Ana-Gabriela Walch
Challenges in Prisoner Reentry
In recent decades, the United States has experienced a significant increase in imprisonment—leading many to refer to this era as one of mass incarceration. Between ninety to ninety-five percent of prisoners will ultimately filter back into society, “resulting in more than 700,000 inmates released from state and federal prisons each year” (Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, & Bratton, 2011, p. 348). Because nearly all prisoners return to their communities, it is important to research their integration process. Multiple challenges exist in the reentry transition—namely in the areas of housing, employment, family relationships, and recidivism. These challenges expose the need for additional and improved reentry programs in place for ex-offenders. Further still, it is important to prepare prisoners for re-entry by placing them into such programs prior to release, and by monitoring them throughout the reentry course.
One of the major challenges in an ex-offender’s reentry involves housing and living situations. After serving a prison sentence, many individuals do not have a home to return to due to severed family ties and a lack of income. The stigma placed on ex-offenders exacerbates the issue, as landlords frequently deny rental agreements to individuals with criminal records. Homelessness ends up as the only resort for many of these individuals; a quarter of the homeless population has served in prison (Petersilia, 2001). Those that do find housing usually live with a family member, and often end up in resource-deprived areas. Those that reestablish themselves in resource-deprived neighborhoods are at a high risk of being reconvicted and consequently filtering back into the prison system (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008).
Many resource-deprived communities are characterized by a significant number of residents with prison records. As a result, prisoners who return to these areas end up competing with others for resources and seeing more openings to commit crime (Morenoff & Harding, 2014). In a study on the effects of offenders returning to their neighborhood community after serving a yearlong prison sentence, researchers found that “spatial concentrations of incarceration promote higher than expected rates of crime” (Petersilia, 2001). According to Morenoff and Harding, high levels of prisoner cycling in and out of these neighborhoods leads to a decrease in informal social control as individuals become less likely to feel obligated to maintain a safe community atmosphere. Consequently, ex-prisoners returning to communities may feel socially isolated, and this feeling can increase in the face of unpredictable living conditions. This isolation and lack of social support contributes to the many other challenges of reentry, such as employment seeking—as the individual lacks a helpful network; family ties; and recidivism—as the individual is likely to resort to old means in order to survive.
The automatic imposition of a criminal record label can pose another major reentry challenge for released offenders. Ex-offenders must report this record and provide further explanation when applying for any job. This can make reentry extremely arduous for an individual, as having a criminal record limits employment opportunities. Not only is it difficult to find employment, but a majority of offenders re-enter society without any savings or access to unemployment benefits (Petersilia, 2001). Challenges in finding employment tax the individuals and can lead to re-offending as the only viable option to generate income. According to Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, and Bratton, employment plays a major role in impeding future crime because it allows ex-offenders to secure a legal source of income and limits their opportunity to commit crime by being routinely busy and focused on work (2011). The issue of securing employment is not only a problem of the recently released; Ducksworth mentions a scenario in which an individual had been out of prison for multiple years, free of parole, and a functioning member of society, but still had trouble obtaining employment that those without a criminal label could (2010). Ducksworth states: “…As long as we lack a statute of limitation regarding how long a person is required to carry their scarlet letter of incarceration, and publicly reveal it, most individuals will never be allowed to move beyond the stage of prisoner reentry” (p. 559). Multiple studies have shown the stigma placed on individuals with a history of incarceration, including one in which employers were shown to be more inclined to hire those on welfare or those with less experience than ex-offenders (Petersilia, 2001). Because incarceration is surrounded by stigma, there exists an increasing unwillingness to hire ex-offenders. This stigma is reinforced through employment restrictions in place that bar parolees from working in many licensed, professional, or public-sector jobs (Petersilia, 2001). As noted by Petersilia, these limits conflict with the goal of U.S. prisons to rehabilitate convicts by encouraging them to seek employment, yet forbidding them from many different forms of employment. “A common metaphor in the discussion of criminal justice policies in the U.S. invokes a pendulum swinging from ‘tough on crime’ policies at one end to ‘rehabilitation’ on the other” (Visher, 2007, p. 93).
In a study conducted on formerly incarcerated individuals, Bowman and Travis found that once ex-offenders get denied employment multiple times, survival instincts surface and they fall back to criminal actions they perceive as crucial for survival—even if they are cognizant of the increased chances of returning to prison (2012). Hence, this perpetuates the ‘revolving door’ phenomenon of incarceration—in which release is followed by reincarceration. Furthermore, before individuals can consider employment options, ability in performing simple number and text-based tasks must be considered (Petersilia, 2001). Due to the isolation from the ‘real-world’ created by prisons and because of the fact that a majority of offenders come from lower socioeconomic and less educated backgrounds, a larger part of the prison population operates at the lower levels of literacy. Consequently, job searching, the application process, and meeting prospective employer requirements can prove to be strenuous for many ex-offenders.
