September 2004 53 Targeting for Reentry: Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria Across Eight Model Programs James M. Byrne, Ph.D. The University of Massachusetts, Lowell Faye S. Taxman, Ph.D. Virginia Commonwealth University ACCORDING TO A recent Bureau of Jus- tice Statistics (BIS) review of reentry trends in the United States, there were t,440,655 prisoners under the jurisdiction of federal or state correctional authorities at year-end 2002 (Hughes and Wilson, 2003). During the year, there was a constant flow of offenders both into prison (close to 600,000 individuals) and out of prison (again, about 600,000). Offend- ers entering prison were either newly sentenced offenders (60 percent) or parole/other condi- tional release violators (40 percent). Offenders leaving state prison included drug offenders (33 percent), violent offenders (25 percent), property offenders (31 percent), and public order offenders (10 percent). About one in five of these reentry offenders were released unconditionally; the remaining offenders were placed under parole supervision. Overall, it is projected that 67 percent of these releas- ees will likely be rearrested and 40 percent will likely be returned to prison within three years of their release date, based on a recent BJS study (Langon and Levin, 2002). Clearly, a subgroup of the federal and state prison population appears to have integrated peri- ods of incarceration into their lifestyle and life choices. The constant movement of these offenders into and out of prison has negative consequences not only for offenders but also for the community at large, including victims, family members, and community residents. What can and should the corrections systems do to "target" these offenders for specialized services and controls to improve reintegration into the community? In the following article, we examine the offender targeting issue in detail, utilizing data gathered from our review of eight model Reentry Partnership Initiative Programs' (see Taxman, Young, Byrne, Holsinger & Anspach, 2003 for an overview of research methodol- ogy). We begin by describing the changing patterns of federal and state prison admissions and releases. We then examine the target pop- ulation criteria used in the eight model RPI programs and discuss the unique challenges presented by different offender groups, includ- ing repeat offenders, mentally ill offenders, sex offenders, and drug offenders. We conclude by identifying the relevant classification, treat- ment, and control issues that decision makers will have to address as they design and imple- ment their own reentry processes for targeted offenders and/or communities. 1. Reentry Trends: Changing Patterns of Prison Admission and Release The number of prisoners under state and federal jurisdictions has increased dramati- cally over the past eight decades. In 1925, there were 91,669 state and federal prisoners and the rate of incarceration was only 79 per 100,000 of the resident population. By the end of 2000, the number of incarcerated offenders rose to t,321,t37, which translates into a rate of incarceration of 478 per 100,000 residents. The change in the correctional landscape followed the shift in sentencing philosophy from rehabilitation to incapaci- tation, which grew out of frustration with offenders who refuse to change, the failure of rehabilitative programs to reduce recidivism, and the need to punish offenders for their misdeeds. Paradoxically, the incapacitation approach has resulted in more institution- based punishment for offenders, but less community-based control of the returning home population. Offenders are released from prison either conditionally or unconditionally. For the three out of four offenders released from prison conditionally in 1999, a supervised, mandatory release mechanism was used for 50.6 percent, some form of discretionary release via parole was used for 36.1 percent, and probation/other supervision was used for 13.3 percent. The remaining prison releasees —representing almost a quarter of the total release population (109,896—22.2 percent of all releasees) were sent back to the com- munity "unconditionally," with no involve- ment of the state or federal government in overseeing their return to the community. That is, some type of supervised release (e.g., probation, parole, etc.) was not part of the reentry process. In the vast majority of these unconditional release cases (95 percent), the offender was released from prison due to an expiration of sentence. Any discussion of the impact of our returning prison population on community safety must begin by recognizing the fun- damental changes in release policy in this country over the past decade. Supervised mandatory release is now the most common- ly used release mechanism by state prison