Value Conflict and Public Opinion Toward Prisoner Reentry Initiatives

Abstract

The dramatic growth in the incarceration rate since the mid-1970s has unintentionally resulted in massive numbers of people being released from prison each year. Consequently, prisoner reentry initiatives are receiving greater attention than ever before. At this point few studies have looked at public support for reentry initiatives, and the existing ones have taken a rather general and atheoretical approach. The current study explores public opinion toward a wide range of reentry policies and practices through a value conflict framework. Results from a randomly selected, statewide sample in Missouri indicate that people take into account such values as social welfare, retribution, and self-interest when assessing their support for reentry measures. As reentry initiatives may struggle to attain legitimacy and resources without public support, a number of policy implications are discussed. These implications include informing the public of the need for servicing those with prior prison terms and communicating the value of housing assistance during reentry.

Keywords

risoner reentry criminal justice policy public opinion

Ever since the construction of the first prisons in the United States, the vast majority of prisoners admitted were later released. While this historical fact has been repeated over time, the social and economic consequences of prisoners reentering society have recently reached unprecedented proportions. In 1980, 170,000 people were released from prison in the United States (Lynch & Sabol, 2001); by 2009, this number more than quadrupled to 729,295 (West, Sabol, & Greenman, 2010). This growth in prison releases corresponds closely with the increasing number of people admitted to prison over the past 40 years (La Vigne & Mamalian, 2004; La Vigne, Mamalian, Thomson, & Watson, 2004; La Vigne, Mamalian, Travis, & Visher, 2003; Lynch & Sabol, 2001; Sabol & Couture, 2008). Ex-prisoners transitioning back to society have always faced significant obstacles that jeopardize postrelease success, such as housing and employment barriers, limited or blocked access to substance abuse and mental health care, and psychosocial adjustment difficulties (Garland, Wodahl, & Mayfield, 2011; Petersilia, 2000; Richie, 2001; for a review, see Urban Institute, 2006). What is different today is that the massive return of these offenders is placing enormous pressure on communities and criminal justice organizations and making these ex-prisoners increasingly vulnerable to failure (Clear, 2007; Lynch & Sabol, 2001; Petersilia, 2000; Urban Institute, 2006).

One of the areas given little attention in the discussions on prisoner reentry is whether the public supports prisoner reentry programs and services. Understanding public sentiment toward reentry programs is critical. Reentry services, given their primary beneficiaries (i.e., criminals) and proximity to the community, have the potential to elicit strong opinions among the public, and these opinions have the capacity to affect the longevity and efficacy of these programs in varying ways. There is substantial research to suggest, for example, that politicians and other policy makers are mindful of public attitudes when making decisions about the appropriation of public funds (Burstein, 2003; Nicholson-Crotty, Peterson, & Ramirez, 2009; Wlezien, 2004). Shifts in correctional policy and practice like the end of the industrial, for-profit prison during the Great Depression, the discontinuation of Pell grants for prisoners in the 1990s, and the increase in punitive punishments as part of “get tough” policy were influenced, at least in part, by changing public sentiments (Garland, 2002; Seiter, 2010). Considering the current economic environment, identifying specific areas of community support and opposition can be very beneficial for gaining important political leverage (Elrod & Brown, 1996). Furthermore, the modern reentry movement is founded on the belief that at the most fundamental level prisoner reentry is a community issue, which necessitates a collaborative response among correctional organizations and the communities to which inmates return (Byrne, Taxman, & Young, 2002; Travis, Solomon, & Waul, 2001). Understanding public views on reentry programs is an important step toward developing strong and lasting collaborations in the community. In addition, by knowing the nuances of public sentiment toward correctional proposals, information strategies can be undertaken to clarify misunderstandings and potentially overcome resistance (Elrod & Brown, 1996).

A few studies have addressed public opinion toward specific reentry measures. Krisberg and Marchionna (2006) analyzed data from a national Zogby poll and found that 70% of Americans supported reentry services both in prison and following release. Poll respondents overwhelmingly believed that various services were needed for postrelease success. Job training, drug treatment, mental health services, family support, mentoring, and housing were cited by a majority as “very important” to successful reintegration. Nearly 8 out of 10 Americans also supported the Second Chance Act, which is federal legislation that provides funding to help offenders as they return to society. A public opinion study in Massachusetts found that residents wanted new parolees fresh from prison to have support and supervision, and they favored a sequential release from prison involving transfer to lower security levels and then moving inmates to work release and halfway housing (Roberts, Doble, Clawson, Selton, & Briker, 2005). The Massachusetts citizens also supported the application of graduated sanctions in reentry, where parolees receive stricter supervision and sanctions for wrongdoings but not reincarceration for minor, first-time violations. While these studies are encouraging for advocates of prisoner reentry programming, focus group participants from Philadelphia indicated that support for prisoner reentry is not so clear cut (Immerwahr & Johnson, 2002). When asked to divide a hypothetical dollar of state revenue, participants overwhelmingly supported funding community reentry over institutional costs. On the other hand, when funding reentry was pitted against funding child care for the economically disadvantaged, little of the dollar went to reentry.

There is no question that attention to prisoner reentry has increased during the past two decades. For example, a flood of academic journal articles and government reports on prisoner reentry emerged, including detailed portraits of reentry in various cities by the Urban Institute. In addition, in 2010, US$114 million was appropriated for prisoner reentry initiatives in the Department of Justice as part of the Second Chance Act. Funding was directed at such initiatives as reentry demonstration projects, mentoring programs, reentry courts, and reentry-related substance abuse and criminal justice collaboration (Reentry Policy Council, 2011). This heightened attention and support of prisoner reentry reinforce the need for more extensive examinations of public opinion and reentry.

The current study advances existing knowledge on public support for reentry practices by addressing two primary gaps in the literature. First, unlike previous studies on perceptions of reentry initiatives, which have lacked a guiding theoretical rationale, the current study explores people’s attitudes through a value conflict framework. More specifically, support for reentry initiatives is examined in relation to values of social welfare, retribution, and self-interests. This study is also unique as it addresses specific reentry policies and practices unexamined in the past, such as support for vouchers, transitional housing by offender type, and demand-side versus supply-side employment assistance. A descriptive methodology is employed as it is necessary to compare responses across multiple items to determine if support levels change as value conflicts are introduced. Data are generated from a randomly selected, statewide sample drawn from Missouri, a state that is highly representative of the U.S. population on a number of key demographics.

