Post-Prison Supervision

• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Date: 01 February 2020
• Author: Karol Lucken
• DOI: 10.1177/0887403418813615
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418813615

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(1) 58 –79

© The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403418813615

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Game Changer? The Impact

of the Reentry Movement

on Post-Prison Supervision

Karol Lucken1

Abstract

Prisoner reentry has been a dominant focus of correctional policy for roughly 2

decades. The strong current of reform that underlays this policy focus means that

present correctional practices and conditions should be noticeably different than

previous ones. An area where change should be readily observable is in pivotal reentry

environments, such as post-prison supervision (PPS). Whereas the reentry literature

has concentrated on documenting offender needs, promoting certain strategies, and

evaluating the effects of interventions or variables on post-prison recidivism, the

current study aims to document the sorts of changes, if any, that have occurred in PPS

practice. The impact of the reentry movement on PPS is measured using statewide

survey data from 286 PPS professionals with The Florida Department of Corrections.

Perceptions of the movement’s impact on supervision emphasis, workplace roles

and responsibilities, and resource allocation for services for returning offenders are

examined.

Keywords

community corrections, correctional policy, reentry, parole

Prisoner reentry is a correctional policy issue of great contemporary significance.

Mears and Cochran (2015) have remarked that, several decades ago, prisoner reentry

“barely registered in the public consciousness” (p. 1). Burke and Tonry (2006) have

further claimed that “interest in reentry is evidence of a virtual sea change in how com-

munities and corrections professionals think about prisons, offenders, and community

safety” (p. 7). This sentiment has been echoed by Garland and Wodahl (2014), who

call reentry a “full-fledged correctional movement that has transformed thinking about

correctional practice” (p. 400).

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA

Corresponding Author:

Karol Lucken, Associate Professor, Department of Criminal Justice, University of Central Florida,

HPA Building 1, P.O. Box 1600, Orlando, FL 32816, USA.

Email: karol.lucken@ucf.edu

813615CJPXXX10.1177/0887403418813615Criminal Justice Policy ReviewLucken

research-article2018

Lucken 59

A common thread in these various statements is the wedding of prisoner reentry to

the notion of correctional change or a movement. When used in this context, the term

reentry has been generally construed as a turning away from the get-tough era. The

presumed effect of this turning is that the once-dominant support for prison entry,

containing risk, and mass incarceration has now given way to support for the very

opposite. This new policy focus recognizes that most offenders will return to their

communities and that programs for meeting their needs before and after release are

essential to their success. Put differently, reentry as a movement marks what Visher

(2017) has called a “resurgence” of interest across research, policy, and practice in the

reintegration of offenders (p. 747).

In the correctional research, this interest has largely taken the form of documenting

offender challenges and needs, promoting certain prison and community-based strate-

gies to address these challenges and needs, and evaluating the impact of various treat-

ment and other interventions on post-prison recidivism. There has been less research

interest, however, in documenting actual change in pivotal reentry environments,

especially post-prison supervision (PPS). This relative disinterest is unusual as PPS

professionals are key overseers of the literal reentry process and, thus, well-positioned

to observe what changes, if any, have occurred in the name of the reentry movement.

The current study examines the impact of the reentry movement on PPS practice in

Florida. Roughly 33,000 inmates exit Florida’s prison system annually, with 33% of

those released being subject to some form of PPS (Florida Department of Corrections

Population Data, n.d.). To advance understanding of the implications of the reentry

movement for PPS practice, and ultimately released offenders, the study draws on

statewide survey data from PPS professionals throughout the ranks of the Florida

Department of Corrections (FDOC). Professionals’ perceptions of the movement’s

impact on several operational dimensions of PPS are examined. One dimension is the

importance workplace superiors place on the performance of certain activities in

supervising released offenders. Other dimensions include perceived changes in work-

place roles and responsibilities, and resource allocation for services for released

offenders.

Prior Literature

Research on reentry has evolved in several different directions. Much of the reentry

literature has accented the challenges facing returning offenders, with and without

PPS. These challenges involve access to housing, employment, legal identification,

and health and mental health care, just to name a few (Gaes & Kendig, 2003; Pager,

2003; Petersilia, 2003; Roman & Travis, 2004; Travis, 2000). With the goal of mitigat-

ing these challenges, the reentry literature has also advocated agency partnerships

(Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2001; Parent & Barnett, 2004), justice reinvestment (Clear,

2011), and the lifting of collateral sanctions and other stigmatizing policies (American

Bar Association, 2004; Pager, 2003; Uggen & Manza, 2002; Uggen, Manza, &

Behrens, 2004).