Public Perceptions and Housing Assistance for Reentrants

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12324
• Date: 01 August 2017
• Author: Eric Grommon
• Published date: 01 August 2017

EDITORIAL INTRODUCTION

EMERGENCY SHELTER HOUSING

INTERVENTIONS

Public Perceptions and Housing Assistance

for Reentrants

Examination of the Enduring Power of Stigmatizing Labels

Eric Grommon

Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis

Public opinion pertaining to whether the basic needs of individuals should be met

after release from prison is a fickle beast. On the one hand, citizens support the

general notion of providing services to help prepare individuals for release and to

facilitate reintegration (Garland, Wodahl, and Cota, 2016; Garland, Wodahl, and Saxon,

2017; Garland, Wodahl, and Schuhmann, 2013; Jonson and Cullen, 2015; Ouellette,

Applegate, and Vuk, 2016; Sundt, Cullen, Thielo, and Jonson, 2015; Thielo, Cullen,

Cohen, and Chouhy, 2015). On the other hand, the willingness to support the distribution

of services depends on the characteristics of the population receiving services (Garland et al.,

2016, 2017; Ouellette et al., 2016; Rade, Desmarais, and Mitchell, 2016), the proximity

of where services will be delivered in relation to respondents’ residences (Garland et al.,

2013, 2016, 2017; Rade et al., 2016), and the public finances employed to provide services

(Garland et al., 2013). Furthermore, the public is hesitant to provide services to reentrants

if other individuals without criminal records are also in need of similar forms of assistance

(Garland et al., 2013; Immerwhar and Johnson, 2002). In part, these contradictions are

a function of core values and beliefs (Garland et al., 2013), gaps between theoretical

principles and policies in practice (Brooks, Visher, and Naser, 2006; Jonson and Cullen,

2015; Tighe, 2010), and the technical nuts and bolts of survey data collections (e.g., item

or scenario construction, framing techniques, sampling strategies, data transformations,

and statistical models). Policy decisions are informed by public opinion (Canes-Wrone,

2015), but discrepant public preferences can drive a diverse collection of policy choices that

facilitate or undermine reentry transitions to local communities.

Direct correspondence to Eric Grommon, School of Public and Environmental Affairs, Indiana

University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 801 W. Michigan Street, BS 4067, Indianapolis, IN 46202 (e-mail:

egrommon@iupui.edu).

DOI:10.1111/1745-9133.12324 C2017 American Society of Criminology 827

Criminology & Public Policy rVolume 16 rIssue 3