Value Conflict and Public Opinion

The conceptual framework employed for this study is grounded in the understanding that attitudes toward social policies are often value driven (Feldman, 2003). As noted by Brewer and Gross (2005), “many citizens understand political issues in terms of values: When they think about a policy choice, they base their opinions on the connections that they draw between the issue and their core beliefs” (p. 930). Under this axiom, public support for policies such as public smoking bans or welfare reform can be understood as manifestations of underlying values such as economic self-interest or fundamental moral beliefs about protecting human health.

Public attitudes toward important social policies, including policies related to crime and justice, are rarely straightforward; rather, they tend to be complex and fluid (Alvarez & Brehm, 1995; Cullen, Fisher, & Applegate, 2000; Feldman, 2003). Much of this ambiguity stems from the diverse and often conflicting values these issues tend to inflame. As noted by Alvarez and Brehm (1995), “important political debates involve fundamentally tough questions, where deeply held and widely shared principles or values are in conflict” (p. 1055). In the abortion debate, for example, commonly held values such as respect for human life and the right of freedom from government intrusion often clash, leaving individuals in the precarious position of having to choose among policies that protect the life of a fetus and those that embrace the right of a woman to protect her own health and her right to choose.

How then do individuals resolve tensions that exist when confronted with situations that solicit support for policies that bring core values into conflict? The answer to that question comes from the understanding that not all values carry the same weight. Stated differently, while people may embrace a considerable number of values, they exist within a hierarchal structure in which certain values are given priority over others. As Feldman (2003) observed,

eople may think that, taken individually, ambition, success, responsibility, and social justice, are all desirable values. Yet one person may attach a higher priority to ambition and success while another person may see responsibility and social justice as more important. (p. 481)

This ordering of values provides the basis for resolving value conflict and allows individuals to determine their support for policies “where two or more value dimensions push the respondent in different directions” (Alvarez & Brehm, 1995, p. 1059). It is therefore imperative for research to explore support for social policies in a manner that recognizes the underlying conflicting values these polices tend to extract as it provides a more complete and rich understanding of public sentiment. Thus, more specific as opposed to global measures of support are needed.

Given the complex relationship between values and public attitudes, the important question here to consider is “What potentially conflicting values are likely to shape individual support for reentry policies?” To answer this question we rely on the substantial research that has been undertaken to tap public attitudes toward the punishment and sentencing of offenders. Much of this research, while not directly tied to prisoner reentry programs, provides valuable insight, as many of the same values that shape attitudes about various aspects of the correctional process will likely permeate attitudes about reentry specifically.

Existing public opinion research on punishment and corrections suggests that attitudes are shaped by a number of underlying values. Three of these values are especially relevant to our focus on prisoner reentry. These include social welfare, retribution, and self-interest. Definitions of these values are as follows:

Social Welfare: Concern for the safety and welfare of society;

Retribution: The belief that sufficient punishment is deserved for those that break the law;

Self-Interest: Concern for the immediate interests of the individual and those close to him or her.

The influence of social welfare values on public attitudes toward punishment and corrections is probably most visible in research focusing on attitudes toward rehabilitation as an appropriate sentencing goal and support for specific offender rehabilitation programs. It has been well documented that despite the law and order rhetoric that dominated political dialogue on crime and justice policy over the last 30 years, there remains robust public support for rehabilitation in correctional ideology and practice (Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan, 1996; Gerber & Engelhardt-Greer, 1996). This support, as articulated by Cullen and Moon (2002), can be attributed to the realization that “lawbreakers will eventually return to society and that rehabilitation is one of the few tools at the state’s disposal to make these offenders less dangerous, thus helping to protect the commonweal of the community” (p. 17). Thus, the presence of social welfare values suggests the public will support reentry programs inasmuch as these programs are viewed as promoting the collective good of society by assisting offenders in becoming productive and law-abiding citizens.

Public support for reentry programs will likely be tempered by the existence of retributive values, which, at least in certain circumstances, are likely to conflict with social welfare values. The presence of retributive values has been firmly established in research exploring public attitudes toward criminal offenders. Over the last several decades, there has been considerable evidence to suggest that the citizenry expects offenders to be held accountable for their actions through the imposition of stiff penalties (Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan, 1996). Overwhelming public support for three strike laws, the death penalty, and the propriety of incarceration for criminal offenders endorses the belief that the public expects offenders to pay a high price for their transgressions (Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan, 1996).

It might be argued that retributive values are less relevant in public attitudes toward reentry programs as those leaving prison may be viewed as having already paid their debt to society. There is reason to believe, however, that retributive attitudes do not completely subside after the inmate completes his sentence as is evidenced by at least modest public support for felony disenfranchisement laws (Dawson-Edwards, 2008; Heumann, Pinaire, & Clark, 2005; Pinaire, Heumann, & Bilotta, 2003). Pinaire and associates (2003), for example, found that while most respondents did not support permanent felony disenfranchisement, a majority did support laws that temporarily barred ex-prisoners from voting following their release from incarceration. Furthermore, this research reveals broader public support for disenfranchisement laws levied against individuals convicted of certain crimes such as violent offenders and sexual predators (Dawson-Edwards, 2008; Heumann et al., 2005; Pinaire et al., 2003), which suggests that support for these policies is grounded largely in retributive values.

Additional evidence for the existence of retributive values can be found in public support for the principle of least eligibility, which asserts that incarcerated offenders “are the least eligible or least deserving members of society for any free benefit from the government” (Applegate, 2001, p. 256). Applegate (2001), for example, found low public support for prison programs that provide goods and services such as college courses to inmates for free, which are only available to the law-abiding general public for a fee. Furthermore, Applegate found strong correlations between support for least eligibility principles and other punitive measures, suggesting that retributive values not only drive public support for strict penalties but also shape attitudes toward the appropriateness of providing publicly funded programs for criminal offenders. The concept of least eligibility seems especially relevant to understanding public opinion of prisoner reentry programs as many of these programs involve the use of public funds to provide services to returning inmates (e.g., job training, housing assistance, and medical care) that are not always freely available to the general public.

