An Exploratory Look at Reentry Services  in Delaware:

Surveys and Analysis of Non-profit Agencies

Stand Up for What’s Right and Just

January 2003

Compiled and Written by Keith Singer

Introduction:

            This report was started in the fall of 2002 by Stand Up for What’s Right and Just (SURJ) as an attempt to begin to identify the non-profit providers of reentry services, those aimed at ex-offenders returning to local communities, in Delaware.  This effort is not intended as a comprehensive study, but rather it seeks to be an exploratory guide into future possibilities of service recognition, and perhaps delivery, in an underdeveloped and underappreciated field.  Applicable agencies were asked to discuss their program(s) for ex-offenders returning to the community and their interest in participating in an introductory analysis of the existing and necessary resources for this work.  Eventually, two surveys were developed and completed through phone interviews, site visits, and written communication.  The resulting document is based upon the product of these discussions and the completed surveys.

Methodology:

            The first survey contained general questions regarding the agency’s description and/or mission statement, home site(s), service area, client source(s), first contact or method of recruitment with the clients, funding sources, as well as more specific questions on the one or more programs geared towards reentry, including the number of clients in each program per year, a description of the program itself, and the requirements for admission into, and/or completion of, the program.  This provided the agency with an opportunity to explain, in its own words, its particular contribution to the field of reentry in its local and regional community.  This material was supplemented through additional conversations with the executive and program directors of these agencies and the opportunity to gather further description through brochures, websites, and on-site visits.

            The second survey consisted of two small sets of additional questions, formatted to one of a handful of answers, which emphasize the similarities and uniqueness of expertise and involvement of these agencies, specifically around the concerns of client eligibility and service delivery.  These questions, more commonly asked in terms of (1) who is eligible for the service of these programs and (2) who provides the service to the client, both of which can be different in each area of need, became critical to the presentation of these agencies alongside one another in the context of the broader field of reentry services.  The dialogue and comparison surrounding these original questions, with the staff of the provider agencies as well as feedback from knowledgeable SURJ members, opened the door to a greater depth of analysis of the needs that returning offenders face and the means by which agencies address them.
 

Findings:

           Agencies that provide service to individuals returning to society from prison must address both the basic and special needs, or those comparable to typical social service provision and those unique to the field of reentry, respectively.  For example, similar to the clients of a social service agency, men and women coming out of corrections institutions are likely unemployed, homeless, recovering or untreated from substance abuse addiction, and/or struggling with mental illness.  However, they are often released from incarceration without proper identification, with little advanced notice to prepare or to renew family/community support, and lacking health care or even good health, all of which would be more serious barriers, even in traditional service programs.  Finally, the fact that they have been labeled as criminals, merely adds to an already difficult process of finding a job, securing housing, and bettering themselves as moral and spiritual individuals, as well as barring them completely from many services. 

          It comes as no surprise then that each of the surveyed, non-profit providers of reentry services in Delaware were found to provide for most of the above concerns in one of two ways, either through programs of integrated service or temporary linkage to a more permanent solution or an alternative service.  Consider the following results:

(1) All agencies prioritize the energy and expertise of staff for case management with clients,

(2) Nearly all of the agencies, and fittingly all of the faith-based organizations, address the spiritual needs of their clients through this demanding time of transition,

(3) All agencies address the needs of their clients in the areas of housing, and drug/alcohol education and recovery, as well as community involvement, including opportunities to become matched with local mentors and to provide community service and restitution, and

(4)   A majority of the agencies respond to needs in the areas of transportation, pre-employment and employment, including the opportunities to secure necessary documentation, education, and training, to arrange and follow through with appointments and interviews, and to earn a new career, beginning through work placement and programs.

             More specifically, the reentry providers that were surveyed, The Way Home, House of PRIDE (People’s Rehabilitation and Individual Development Enterprise), Inc., Churches Take a Corner, Friendship House, Samaritan Outreach of the Ministry of Caring, Sojourners’ Place and three programs of the Delaware Center for Justice - The Adult Reentry Mentoring Program, the HIV/AIDS Program, and the Prison-to-Work Program - are all found to be modest in terms of size and unique in mission and methods of service delivery.  However, they provide services collectively to between 575 and 665 men and women, per year, through their primary programs, and to a total of more than 1300 per year, factoring in even the lowest estimate of those served through walk-ins, support groups, and follow-up efforts.  In addition to serving a great numbers of clients, these agencies also work with clients at all phases of the reentry process: (1) still incarcerated in preparation for release, (2) coming directly from prison or on probation, and (3) through the time of transition into the community, in some cases for several years, to ensure complete adjustment.  Finally, all of these non-profit agencies provide services to individuals within their own community, as well as those throughout the state of Delaware. 

Next Steps:

            There are several other known agencies, and possibly more which are currently unknown, that also provide reentry services in Delaware.  Some are small, non-profits or more-loosely organized, even completely volunteer, groups operating through an interest in community service or congregational outreach, but others are large, multi-level state and private agencies.  Early in the preparation for this research, SURJ inquired to see if the state or one of these larger agencies had started this networking effort in its current approach to service.  When it was discovered that no one had started such research, SURJ began to advocate for its incorporation, such as those efforts already completed in areas like mental health service provision.  However, no one has been able to assume the task at this time, and SURJ, recognizing its importance, prioritized advocacy of reentry through the development of its 2003 Agenda.  Therefore, SURJ hopes that through the recognition of a few of these agencies, more will find the time and interest to become involved in this on-going process to catalog and truly represent not only the need for service, but also the possibility of growth, in this field.