Chicago Communities and Prisoner Reentry

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

When men and women leave prison and return home, they are confronted with an array of challenges, such as securing stable living arrangements, finding employment, and avoiding criminal activity. Perhaps a less obvious factor that may affect their success is the nature of the place to which they return, specifically the local community area or neighborhood and its distinctive characteristics. Both the availability and cost of housing and the availability and proximity of jobs in areas where ex-prisoners return may influence postrelease outcomes. Accessibility of social services, such as health care and substance abuse treatment, is also likely to affect their reentry experience and subsequent recidivism. Indeed, for many ex-prisoners, the community plays an important role in their reintegration.¹

PROFILE OF FORMER PRISONERS RETURNING TO CHICAGO

• Initial sample consisted of 400 men, with a median age of 34 years.
• Eighty-three percent of respondents were black, 5 percent were white, and the remaining 12 percent identified with other racial groups. Ten percent of respondents were Hispanic.
• Nearly half (46 percent) had a drug offense as their most serious charge for their current prison term, while one-fifth (21 percent) were serving time for violent offenses, such as assault and robbery, and one-third (30 percent) were in prison for property offenses such as burglary and theft. The median time served was 18 months.
• Most respondents (87 percent) had at least one prior conviction, with 35 percent reporting four or more prior convictions. Three-quarters (74 percent) had served time in prison before, and one-third (34 percent) had spent time in a juvenile correctional facility.
• The majority (66 percent) reported some drug use prior to prison, with marijuana, heroin, and cocaine the most common drugs.
• Less than half (49 percent) had high school diplomas before entering prison and one-third (34 percent) had been fired from a job at least once.
• Just over half (51 percent) were single and had never been married, and 60 percent had children under the age of 18.

Likewise, residents and stakeholders in the communities to which these former prisoners return experience various concerns, from fear of increased criminal activity to the challenges of providing sufficient jobs, housing, and other support for this population. Families may experience diverse reactions when a family member returns from incarceration. Further, high rates of incarceration of residents in a neighborhood coupled with high concentrations of former prisoners may weaken the ability of the community to perform traditional social functions.² Ultimately, community members must often manage a delicate balance between feeling fearful and mistrustful of returning prisoners and providing social support and services for them.

This research brief describes the community context facing persons released from prison using data gathered in a study of prisoner reentry in Chicago, Illinois. In 2002, the Urban Institute launched a longitudinal study of prisoner reentry entitled Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry. The study involved several data sources:

• a series of interviews with male prisoners returning to Chicago, once before and up to three times after their release (see sidebar, "Profile of Former Prisoners Returning to Chicago");
• focus groups with residents in four Chicago community areas that are home to the highest concentrations of returning prisoners; and
• interviews with persons involved in prisoner reentry activities at the community and city levels, representing local service providers, law enforcement and corrections agencies, and city government. In this report, we refer to this latter group as reentry policymakers and practitioners. (See sidebar "Returning Home Study Methodology" for more details about the data collection.)

This brief brings together the perspectives of former prisoners, community residents, and reentry policymakers and practitioners to describe the community's role in the reintegration process for released prisoners, as well as the impact of prisoner reentry on the community. It presents key findings about (1) characteristics of the communities where former prisoners live and their effect on successful reintegration; (2) housing issues confronting former prisoners; (3) perceptions of these places by former prisoners, residents, and reentry policymakers and practitioners; (4) employment and social services in these communities; (5) community support of former prisoners; and (6) community attitudes toward law enforcement and parole agencies.

The brief concludes with some proposed solutions offered by ex-prisoners, residents, policymakers, and practitioners to the challenges facing Chicago communities experiencing high rates of prisoner reentry. This research brief is intended to provide a foundation for policy conversations about how to improve the chances of successful reintegration for prisoners coming home, whether to Chicago communities or to similar areas around the country.

Notes from this section

1 The city of Chicago has divided its geographic space into 77 "community areas." The city uses these areas to organize service delivery and for planning. Census data have also been mapped to correspond to these areas, thus conveniently allowing us to study the relationship between returning prisoners and the characteristics of the places to which they return. This report uses the terms community and neighborhood interchangeably, although the authors recognize that a community area may comprise several distinct sections or neighborhoods.

2 Dina R. Rose and Todd R. Clear. "Incarceration, Social Capital, and Crime: Implications for Social Disorganization Theory." Criminology 36 (1998): 441–79.

Note: This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF).

The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.

Usage, posting and reprint of materials on the UI web site:

Most publications may be downloaded free of charge from the web site in PDF format. This information may be used and copies made for research, academic, policy or other non-commercial purposes. Proper attribution is required.

Copyright of the written materials contained within the Urban Institute website is owned or controlled by the Urban Institute. Posting UI research papers on other websites is permitted subject to prior approval from the Urban Institute—contact paffairs@urban.org.

If you are unable to access or print the PDF document please contact us or call the Publications Office at (202) 261-5687.