It is also important to note that the literature has shown that retributive attitudes are not uniform. More specifically, research reveals that retributive attitudes are shaped largely by characteristics of the crime and prior record of the offender (Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan, 1996; Reynolds, Craig, & Boer, 2009). The public fervently supports strict penalties for repeat offenders, violent criminals, and sex offenders, while they are more tolerant of rehabilitative programs and community-based sentencing alternatives for first-time offenders and those convicted of nonviolent offenses (Cullen et al., 2000; Reynolds et al., 2009). Given these findings, it might be expected that the influence of retributive values in public support for reentry programs will vary based on the nature of the crime and the offender’s criminal history.

One method of researching public opinion is to ask broad questions that seek to gauge global attitudes toward policy preferences. While ascertaining global support is important, it must also be realized that many correctional policies can affect the citizenry in very immediate and tangible ways. This is especially true of reentry policies, which, unlike many other correctional interventions, are often implemented not behind the closed doors of the institution but in the community at large. Thus, given the direct impact reentry policies can have on the citizenry, it is important to consider ways in which support for these programs may be mediated by values of self-interest.

One manner in which reentry policies might clash with self-interest values is economically through the assessment of higher taxes. It is one thing to support the general idea of correctional interventions such as reentry programs; it is quite another to support these programs even if it involves diverting more of one’s paycheck to the government coffers (Nagin, Piquero, Scott, & Steinberg, 2006). Prior research suggests that the majority of the public is willing to endure a higher tax burden to support programs that produce a future good, namely, to reduce recidivism (Mears & Mancini, 2006; Nagin et al., 2006; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010). Piquero and Steinberg (2010), for example, found that over 70% of respondents were willing to pay higher taxes to support juvenile rehabilitation programs that were found to decrease future offending. These findings suggest that public support for reentry programs in the face of higher taxes will be determined largely by the degree to which one’s individual economic contribution is viewed as an investment in programs that promote public safety and save money through reductions in recidivism.

Reentry programs have the capacity to conflict with values of self-interest in more far-reaching and profound ways than just increasing one’s tax obligation. Reentry programs, as mentioned above, are not carried out exclusively in the confines of the institution but exist in the cities and neighborhoods to which offenders return on their release. The proximity of reentry programs to the communities where respondents live and work may cause them to abandon their social welfare values in favor of values of self-interest. An individual, for instance, may see the broader societal value in a transitional housing program for returning prisoners; however, he or she may vehemently oppose its placement in his immediate community out of concern for declining housing values or the safety and security of his family. This phenomenon, often referred to as the NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) syndrome, has been shown to have a profound effect on public attitudes toward correctional programs (Brown, 1999, 2009; Wilton, 2000). Brown (1999) found that while more than half of respondents in her study favored treatment programs for sex offenders, nearly two thirds opposed the placement of a treatment program in their community. Thus, it may be expected that community support for reentry programs will fade as issues of proximity threaten values of self-interest.

In summary, the values conflict framework employed for this study proposes that public support for reentry programs will be shaped by a variety of underlying and potentially conflicting values. Furthermore, prior research on public attitudes toward sentencing and corrections suggests that the most salient among them are social welfare values, retributive values, and values of self-interest. In light of these diverse values, it is expected that the public on the whole will support the general concept of servicing ex-prisoners as they return to society. This expectation is linked to the social welfare value in that the public sees that helping ex-prisoners can increase the safety and welfare of society by reducing recidivism. It is also expected that support for prisoner reentry programs will diminish to the extent that values of self-interest and retribution conflict with social welfare concerns.

Method

Sample

One thousand residents of Missouri were selected into a random sample by Survey Sampling, Incorporated. In May 2008, a first wave of questionnaire packets was distributed to all sample members. The survey packets included a cover letter, questionnaire form, and a prepaid return envelope. Each recipient was notified in the cover letter about the purpose and importance of research on reentry and informed about confidentiality procedures. A single reminder letter was mailed to all sample members 1 week later. Questionnaire packets containing modified cover letters were sent again 5 weeks and 9 weeks after the initial packet mailing. At least 85 persons selected for the sample could not respond due to various factors like incorrect mailing addresses, physical illnesses, and death. In all, 386 surveys were returned. Considering the number of sample members who had the ability to respond, the response rate for this study was 42.2% ([386/915] × 100).

The sample had an average age of 55, 59% of participants were male, 92% white, and 36% had obtained a 4-year college degree or higher. U.S. Census Bureau figures indicate that the average age of Missourians is 46 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000). In addition, 51% of Missouri residents are female, 85% White, and 24% have earned a bachelor’s degree or more (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). As with many mail surveys (Maxfield & Babbie, 2009), our sample overrepresents those who are older, more educated, White, and male. To adjust for these differences, poststratification weighting procedures were employed (Lee, Forthofer, & Lorimer, 1989). The weighted results are reported in the findings section and corresponding table.

Instrument

The questionnaire sent to our sample members was divided into seven sections, with a total of 84 items. The majority of the questionnaire asked directly about opinions toward assisting people released from prison. The remaining sections dealt with demographics and various issues such as religious beliefs, community conditions, and fear of crime. Items examined for the current study only pertain to attitudes toward prisoner reentry. All of these items were measured through 6-point, Likert-type scales, ranging from 1 (disagree/oppose strongly) to 6 (agree/favor strongly). The questionnaire was piloted for face validity by giving it to students in college classes taught by the authors. Student respondents expressed no confusion or misunderstanding with any of the items during follow-up discussions.

Survey items examined here were constructed so that public opinion regarding various aspects of prisoner reentry policy and practice could be measured in the context of a value conflict framework. These items are partitioned into five categories based on the type of reentry initiative examined. The first category of items relates to support for prisoner reentry initiatives as a broad concept. More specifically, respondents were asked a series of questions about the importance and benefits of helping ex-prisoners adjust after their release from prison. The second group of items focuses specifically on employment-based reentry programs. It has been recognized that employment plays a key role in the successful reintegration of former prisoners. As noted by Travis et al. (2001), “studies have shown that having a job with decent wages is associated with lower rates of reoffending” (p. 31). Research, however, has consistently revealed that offenders do not fare well in the labor market (Freeman, 2003). Thus, a number of initiatives have been put forward to assist offenders in finding and maintaining employment on release.

