Well-organized, specific locational information of people and public safety or other resources is a powerful tool in the hands of policymakers seeking to address a wide range of criminal justice problems. In its most intuitive form "mapping" such information has been effectively used to target services for and surveillance of parolees; to inform interventions to fight gang-related gun violence; and to improve the delivery of services for victims. ^[1]   Policymakers should seek to inform the development of any re-entry initiative with data such as the locations to which prisoners return in their jurisdiction and where re-entry services and resources and supervision offices are sited. Mapping can be used to identify the intersections between different kinds of criminal justice and community resources that are relevant to re-entry issues, as well as gaps where resources are lacking.

Re-Entry policymakers should seek to partner with agencies or organizations with expertise in specialized spatial analysis, rather than attempting to develop this capacity themselves. City planning offices often use Geographic Information Systems (GIS); policymakers may be able to access this software through city planning offices, to use maps that they generate, or to work with them to create maps specific to re-entry issues. Decision makers who enter such agreements or partnerships should be aware of some of the issues associated with mapping prisoner re-entry data, such as understanding the types of spatial information that may be available and ensuring data confidentiality.

Mapping requires obtaining address-level information from the state corrections agency; depending on what data are collected by the department of corrections, this can be a challenge. While some departments of corrections collect and maintain data on the release address of all those who exit the prison system, others do so only for those prisoners who are released to supervision, and others do not collect any addresses in any cases. When release addresses are not available, policymakers should seek alternative data sources to conduct spatial analysis, including (in decreasing order of usefulness) release zip codes, addresses prior to incarceration, or county of conviction. Each of these data sources has weaknesses. Release addresses, for instance, indicate only where individuals awaiting release expect to return, and may not represent their ultimate destination. Similarly, research indicates that only 50 to 60 percent of those who were convicted in a specific county return to that same county.

In some cases, these data sources can be "blended" in order to generate the most accurate map of the locations of all returning prisoners. This method would be employed if, for example, the department of correction collected address-level release location data for prisoners released to supervision, but only the last address prior to incarceration for all others. In this case, both data sources would be used, with the understanding that the locations of those released without supervision are rough approximations.

In general, prisoners return to a relatively small number of neighborhoods that typically face many challenges but have only limited resources. For example, in Maryland in 2001, 59 percent of prisoners who returned to the state returned to Baltimore City. Within Baltimore City, released prisoners were even more concentrated, with 30 percent of releasees returning to just six neighborhoods. Some of these neighborhoods received more than 200 released prisoners in 2001--more than some entire counties in the state received. ^[2]   The importance of understanding such geographic patterns of released prisoners is best illustrated through the types of questions that they can help answer.

• Where are prisoners returning?

  Mapping can help identify areas that experience high concentrations of prisoners returning home. Mapping the last known addresses of released inmates (available through the departments of correction in most states) can reveal places where these individuals are concentrated within cities and neighborhoods, right down to the city block. This information then equips local policymakers and community organizers with the capacity to target intervention efforts and resources in the areas that most need them. Specialized mapping systems can provide spatial analysis across multiple variables of interest, allowing policymakers to determine what types of prisoners are returning to specific neighborhoods. In Winston-Salem, NC, policymakers used maps to explore the extent to which younger offenders might cluster in different neighborhoods than older offenders, and found that younger releasees tended to cluster more in the city's center. This information could guide the placement of resources and services for youthful releasees.

• To what extent are services available in the areas where individuals are returning from prison and jail?

  Understanding where community assets and other resources are located can help policymakers allocate resources effectively. Jurisdictions should identify local services by using public resources (such as United Way's "First Call for Help" database or the yellow pages), or by contacting the state corrections agency or partner agencies for lists of commonly used services. It is particularly useful to gather information about program goals, target population, client eligibility, services offered, fees, and programmatic capacity for each available service. This information should be mapped to identify service delivery gaps and overlaps, and can also be used to prepare a service directory as a resource for returning prisoners.

  Mapping released prisoners in conjunction with services available to them can illustrate areas in which there are adequate services in close proximity to where the majority of inmates return. Such mapping can also detect whether there is a "service delivery mismatch," in which services exist but are not easily accessible. The mapping of returning prisoners in relation to the location of services in Chicago indicated that only 24 percent of service providers were located in any of the six communities receiving the highest numbers of returning prisoners. In addition, no services were located in two of those six neighborhoods. ^[3]   Identifying areas with high concentrations of returning prisoners may also help guide service delivery for the families of returning inmates in these neighborhoods. In addition, mapping may help focus law enforcement and parole officer efforts to mitigate the public safety risks associated with high populations of released prisoners.

• What are the neighborhood characteristics in areas with high concentrations of releasees?

  Identifying and responding to the challenges of prisoner re-entry requires an understanding of the nature of the communities to which prisoners return. Thus, examining neighborhood indicators representing both basic demographics and the welfare of the community (such as housing tenure, percentage of female-headed households, vacant housing, education attainment, marital status, fertility, infant mortality, place of birth, language, and ancestry) can aid in developing a measure of social capital, which will help determine the extent to which communities are equipped to address the challenges that prisoner re-entry creates. Research examining the geographic distribution of released prisoners in Baltimore, for example, found that the six communities that were home to the greatest number of returning prisoners also had rates of unemployment, female-headed households, poverty, and crime that were much higher than the citywide average. ^[4]