Assessing Community Assets and Needs for (Re)Entry in Rural North Carolina: A Student-Led, Community-Engaged Approach

Background/Purpose: More than 7.5 million people (re)enter communities from jails or prisons in the United States each year, and a growing majority live in rural areas. Compared to urban areas, individuals (re)entering rural communities often have less access to services and resources and must travel farther to access them. However, there is limited research on strategies and assets that help meet their needs. Local Reentry Councils (LRC) are one such asset. LRCs are collaborative networks of people and organizations that aim to coordinate and enhance community-based services for people in (re)entry to enhance their stability in the community. This presentation will discuss findings from a community-engaged, student-led assessment of (re)entry assets, needs, and service gaps to inform the strategic priorities of a recently formed LRC in rural North Carolina.

Methods: All phases of the study were aligned with principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR). LRC members were engaged in developing research questions, outreach and engagement, interpreting findings, and disseminating results. Semi-structured interviews (n = 10) were conducted with community members who had professional, volunteer, or lived experience with (re)entry in the county, including court diversion and (re)entry staff, attorneys, probation staff, service providers, and people who (re)entered the community from prison or jail. Interviews focused on service needs, availability, and access; barriers to meeting needs; and recommendations to overcome barriers. Interview data were analyzed using rapid qualitative analysis (RQA) methods that aligned with published guidelines for ensuring rigor in RQA.

Results: Community assets identified by interview participants included the existing service array (e.g., medical and behavioral health care, vocational support, criminal legal system navigation, in-kind assistance), court officials that strive to minimize incarceration, community members working to enhance (re)entry supports, and organizational infrastructure upon which supports can be built. In terms of needs, participants identified housing, transportation, employment, and behavioral health care as the most important needs among people in (re)entry and the most difficult needs to meet, highlighting a gap in services. Needs were described as complex, interconnected, and complicated by bureaucracy; for example, an individual who has no transportation or internet access might find it especially challenging to obtain vital documents needed to apply for employment. Recommendations to enhance (re)entry supports included leveraging existing services to address gaps; expanding existing services (e.g., housing, treatment, and transportation); creating new initiatives (e.g., driver’s license restoration program); reducing behavioral health stigma; and building local capacity through cross-county collaboration.

Conclusions/Implications: CBPR methods’ emphasis on leveraging community strengths, building capacity, and turning research into action makes them ideal for community needs assessments meant to inform strategic priorities. Involving community members as collaborators in the research process positions them to take ownership of the findings and utilize them to benefit the community. Additionally, although this project focused on one rural community, the structural factors identified (e.g., transportation, service availability) are likely to influence (re)entry needs in other rural areas. Finally, this study demonstrates the viability of a student using CBPR and RQA methods to support a community's goals, on the community’s timeline.