Three subtypes of items pertaining to employment-based reentry programs were included in the survey. The first concentrates on measuring public support for employment-based reentry programs in general. The second set of items focuses on supply-side employment programs. Supply-side programs refer to those that are designed to improve the education and skills that recently released inmates offer potential employers. A large portion of ex-prisoners lack the education and job skills necessary to adequately compete in the labor market (Freeman, 2003; Harlow, 2003). Thus the employability of ex-prisoners is thought to be enhanced by providing them access to educational opportunities and job skill enhancement programs. The final employment-related items examine public support for demand-side employment programs. Demand-side programs refer to those initiatives that are intended to increase the willingness of employers to hire ex-prisoners. There is strong evidence to confirm that many employers are averse to hiring ex-offenders regardless of their particular skills or education (Holzer, Rapheal, & Stoll, 2002). Thus programs such as providing tax incentives to business that hire ex-prisoners and insuring employers for losses incurred by theft from former inmates have been proposed as ways to increase employers’ affinity for hiring recently released ex-prisoners (Legal Action Center, 2004; The McLaughlin Company, n.d.).

The third category of items relates to public support for housing programs. Housing has been recognized in the reentry literature as a substantial barrier to those attempting to successfully reenter society. It is clear that a substantial portion of ex-prisoners lack housing options on release, and those without stable housing are at higher risk to return to incarceration (Roman & Travis, 2004; Taxman, Byrne, & Young, 2002; Urban Institute, 2006). Two types of items were constructed to gauge public support for reentry housing programs. First, people were asked about their overall support for assisting offenders in securing housing on their release. Second, several items were directed at support for transitional housing centers, which are facilities designed to provide ex-prisoners with short-term housing after their release until they can secure a more stable residence.

The next category of items covers support for substance abuse, mental health, and health care programs. Ex-prisoners suffer from disproportionately high rates of substance abuse and certain types of mental health disorders. Furthermore, a substantial portion of ex-inmates have serious physical health problems that require ongoing medical care (Mallik-Kane & Visher, 2008; Travis et al., 2001; Urban Institute, 2006). Given these concerns, providing ex-prisoners access to treatment to address these problems has emerged as a central element of the reentry paradigm. Thus respondents were presented with a series of questions to determine their support for these programs.

The final set of items deals with support for vouchers. Many inmates exit prison with little or no money (Garland et al., 2011; Petersilia, 2000), leaving them unable to pay for even the most basic necessities of life such as food and medicine. Government subsidized vouchers are one way to provide assistance to recently released offenders until they become more economically stable. Voucher programs for ex-prisoners have been developed in states like Washington (Washington State Legislature, 2009) and Nebraska (Nebraska Supreme Court, Office of Public Information, 2009). The current study provides the first known assessment of public views toward this new practice.

As mentioned, the survey aimed to examine how support for reentry varies within the context of conflicting values. More specifically, survey items were constructed to determine whether public support for reentry decreases when initiatives are employed in ways that conflict with self-interest and retributive values. Self-interest values in this study are gauged in two ways: economically and geographically. Economic self-interest is measured by comparing the degree of support offered for a specific reentry initiative to support for that initiative when it involves financial expenses to the individual such as raising taxes. For example, support for providing substance abuse treatment, mental health treatment, and health care to prisoners returning home is compared to support for these services when they involve paying higher taxes. Geographical issues of self-interest are measured by comparing support for transitional housing programs when those programs are located in one’s city versus in one’s neighborhood. This technique provides a measure of the NIMBY effect in prisoner reentry.

The influence of retributive values in public support for reentry is examined from two perspectives. First, the literature suggests that the public sees chronic offenders as less deserving of help than those who are first-time offenders. Accordingly, survey items pertaining to support for housing programs, voucher programs, and employment-based services contrast support for first-time prisoners with support when people have been incarcerated multiple times. The second way that retributive values are tapped is by investigating the influence of least eligibility. For example, support for job training programs was broken down by white-collar and blue-collar positions. The expectation is that the public will give less support for training offenders to enter white-collar jobs than blue-collar jobs considering that many hardworking, law-abiding citizens are blocked from access to white-collar positions due to a lack of opportunities.

Findings

Survey results are presented in Table 1. While responses were measured using a 6-point scale, survey responses are collapsed into two categories, agree/favor and disagree/oppose for analysis purposes to make it easier to compare responses across items. This is necessary as exploring value conflict necessitates meaningful comparisons across different types of items to detect changes in support levels. In addition, means for each item are provided to demonstrate the central tendency in responses. In this section, we report the survey results by the type of reentry initiative examined. Assessments of evidence for or against the presence of value conflict in opinions toward reentry initiatives are made in the following discussion section.

Table 1.

