Complexities of Reentry in a Comparative Context : Non-Urban and Urban Inmates (WITHDRAWN)

Background:  Prison population has increased exponentially in the last three and half decades.  Every year a large number of these offenders are returning to communities. Some estimates suggest that 689,000 individuals are released from prison each year. At their return, ex-offenders oftentimes face many challenges like unemployment, homelessness, physical and behavioral health needs etc. which can hinder their successful transition from prison to communities. For positive post release reintegration into communities reentry initiatives are recommended and research suggests that post-release service utilization reduces the probability of reoffending and subsequent reincarcertation.

 Purpose: While many studies have examined ex-offenders post-release needs, service utilization, and subsequent implications for reoffending and recidivism in urban context very few studies have examined reentry in non-urban context. Re-entry challenges and service availability and utilization in non-urban and urban areas can be experienced differently.   Furthermore, little is known about services that offenders from urban versus non-urban areas utilized prior to and while incarcerated relative to the services these soon-to-be returning citizens would like to access post-release. This presentation focuses on re-entry needs, challenges, and service utilization in terms of employment, and behavioral and physical health of currently incarcerated individuals returning to either urban or non-urban locale soon.

Methods: Structured interviews were administered and cross sectional data was collected from individuals housed in 17 prisons and two community-based correctional facilities (CBCFs), from April 2012 through May 2014. Surveys were completed by 173 participants.  As the needs and experiences of inmates in prison and CBCF may be diverse, for the purpose of this research only respondents from prison system were included (N = 130). Bivariate analyses were used to determine differences between the two groups. Nonparametric McNamar’s test for paired data and chi square tests were done to examine significant differences between urban and non-urban participants.  

Results: Results suggest that in this sample there are significant differences in race/ethnicity, employment, primary source of income, type of crime, and length of sentencing between urban and non-urban respondents. Utilization of employment services among non-urban respondents overall decreased while in the prison but increased for urban respondents. Among both the groups respondents reported significantly increased intent to utilize all the six types of employment services post-release. For behavioral and mental health there was a significant increase in utilization of services while in prison for non-urban respondents but not for urban respondents. Also non-urban respondents utilized stress management and mental health services significantly more while in prison as compared to urban respondents. Both the samples identified only stress management to be significantly more utilized post-release. There were some variations in physical health indicators also among urban and non-urban respondents.  

Conclusions and Implications: Results indicate that locale matters as there are some differences between the two groups in terms of the services utilized pre-incarceration, while in prison, and to be utilized post release. Significant differences were also found between services utilized prior to incarceration and services inmates would like to utilize after release. These findings have implications for reentry initiative policies and practices.