Ending the Cycle: Incarceration, Reintegration, and Discharge Planning. \nA Case Study of the John Howard Society Reintegration Centre
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A growing trend persists in the Canadian criminal justice system—inmates cycle through correctional facilities to homelessness and re-offend, resulting in subsequent periods of incarceration. The prison door revolves; previously incarcerated individuals receive minimal support upon release, and are required to navigate difficult social circumstances with the perceived understanding that freedom will necessarily translate to a positive transitional process. Canadian studies demonstrate the risk of homelessness upon release is significant (Kellen et al., 2010), and numerous US-based studies articulate the importance of transitional support services to ensure reintegration occurs successfully (Petersilia, 2003; Metraux and Culhane, 2004; Parhar and Wormith, 2013). The positive implications of providing accommodation upon release are substantial, and necessarily impact employment, social well-being and health outcomes. Canadian policy is dated and does not reflect the conclusions reached by recent studies, as inmates in provincial correctional facilities released from remand do not receive discharge planning. This is immensely problematic because the percentage of people held in Canadian pretrial detention is greater than those in sentenced custody, thus numerous inmates are released on a daily basis without any support services. The John Howard Society acts to address inadequacies in government policy through the establishment of a Reintegration Centre located four minutes away from the Toronto South Detention Centre. The Reintegration Centre aims to provide a safe and welcoming environment for inmates upon release, with clothes, food and logistical supports. Peer support workers accompany individuals to their point of destination, and referrals are possible to the other social service agencies located at the Reintegration Centre. This paper explores the factors which led to the Reintegration Centre’s establishment, and seeks to understand initial challenges and ii successes, following the first year of operation. Interviews were conducted with John Howard staff and questions focused on the development of the Reintegration Centre, its innovative structure, the peer support worker program, and Ontario’s approach to reintegration. The interviewees widely questioned the current state of affairs, and posited facilities such as the Reintegration Centre represent a scalable model in other communities. Widespread implementation of similar centres will help to ensure systemic improvements occur, and policy development will ideally reflect community initiatives. These research findings demonstrate the vital role of discharge planning, and indicate substantial changes are required to ensure the prison door stops its revolutions
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".