Public Support for Reentry Initiatives

	Agree/favor	Disagree/oppose	$\bar{X}$
Support for reentry
It is a good idea to help people who are coming out of prison readjust to life in society.	88.7%	11.3%	4.8
Communities should have programs and services in place to help ex-prisoners.	68.2%	31.8%	3.9
People coming home from prison can benefit from well-run services and programs in their community.	77.8%	22.2%	4.4
We should raise state taxes if necessary to improve services for ex-prisoners returning home.	22.0%	78.0%	2.4
People who have recently been released from prison deserve as much help from society as people who need help but have never been incarcerated.	49.4%	50.6%	3.4
Support for employment-based reentry programs
We should strive to have recently released prisoners earning enough money to make a stable living.	76.4%	23.6%	4.2
We should strive to have recently released prisoners earning as much money as the average middle-class citizen.	39.6%	60.4%	3.0
During hard economic times, employers should give preference in their hiring decisions to people who have no prison record over those who have been in prison.	62.6%	37.4%	3.9
People who have been in prison multiple times are just as deserving of employment assistance as someone who is leaving prison for the first time.	19.4%	80.6%	2.3
Support for supply-side employment assistance programs in communities
Job training program
Food services	74.5%	25.5%	4.2
Carpentry	86.2%	13.8%	4.5
Computer programming	62.0%	38.0%	3.8
Business management	49.8%	50.2%	3.4
Educational program
H.S. diploma/GED	92.1%	7.9%	5.1
2-year technical degree	75.1%	24.9%	4.3
4-year college degree	49.2%	50.8%	3.2
Support for demand side employment assistance programs
Employers should be able to receive tax incentives for hiring people who have been in prison.	52.6%	47.4%	3.2
The government should insure employers who hire ex-prisoners by covering financial losses if the person steals from a worksite.	26.8%	73.2%	2.6
Support for housing programs
Helping ex-prisoners find a place to stay after release should be a high priority on our state agenda.	58.1%	41.9%	3.5
People who have been in prison multiple times are just as deserving of receiving housing assistance as those who are coming out for the first time.	26.1%	73.9%	2.5
During a housing crisis, people who have never been in prison should be given preference in receiving housing assistance over those who have been in prison.	74.8%	25.2%	4.3
Support for transitional housing programs
Transitional housing programs in
My city	50.0%	50.0%	3.3
My neighborhood	25.3%	74.7%	2.4
Transitional housing programs for drug offenders in
My city	33.7%	66.3%	2.8
My neighborhood	18.4%	81.6%	2.2
Transitional housing programs for violent offenders in
My city	23.6%	76.4%	2.4
My neighborhood	10.0%	90.0%	1.9
Support for substance abuse/health care programs
Support for programs that provide ex-prisoners
Substance abuse treatment.	92.2%	7.8%	4.8
Substance abuse treatment even if it means paying higher taxes.	46.8%	53.2%	3.2
Mental health treatment.	90.3%	9.7%	4.7
Mental health treatment even if it means paying higher taxes.	47.5%	52.5%	3.3
Health care.	46.3%	63.7%	2.9
Health care even if it means paying higher taxes.	23.5%	78.5%	2.4
Support for voucher programs
Vouchers should be provided to people who are released from prison for the first time to help them pay for the necessities of life after release.	63.4%	36.6%	3.7
Vouchers should be provided to people who have been in prison multiple times to help them pay for the necessities of life after release.	24.7%	75.3%	2.4

Our results indicate that the Missouri public is supportive in spirit of the overall concept of prisoner reentry initiatives. Eighty-nine percent of the public agree that helping prisoners adjust to society on release is a good idea, and 68% agree that communities should provide programs and services to help ex-prisoners. Furthermore, the vast majority (78%) agree that recently released prisoners benefit from well-run services and programs in their communities. While it is clear that the public supports the concept of reentry, it is also clear that this support is conditional. Less than a quarter (22%) of the public indicates a willingness to pay higher taxes to improve reentry services. In addition, just under half (49%) agree that prisoners returning home are as deserving of public assistance as people who have never been incarcerated.

The Missouri public also recognizes the importance of helping recently released prisoners become gainfully employed. More specifically, approximately three quarters (76%) agree that we should strive to have recently released prisoners earning enough money to make a stable living. Less than 40%, however, agree that we should strive to have these ex-prisoners earn as much as the average middle-class citizen. Despite the public’s apparent awareness of the importance of employment for offenders after release, a majority (63%) are in favor of employers giving preference in hiring decisions during hard economic times to individuals who have never been in prison over those who had been incarcerated. At the same time, less than 20% agree that people who had been in prison on multiple occasions were as deserving of employment assistance as someone who is leaving prison for the first time.

Support for supply-side employment assistance programs proves strong for both job training and educational programs. Approximately 75% of Missourians support food service training programs in communities for ex-inmates, and 86% support programs that provide skills in carpentry. There is less support for training programs in more technical and white-collar fields. Only 62% favor training programs in computer programming and only half indicate support for training programs in the area of business management. In comparison, demand-side employment assistance programs receive more limited support. Just above half (53%) of Missourians favor tax breaks for businesses that hire people who have been incarcerated, and only 27% are supportive of government programs that insure employers to cover financial losses resulting from thefts from the worksite.

Certain types of educational programs in communities for prisoners reentering society receive very high support. Approximately 9 out of 10 people support high school diploma/GED programs and three quarters (75%) favor 2-year technical degree programs. Public support for educational programs, however, declines substantially (49%) when the issue switches to providing a 4-year college education to people released from prison.

Housing assistance programs are given tenuous support at best. Fewer than 60% agree that helping ex-prisoners with housing after their release should be a high priority on the state’s agenda. In addition, public support for housing programs diminishes substantially for individuals who have been in prison on more than one occasion. More specifically, only about 1 out of 4 people agree that offenders who have been in prison multiple times are just as deserving of receiving housing assistance as those who are coming out for the first time. People also overwhelmingly agree (75%) that during a housing crisis preference in housing assistance should be given to those who have never been in prison over those who have been incarcerated.

Transitional housing programs have been put forward as viable housing alternatives for offenders who lack a stable residence on release. Findings suggest little public backing for these programs. Furthermore, support for transitional housing alternatives plummets when people take offense seriousness into consideration. For instance, while 50% of people are generally supportive of transitional housing programs in their city, support for programs that house drug offenders and violent offenders in their city are substantially less at 34% and 24%, respectively. Not surprisingly, data not reported in Table 1 also reveal a lack of support for transitional housing programs for sex offenders, with only 22.6% favoring the implementation of these programs in their city. Support for transitional housing programs also diminishes when people consider the proximity of these programs to the places they live and work. For example, support for transitional housing programs drops in half, from 50% to 25%, when the option of placing these facilities in one’s own neighborhood is presented. Similar declines are observed in public support for transitional housing programs that serve drug and violent offenders.

Strong general support for both substance abuse and mental health programs is observed. More than 90% of the public favor programs that provide substance abuse and mental health treatment to people coming out of prison. However, there is markedly less support for health care programs, with only 46% favoring programs that provide health care services to ex-prisoners when they return to society. Support for all types of treatment programs declines by half when people consider paying higher taxes to fund these services. Finally, public backing for voucher programs is mixed. While more than 60% of people support the use of vouchers for those who are released for the first time, a quarter (25%) support the use of vouchers for individuals who have been in prison on multiple occasions.

