2015
DOI: 10.1086/681554
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prisoner Reentry Programs

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
64
0

Year Published

2015
2015
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 104 publications
(64 citation statements)
references
References 59 publications
0
64
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although it takes us beyond the scope of our analysis, the limited adverse impacts of parental incarceration identified here, when paired with a considerable body of studies that have identified substantively more serious consequences of parental incarceration, continue to underscore looming questions about punishment policies and how to minimize collateral harms of incarceration for families and children. As state and federal governments contemplate dramatic changes to how incarceration is used (Clear, 2015;Jonson & Cullen, 2015), scholars have emphasized that any policy that fails to consider unintended harms may actually undermine correctional goals of crime reduction and public safety (Wildeman & Western, 2010). General recommendations, such as decarceration, reduced sentences for drug offenders, and diversion of prison sentences to community sanctions, could potentially work to reduce collateral harms for families, but are unlikely to do so if they are not configured explicitly to reduce such harms.…”
Section: Implications For Theory Research and Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although it takes us beyond the scope of our analysis, the limited adverse impacts of parental incarceration identified here, when paired with a considerable body of studies that have identified substantively more serious consequences of parental incarceration, continue to underscore looming questions about punishment policies and how to minimize collateral harms of incarceration for families and children. As state and federal governments contemplate dramatic changes to how incarceration is used (Clear, 2015;Jonson & Cullen, 2015), scholars have emphasized that any policy that fails to consider unintended harms may actually undermine correctional goals of crime reduction and public safety (Wildeman & Western, 2010). General recommendations, such as decarceration, reduced sentences for drug offenders, and diversion of prison sentences to community sanctions, could potentially work to reduce collateral harms for families, but are unlikely to do so if they are not configured explicitly to reduce such harms.…”
Section: Implications For Theory Research and Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…One domain in which discrimination against ex-prisoners is especially prevalent and documented is employment (e.g., Flake, 2015;Freeman, 2008;Ogbozor et al, 2006;Salaam, 2013;Snider & Reysen, 2014). Employers are often reluctant to hire ex-prisoners, impeding job prospects after release from prison in both countries (Brown, 2016;Jonson & Cullen, 2015;Ogbozor et al, 2006;Salaam, 2013;Stafford, 2006). In an influential field experiment in the United States (Pager, 2003), job applications were sent to employers matched on all attributes except criminal history.…”
Section: Discriminatory Tendencies Of the General Public Towards Ex-pmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Subsequent surveys have shown a tenacity of belief in the rehabilitative ideal among the public (Applegate, Cullen, and Fisher, 1997;Cullen, Skovron, Scott, and Burton, 1990;Cullen et al, 2002). Indeed, the American citizenry has consistently shown support for a range of treatment-related policies and practices: rehabilitation as a core correctional goal, general statements favoring rehabilitation programs, community treatment alternatives, saving juveniles and at-risk youngsters, reentry services for prisoners returning to society, and prevention of crime as opposed to building prisons (for summaries, see Cullen et al, 2000;Jonson and Cullen, 2015;Jonson et al, 2013). These findings have proven to be robust across question type and level of specificity (Cullen et al, 2000).…”
Section: The Myth Of the Punitive Publicmentioning
confidence: 99%