This policy statement discusses some (but by no means all of the possible) strategies to pre-empt opposition to a re-entry initiative and to cultivate public support for it. It also provides illustrations (though far from an exhaustive catalog) of how these strategies can be implemented.

For many people, the image of a person who has been sentenced to do time in prison or jail "and whose return to the community is imminent" is frightening. They picture overcrowded facilities hastily releasing dangerous felons who have hardened and honed their criminal skills while incarcerated. Alarming headlines seem only to confirm such stereotypes; stories about a convicted felon with a history of incarceration committing a new, violent crime seem almost routine.

These are also the stories that shape people's impression of parole, which most people associate with premature release and which many elected officials have urged legislatures, in some states successfully, to abolish altogether. Perhaps not surprisingly given this environment, community-based supervision for convicted felons usually has little credibility with the public.

At the same time, the public often is surprised to learn about how few people in prison or jail have access to services and supports to treat problems that contributed to their criminal behavior. They incorrectly assume, for example, that most drug-addicted felons receive treatment for their substance abuse problem. They are often dismayed by the paucity of what prisoners are typically given when returned to the community--with only a change of clothes, some walking-around money that will last a day or two days, and a lift to the nearest bus or train stop in the middle of the night. They are further puzzled by the obstacles policymakers have created to prisoners' reintegration into the community, such as legal barriers to employment. According to a poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates, more than 70 percent of those polled strongly favored providing work, job training, and educational opportunity for prisoners; nearly 60 percent strongly favored providing job training and placement for released prisoners. ^[1]  

While it may not surprise the tens of millions of people who have had a family member incarcerated, most others are startled to learn that they are already interacting--in the workplace, at church, around the neighborhood--with one of the millions of people who have been released from prison or jail. Recognizing this fact, however, does not necessarily make communities any more likely to welcome a community-based organization that will serve, supervise, house, or employ principally people who have been released from prison or jail.

In sum, policymakers, practitioners, and advocates spearheading a re-entry initiative face a public that does not necessarily appreciate that incarcerating people longer is not a viable solution. Unless they are informed otherwise, people are less likely to see parole as a resource than as a reprieve from incarceration. They do not recognize the extent to which policies set up a person released from prison for failure, with little hope of redemption. Perhaps most important, they feel little personal stake in the safe and successful return of people released from prison or jail.

This is the context within which a leader finds him or herself shaping a re-entry initiative. These are also the stereotypes and impressions that an opinion maker must shatter to create the support needed to fund the efforts, site the programs, and change the policies upon which a person's safe and successful return to the community depends. ^[1]