Discussion

The results indicate robust public support for the general idea of helping offenders when they get out of prison as well as providing them access to substance abuse and mental health treatment and offering basic education and job training. These finding are likely driven by the presence of social welfare values and are consistent with prior research showing strong support for offender rehabilitation (Cullen et al., 2000; Flanagan, 1996). As expected, however, favorability toward reentry initiatives decreases as conflicts with retributive and self-interest values emerge.

The influence of the economic aspect of self-interest values is clearly apparent when the issue of paying more taxes is raised. Support for substance abuse, mental health, and health care drops roughly by one half in each case. While over two thirds of the public feel communities should have programs and services to help ex-prisoners, only about 1 out of 4 people feels raising taxes to improve reentry services is appropriate. Geographically, the NIMBY measure of self-interest is evident through the analysis of support for transitional housing programs. Support for a transitional housing program in one’s city drops by half when it is proposed that the housing unit will be placed in one’s own neighborhood. Similar patterns are observed when people consider housing units for drug and sex offenders specifically.

Retributive values also appear to shape attitudes toward prisoner reentry initiatives. The public definitely sees certain offenders as more deserving to receive reentry services. This is visible when comparing support for first-time prisoners versus those who have experienced multiple prison terms. For example, about 8 out of 10 people disagree that offenders who have served multiple prison terms are as deserving of employment assistance as first timers. Nearly 3 out of 4 disagree that chronic prison inmates are as deserving of housing assistance as those leaving prison for the first time. In addition, when resources are scarce, people also feel that law-abiding citizens who have never been imprisoned are more deserving of help than ex-prisoners. Specifically, substantial majorities feel that people with no prison record should be given preference in hiring decisions and housing assistance when competing against formerly incarcerated individuals.

Many examples of the principle of less eligibility came to light. Support for different types of education and training programs decreases as the degrees and jobs reach more toward a white-collar status versus a blue-collar status. For instance, 75% of people support food services training in comparison to 50% who favor business management as an employment assistance program. For education programming, 92% support the attainment of a high school diploma or its equivalent, whereas only half favor giving released prisoners the opportunity to earn a 4-year college degree. People are also much more likely to favor programs aimed at financial support for returning ex-prisoners when their earnings provide them a stable living versus when they are able to make as much money as the average middle-class citizen.

There is also reason to believe that public opinion toward reentry programs is shaped by other value dimensions, namely, economic individualism. Economic individualism is “the belief that people should get ahead on their own through hard work” (Feldman, 1988, p. 419). Values of economic individualism are well ingrained in the American citizenry and have been found to correlate with negative attitudes toward redistributive social welfare policies (Feldman, 1988; Pantoja, 2006). Applying economic individualism to the current study helps explain some of the contrasting public support for supply-side and demand-side employment programs. Strong support is indicated for supply-side employment enhancement programs such as educational and job training programs, which, by their nature, are designed to assist offenders in developing the skills to become economically independent and self-sustaining. Demand-side programs, by contrast, did not enjoy such widespread support, likely due in large part to the perception that these programs provide ex-inmates with unmerited economic advantages.

Policy Implications

The results of this study have important implications for the prisoner reentry movement. Several results are quite encouraging. The public no doubt embraces the overarching concept of reentry, and high levels of support are acknowledged in this study for various services often deemed critical for successful offender reintegration. Having a high school diploma or GED has long been advocated as indispensable to success after prison (Ryan & McCabe, 1994), and community programs to help offenders attain these educational levels after release receive near unanimous support. Dating back to the Reformatory Era in the late 1800s, vocational training has been promoted as a necessity for postrelease success and many modern reentry programs continue to incorporate it (Harlow, 2003; Pisciotta, 1994; Seiter, 2010). In the current study, substantial majorities favor helping offenders returning to society get a technical degree and receive job training for food services, carpentry, and computer programming. In addition, substance abuse and mental health treatment, recognized in academic circles as reintegration essentials for certain offenders (Mallik-Kane & Visher, 2008; Travis et al., 2001), is overwhelming supported, although support does drop when paying higher taxes is considered.

One of the most unsettling results for future reentry initiatives is that the public is much less willing to assist people with extensive prison backgrounds on their journey home than first timers. The public here is likely focusing on what a person deserves when assessing whether to support the repeat prisoner. More specifically, the assumption may be that repeat prison terms provide strong evidence of an individual’s resistance to positive behavioral change, thereby disqualifying him or her from deserving more chances for help. The problem is that research on offender rehabilitation strongly and consistently shows ex-prisoners with a higher risk of reoffending, who typically have histories of crime and confinement, are those most likely to benefit from services (Cullen & Gendreau, 2000; Gendreau, 1996; Lowenkamp & Latessa, 2005). Reentry advocates must educate the public that the most effective gains in recidivism reduction will be made when high-risk offenders are targeted for services. Appropriately identifying and servicing those at greatest risk during reentry also provides a significant public safety function as higher risk offenders pose greater harm and damage to the community. Only when people are sufficiently informed about the realities associated with the high-risk offender can they can see the social welfare benefits of targeting reentry resources toward repeat prisoners and more accurately weigh these benefits against their retributive sentiments.

Offering housing assistance to ex-prisoners, especially transitional housing for violent and drug offenders, also generates serious resistance from community members. Only half of Missouri residents approve of the concept of a transitional housing unit in their city, and 1 out of 4 people are supportive of a housing unit in their neighborhood. This is important to note as stable housing has been cited regularly as a critical need for successful transitions from prison to community (Roman & Travis, 2004; Taxman et al., 2002; Urban Institute, 2006). Fortunately, most released prisoners immediately stay with family and friends, but those without such ties can be very vulnerable without housing. Krisberg and Marchionna’s (2006) analysis of national data found that a majority of Americans felt housing was very important for an offender’s successful reintegration after prison. However, of the six types of services asked about, housing was perceived as least important. Job training, drug treatment, and mental health services were cited as most important. While the public may assign importance to housing for successful prisoner reintegration, housing may not be viewed as having as much impact as other factors on crime itself and thus housing initiatives may receive less support. In contrast, images projected by the media and common perceptions of crime reduction measures likely reinforce that employment, drug, and mental health programs are instrumental in lowering recidivism. This would explain to some degree the greater willingness to support reentry initiatives directed at the latter issues. Efforts to promote and implement transitional housing programs will need to be accompanied by a strong message of their value in facilitating successful reentry outcomes, especially when directed at more feared groups like violent and drug offenders.

