Rebuilding Lives. Strengthening Communities.

Chapter 3: Family (cont.)
58
United States Senate. 2000. Departments of Commerce, Justice and the State, the Judiciary and Related Agencies Appropriation Bill.
106th Congress. Senate Report 106-404. This Senate Report indicates that “children of prisoners are six times more likely than other
children to be incarcerated at some point in their lives.” Quoted in “Services for Families of Prison Inmates,” Special Issues in
Corrections, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Corrections (February 2002),
http://www.nicic.org/pubs/2002/017272.pdf (accessed November 5, 2005).
59
Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Metropolitan Chicago, “Our Program Works!” http://www.bbbschgo.org/program.html (accessed August
12, 2005).
60
In the 2003 State of the Union Address, President Bush talks about $450 million for mentoring programs; one-third of that money was
intended for children of prisoners. Bush, George W., “2003 State of the Union Address” (speech, United States Capitol, Washington
D.C., January 28, 2003), http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html (accessed July 18, 2005).
61
For more information about the funding opportunity through the Mentoring Children of Prisoners Initiative, see the U.S. Department
of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families website, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/grants/open/HHS-2004-ACF-
ACYF-CU-0001.html.
62
The Mentoring Center website, “About Us” http://www.mentor.org/about_us.html and The Child Welfare League of America website,
“Main Page” http://www.cwla.org/programs/incarcerated/
63
See, for instance, Newby, Gretchen and Nell Bernstein, “Children of Incarcerated Parents: A Bill of Rights” (San Francisco, CA: San
Francisco Partnership for Incarcerated Parents, 2003) which sets forth eight rights that should be recognized on behalf of children of
incarcerated parents.
64
Goode, W. Wilson Jr. and Thomas J. Smith, “Building From the Ground Up: Creating Effective Programs to Mentor Children of Prison;
The Amachi Model” (Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures, July 2005), http://www.ppv.org/ppv/publications/assets/
185_publication/pdf (accessed November 14, 2005).
Chapter 4: Community Safety
1
We recognize that “community” is often determined by geographic area. But, viewed broadly, it is not defined solely by street corners
and lines on a map. It consists of people as much as brick and mortar. It is made up of neighbors, colleagues, family, friends, clergy,
associations, organizations, businesses, institutions that form a loose social network. For us, in the context of reentry, we think
“community” is best viewed as the collection of people who are most affected by and most influential in an individual’s return from
prison. Community, therefore, is fluid and relative to the formerly incarcerated individual. We are viewing community as those people
who have the ability and means to directly impact the returning prisoner, who can be impacted by the returning prisoner, who have a
clear stake and vested interest in the outcome.
2
Visher, Christy, and Jill Farrell, “Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2005), 1.
3
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Cynthia A. Mamalian, “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003), 46.
4
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Cynthia A. Mamalian, “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003), 46.
5
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Cynthia A. Mamalian, “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003), 46.
6
Unpublished data provided by Steven Karr (Manager, Planning and Research Unit, Illinois Department of Corrections).
7
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Cynthia A. Mamalian, “A Portrait of Prisoner Reentry in Illinois,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2003), 51.
8
“Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety” (working paper from the Urban Institute Reentry
Roundtable Meeting, May 12-13, 2004), 5.
9
Visher, Christy, and Jill Farrell, “Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry,” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2005), 2-3.
10
Mary Pattillo and others, eds., Imprisoning America: The Social Effects of Mass Incarceration (New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation,
2004), 139.
11
U.S. Department of Justice, “Illinois Going Home Program Abstract,” http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/reentry/sar/pdf/wp1_il.pdf (accessed
July 12, 2005).
12
Christine Rothwell (Program Director, Illinois Going Home Program), interview with Julie Wilen, October 28, 2005.
13
Christine Rothwell (Program Director, Illinois Going Home Program), interview with Julie Wilen, October 28, 2005.
14
Christine Rothwell (Program Director, Illinois Going Home Program), interview with Julie Wilen, October 28, 2005.
15
The likelihood of rearrest is highest during the period immediately following release—30 percent of arrests occur within six months of
release, 14 percent occur within 6-12 months after release, 15 percent occur 12-24 months after release, and eight percent occur 24-36
months after release. See “Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety” (working paper from the
Urban Institute, Reentry Roundtable Meeting, May 12-13, 2004), 5.
16
Petersilia, Joan, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003), 196.
17
La Vigne, Nancy G. and Christine Visher, “Chicago Prisoners’ Experiences Returning Home” (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute,
December 2004), 3.
18
Richard Guzman (Manager, Office of Reentry Management and Placement Resource Unit, Illinois Department of Corrections), interview
with Ben Lumpkin, April 28, 2005.
19
Richard Guzman (Manager, Office of Reentry Management and Placement Resource Unit, Illinois Department of Corrections), interview
with Ben Lumpkin, April 28, 2005.
MAYORAL POLICY CAUCUS ON PRISONER REENTRY
125