Introduction

'Reentry' is not a qualitative term, but simply refers to the "process of leaving prison and returning to society." While every prisoner released from custody undergoes reentry, not all are successfully 'reintegrated'. 'Reintegration' is a term we use to describe a process "result[ing] in outcomes [that] include increased participation in social institutions such as the labor force, families, communities, schools and religious institutions." Unfortunately, in Philadelphia and across the United States, many men and women who reenter society do so with unresolved substance, abuse problems, chronic health issues, a substandard education, and a general lack of resources or a genuine lack of will to truly reintegrate. Not surprisingly, many will return to jail or prison, often within relatively short periods of time. Still, it is difficult to see how it has an impact on our lives if we do not have acquaintances, friends or family members who have themselves undergone reentry and faced the attendant challenges. In fact, the cycle of reentry and re-incarceration has social consequences that reach far beyond the immediate social circle of offenders, the most obvious being the effect on public safety, and an increase in victimization, as well as fear of victimization. But there are also considerable direct costs that nationally amount to billions of dollars. Here in Philadelphia, the numbers seem more manageable, but the consequences are the same when the criminal justice system and society do not distinguish between reentry, which is inevitable for the majority of people now in confinement; and reintegration, which is a goal rather than a certainty.

Over the course of 2002, more than 35,000 men, women and youth were cycled through the Philadelphia Prison System, and every day, more than one hundred men and women reenter returning to communities in Philadelphia from the city and state prison systems. Between 2000 and 2002, there was a 20% increase in parolees to the Philadelphia area. Returning parolees, along with others already in the community under supervision, amount to approximately 51,000 individuals in Philadelphia on any given day with active connections to the criminal justice system. Of those who were incarcerated, most were unemployed before their incarceration and will remain so once released. Many have mental and other chronic health problems, like HIV and hepatitis.

Some were homeless, and a significant percentage are addicts. If these men and women were evenly distributed across the city, it would mean that on every block, at least two persons will have been incarcerated, or will be under community supervisions But the fact is that there is a concentration of returning offenders and probationers in our most impoverished neighborhoods where crime, unemployment, and substance abuse are endemic.

If Philadelphia's experience is consistent with national trends, the influence of the environments to which most return, and other obstacles to successful reintegration will result in at least 63% being rearrested, 47% reconvicted and about 41% re-incarcerated within three years. Though their re-incarceration could mean that they violated a technical requirement of probation or parole, it could also mean that they committed a new crime, contributing to the diminution of quality of life, increasing fear, and aggravating the costs of crime response, prosecution and incarceration. Other costs include those related to enforcement, loss or destruction of property, medical care, loss of productivity and state responsibility for the care and maintenance of minor children. And there are other indirect costs, like the additional 'tax' imposed on all Philadelphians when business and industries pass on to consumers the Cost Of prevention and protection in the form of security guards, alarm systems and anti-theft devices. If, as a community, we recognize the importance of reentry and take an active role in shaping how it happens in Philadelphia, we will reap both fiscal and social benefits.

If, for example, through effective reintegration programs, the inmate population were successfully reduced, we would in effect be reducing the cost of incarceration in the Philadelphia Prison System. Currently, PPS has an average daily head count of 7,637 prisoners at a cost of about $75 per day for each prisoner; using those figures, incarceration costs the city about $572,775 every single day. And if each of those prisoners were to stay for the average 76.1 days, it would mean spending $43.6 million for a period of just over ten weeks. To reduce the average daily population by just I 0% would be a cost avoidance of over $1.3 million for that same period, or $6.8 million annually. This sum could be redirected to other city services, schools, parks, education, culture or other quality of life expenditures. And this is only one tangible cost.

Beyond their emotional scars, the economic loss to victims of crime is also considerable, with the Bureau of Justice Statistics estimating an average loss of $524 in missed time from work, medical and other expenses. Multiplied by the 98,000 instances of criminal victimization that occurred in Philadelphia in 2000, that means there was an economic loss to victims in the neighborhood of $51.3 million. Again, a mere 10% reduction would mean significant avoided costs; in this case more than $5 million.

Successful reintegration also benefits the community and individual in ways that cannot be measured in dollars. The social value of reintegration is measured by a formerly incarcerated person's ability to contribute to the support of their family, provide a healthy environment for their children and enhance the positive human resources in the community. To accomplish these ends, we as a community must examine and implement effective interventions that could help them on the path to productive citizenship.

Effective interventions are those that develop a plan for dealing with substance abuse issues and other dysfunctional behaviors, treating physical and mental health problems, enhancing workforce participation and finding and maintaining affordable housing. For returning offenders, such interventions can mean the opportunity for positive self-empowerment and personal growth. For their families, it can mean having a parent, child or spouse who contributes, rather than detracts from their financial and general well-being. To victims, it can mean freedom from fear of further victimization. For our city's leaders, it can mean the opportunity to direct additional resources toward enhancing the positive aspects of urban life rather than at efforts to counteract the negative. And for all of us, it can mean a better, safer and more financially responsible Philadelphia. It is our hope that as you read the recommendations in this report, you will begin to identify the ways that you as a Philadelphian and a taxpayer, or that your organization or agency, can play an active role in helping to realize these goals.

< Prev		Next >

[ Back ]