With some exceptions such as transitional housing for more dangerous offenders and health care funding, many of the reentry initiatives examined through the survey, while not always receiving tremendous support, are not receiving substantial opposition either. Only 51% oppose 4-year degrees and 50% oppose job training for the white-collar field of business management. Furthermore, only 53% oppose substance abuse and mental health treatment when higher taxes are a consequence. This suggests that reentry program proponents are not facing an impassable wall of resistance in terms of gaining support for programs and services often felt to be beyond what an offender deserves or not critical enough to justify additional funding. Past research has indicated that the public will become more supportive of programs when they see evidence that recidivism will be significantly reduced (Mears & Mancini, 2006; Nagin et al., 2006; Piquero & Steinberg, 2010). The implication here is that reentry advocates must be able to sell a particular program or initiative based on its specific impact. At this point, many prisoner reentry initiatives lack strong empirical support (Lattimore, Steffey, & Visher, 2010; Walker, 2011), making arguments about their benefits difficult.

The main implication of this research is that the more proponents of reentry initiatives can demonstrate benefits in increasing social welfare, minimize infringements on self-interest, and maintain the principle of less eligibility, the more success they will have in generating public support. Policy makers should expect resistance to the extent that reentry programs offer ex-prisoners more services than the average citizen receives. The decrease in support for reentry initiatives associated with retributive and self-interest concerns may potentially be offset by accompanying transitional services with arrangements for offenders to pay back programming costs and by incorporating public service dimensions within the programs themselves.

Conclusion

While the current study provides a look at public views toward reentry initiatives, it is only an initial step in what should become a much more developed literature. More needs to be learned about how attitudes toward prisoner reentry vary across the characteristics of residents. For example, it would be interesting to learn how support for reentry initiatives varies based on whether a respondent knows someone released from prison or is living in an area with a high concentration of returning ex-prisoners. In addition, fully appreciating the level of public support for prisoner reentry services will require future studies to pit reentry programs against other types of social programs (Immerwahr & Johnson, 2002). With a detailed literature on this topic, policy makers and program managers can be better informed as to how and why people support or resist prisoner reentry measures.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article from the College of Humanities and Public Affairs at Missouri State University.

Bios

Brett Garland is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Missouri State University. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska, Omaha in 2007. His research interests include criminal justice management and staff, prisoner reentry, and public opinion research.

Eric Wodahl is an assistant professor of criminal justice at the University of Wyoming. He received his PhD in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska at Omaha in 2008. His research interests include alternatives to revocation for noncompliant offenders, prisoner reentry, and rural issues in the criminal justice field.

Robert Schuhmann is an associate professor in the department of political science at the University of Wyoming. He received his PhD in public administration from Virginia Tech. His research focuses on public policy processes and administrative decision making.

References

Alvarez

R. M.

Brehm

(1995). American ambivalence towards abortion policy: Development of a heteroskedastic probit model of competing values. American Journal of Political Science, 39, 1055-1082.

Applegate

B. K.

(2001). Penal austerity: Perceived utility, desert, and public attitudes toward prison amenities. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 253-268.

Brewer

P. R.

Gross

(2005). Values, framing, and citizen’s thoughts about policy issues: Effects on content and quantity. Political Psychology, 26, 929-948.

Brown

(1999). Public attitudes toward the treatment of sex offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 4, 239-252.

Brown

(2009). Attitudes towards sexual offenders and their rehabilitation: A special case? In Wood

J. L.

Gannon

T. A.

(Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 187-213). Portland, OR: Willan.

Burstein

(2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56, 29-40.

Byrne

J. M.

Taxman

F. S.

Young

(2002). Emerging roles and responsibilities in the reentry partnership initiative: New ways of doing business. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research.

Clear

T. R.

(2007). Imprisoning communities: How mass incarceration makes disadvantaged neighborhoods worse. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Cullen

F. T.

Moon

M. M.

(2002). Reaffirming rehabilitation: Public support for correctional treatment. In Allen

H. E.

(Ed.), What works—risk reduction: Interventions for special needs offenders (pp. 7-25). Lanham, MD: American Correctional Association.

10.

Cullen

F. T.

Gendreau

(2000). Assessing correctional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. In Horney

(Ed.), Criminal justice 2000: Policies, processes, and decisions of the criminal justice system (Vol. 3, pp. 109-176). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

11.

Cullen

F. T.

Fisher

B. S.

Applegate

B. K.

(2000). Public opinion about punishment and corrections. Crime and Justice, 27, 1-79.

12.

Dawson-Edwards

(2008). Enfranchising convicted felons: Current research on opinions towards felon voting rights. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46, 13-29.

13.

Elrod

Brown

M. P.

(1996). Predicting public support for electronic house arrest: Results from a New York county survey. American Behavioral Scientist, 39, 461-473.

14.

Feldman

(1988). Structure and consistency in public opinion: The role of core beliefs and values. American Journal of Political Science, 32, 416-440.

15.

Feldman

(2003). Values, ideology, and structure of political attitudes. In Sears

D. O.

Huddy

Jervis

(Eds.), Oxford handbook of political psychology (pp. 477-508). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

16.

Flanagan

T. J.

(1996). Reform or punish: Americans’ views of the correctional system. In Flanagan

T. J.

Longmire

D. R.

(Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 75-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

17.

Freeman

(2003). Can we close the revolving door? Recidivism vs. employment of ex-offenders in the U.S. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

18.

Garland

(2002). The culture of control: Crime and social order in contemporary society. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

19.

Garland

Wodahl

E. J.

Mayfield

(2011). Prisoner reentry in a small metropolitan community: Obstacles and policy implications. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22, 90-110.

20.

Gendreau

(1996). Offender rehabilitation: What we know and what needs to be done. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 144-161.

21.

Gerber

Engelhardt-Greer

(1996). Just and painful: Attitudes toward sentencing criminals. In Flanagan

T. J.

Longmire

D. R.

(Eds.), Americans view crime and justice: A national public opinion survey (pp. 62-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

22.

Harlow

C. W.

(2003). Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

23.

Heumann

Pinaire

B. K.

Clark

(2005). Beyond the sentence: Public perceptions of collateral consequences for felony offenders. Criminal Law Bulletin, 41, 24-46.

24.

Holzer

Raphael

Stoll

(2004). Will employers hire ex-offenders? Employer preferences, background checks and their determinants. In Pattillo

Weiman

Western

(Eds.), Imprisoning America: Social effects of mass incarceration (pp. 205-246). New York, NY: Russell Sage.

25.

Immerwahr

Johnson

(2002). The revolving door: Exploring public attitudes toward prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

26.

Krisberg

Marchionna

(2006). Attitudes of U.S. voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies. Oakland, CA: National Council on Crime and Delinquency.

27.

Lattimore

P. K.

Steffey

D. M.

&Visher

C. A.

(2010). Prisoner reentry in the first decade of the twenty-first century. Victims and Offenders, 5, 253-267.

28.

La Vigne

N. G.

Mamalian

C. A.

(2004). Prisoner reentry in Georgia. Washington DC: Urban Institute.

29.

La Vigne

N. G.

Mamalian

C. A.

Thomson

Watson

(2004). Prisoner reentry in Idaho. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

30.

La Vigne

N. G.

Mamalian

C. A.

Travis

Visher

(2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Illinois. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

31.

Lee

E. S.

Forthofer

R. N.

Lorimer

R. J.

(1989). Analyzing complex survey data (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.

32.

Legal Action Center. (2004). National H.I.R.E. Network: State tax incentives to benefit employers who hire people with criminal records. Retrieved from http://www.hirenetwork.org/state_tax_credits.htm

33.

Lowenkamp

C. T.

Latessa

E. J.

(2005). Increasing the effectiveness of correctional programming through the risk principle: Identifying offenders for residential placement. Criminology and Public Policy, 4, 263-290.

34.

Lynch

J. P.

Sabol

W. J.

(2001, September). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Crime Policy Report, 3, 1-23. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

35.

Mallik-Kane

Visher

C. A.

(2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

36.

Maxfield

M. G.

Babbie

(2009). Basics of research methods for criminal justice and criminology (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

37.

The McLaughlin Company. (n.d.). The federal bonding program. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.bonds4jobs.com

38.

Mears

D. P.

Mancini

(2006). The 2006 public opinion survey of Florida citizens concerning the Florida Department of Corrections. Tallahassee, FL: Center for Criminology and Public Policy Research, Florida State University. Retrieved from http://www.criminologycenter.fsu.edu/p/pdf/2006_DOC_Survey_Rpt.pdf

39.

Nagin

D. S.

Piquero

A. R.

Scott

E. S.

Steinberg

(2006). Public preferences for rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders: Evidence from a contingent valuation survey. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 627-652.

40.

Nebraska Supreme Court, Office of Public Information. (2006, March). A new day: Probation system’s transformation. Nebraska Judicial News. Retrieved from http://www.supremecourt.ne.gov/community/adminmemos/2006/probation.pdf

41.

Nicholson-Crotty

Peterson

D. A.

Ramirez

M. D.

(2009). Dynamic representation(s): Federal criminal justice policy and an alternative dimension of public mood. Political Behavior, 31, 629-655.

42.

Pantoja

(2006). Against the tide? Core American values and attitudes toward U.S. immigration policy in the mid-1990s. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 32, 515-531.

43.

Petersilia

(2000). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic, and social consequences. Sentencing and corrections: Issues for the 21st century. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

44.

Pinaire

B. K.

Heumann

Bilotta

(2003). Barred from the vote: Public attitudes toward the disenfranchisement of felons. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 30, 1519-1550.

45.

Piquero

A. R.

Steinberg

(2010). Public preferences of rehabilitation versus incarceration of juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 1-6.

46.

Pisciotta

A. W.

(1994). Benevolent repression: Social control and the American reformatory prison movement. New York: New York University Press.

47.

Reentry Policy Council. (2011). Second Chance Act. Retrieved from http://reentrypolicy.org/government_affairs/second_chance_act

48.

Reynolds

Craig

L. A.

Boer

D. P.

(2009). Public attitudes towards offending, offenders and reintegration. In Wood

J. L.

Gannon

T. A.

(Eds.), Public opinion and criminal justice (pp. 166-186). Portland, OR: Willan.

49.

Richie

B. E.

(2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 368-389.

50.

Roberts

C. A.

Doble

Clawson

Selton

Briker

(2005). Rethinking justice in Massachusetts: Public attitudes toward crime and punishment. Boston, MA: The Boston Foundation.

51.

Roman

C. G.

Travis

(2004). Taking stock: Housing, homelessness, and prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

52.

Ryan

T. A.

McCabe

K. A.

(1994). Mandatory versus voluntary prison education and academic achievement. The Prison Journal, 74, 450-461.

53.

Sabol

W. J.

Couture

(2008). Prison inmates at midyear, 2007. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

54.

Seiter

R. P.

(2010). Corrections: An introduction (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

55.

Taxman

F. S.

Byrne

J. M.

Young

(2002). Targeting for reentry: Matching needs and services to maximize public safety. College Park, MD: Bureau of Governmental Research.

56.

Travis

Solomon

A. J.

Waul

(2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

57.

Urban Institute. (2006). Understanding the challenges of prisoner reentry: Reentry findings from the Urban Institute’s prisoner reentry portfolio. Washington, DC: Author.

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2000). Sex by age: Missouri. Washington, DC: Author.

59.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2010). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/29000.html

60.

Walker

(2011). Sense and nonsense about crime, drugs, and communities (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

61.

Washington State Legislature. (2009). House Bill Report, SB 5525. Retrieved from http://apps.leg.wa.gov/billinfo/summary.aspx?year=2009&bill=5525#documents

62.

West

H. C.

Sabol

W. J.

Greenman

S. J.

(2010). Prisoners in 2009. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

63.

Wilton

(2000). Grounding hierarchies of acceptance: The social construction of disability in NIMBY conflicts. Urban Geography, 21, 586-608.

64.

Wlezien

(2004). Patterns of representation: Dynamics of public preferences and policy. Journal of Politics, 66, 1-24.