Families are important to the reentry process, as members are capable of providing vital support and understanding. A study conducted on prisoners being released from the New York City Department of Corrections found that the families of these parolees played a fundamental role in instigating their success or failure during the first month following release (Martinez, 2006). Family mechanisms supply assistance in a released offenders’ path to becoming a productive citizen through employment and the development of interpersonal skills (Martinez, 2006). The acceptance and support given by families can be seen as motivation for parolees to exercise a positive way of life.
However, this is not always the case for individuals returning home from prison. Often times, the process of reintegration can place large amounts of stress on both family members and ex-offenders. In a study of family member responses to reentry, participants described issues in supplying assistance as “exhausting and draining” (Grieb et al., 2014, p. 1187). Study participants encountered difficulties that included reestablishment of relationships, lack of understanding, and the overarching presence of outside forces going against their support. This can decrease family members’ willingness to provide mental and tangible support as time progresses (Naser & Vigne, 2006). An additional issue with family relationships is that there is “little to no outreach or larger system coordination to address the needs of family members on the outside.” Thus, family members are unprepared and lack the necessary knowledge and training for providing assistance and supporting paroles (Imber-Black, 2008). Former convicts sometimes feel a need—and thus feel pressure—to contribute to their families. However, because of employment barriers and lack of skills, many turn to crime in order to supply for their family.
According to Stafford, a majority of individuals who make an effort at reentry are unsuccessful, with 67.5% of released offenders being reincarcerated within three years (2006). Exacerbating the problem is the fact that most offenders are discharged directly from their prison without any introduction to the reentry process, and consequently are unprepared for their reinstatement in society (Austin, 2001). Once back in society, the low levels of available community resources and social support experienced by many ex-convicts further increase the possibility of reincarceration due to a rise in the burden of reentry.
As previously mentioned, barriers in employment and housing cultivate recidivism through “denied opportunities and hyper-scrutiny” (Bowman & Travis, 2012, p. 10). Employment is seen as one of the leading predictors of effective reintegration, as it discourages criminal activity through a receipt of legal income flow and involvement in productive activities (Morani et al., 2011). Parolees who are unsuccessful in securing employment have more opportunities and time for illegal activity engagement and are more likely to recidivate. Similarly, because many parolees return to resource-deprived areas in terms of housing, they face limited access to basic needs fulfillment, and are likely to turn to illegal means in order to achieve these ends (Morani et al., 2011). Parolees returning to resource-deprived areas are likely to experience a decreased feeling of neighborhood informal social control and thus an increase ‘pull of the streets,’ leading to a greater likelihood that these ex-convicts will—once again—engage in criminal activity and filter back into the prison system.
Adding to the issues parolees face during reintegration is the reality that many have developed serious “social, psychological, and physical problems…and will be released to poor inner-city communities with few services and little public sympathy for their plight” (Mears et al., 2008). A small percentage of parolees receive treatment (for issues such as drug abuse and mental health concerns) and fewer receive training services. Therefore, recidivism is common in this population of ex-offenders.
The problems previously mentioned—living situations, unpreparedness for employment, and family ability to provide support—expose a need for extensive evaluation, improvement, and creation of reentry programs. “Those who are currently being released reenter society with more serious needs and with less assistance from rehabilitation services,” thus, there exists a need for effective reentry programs prior to and following release in order to adequately prepare offenders and provide vital support during the process (Martinez, 2006, p. 23). In the study conducted by Bowman and Travis (2012), offenders strongly voiced that success or failure of reentry was associated with three transition phases: “(a) prerelease dynamics, (b) adjusting to the community after release, and (c) the nature of programs and services available or not after release” (p. 14). Hence, there is a need for effective programs throughout a prisoner’s sentence to address drug abuse and mental health and to train in basic job and social skills. The
absence of educational and restorative programs during a prisoner’s stay at a correctional facility is linked to a 60% re-arrest rate (Imber-Black, 2008). An increase in the availability of these ‘in house’ services would have a positive effect on recidivism rates, as studies show that offenders are likely to take advantage of services made available to them. Additionally, offenders should be placed under watch during the adjustment period following release. The Bowman and Travis (2012) study suggested a case manager to help with planning and with the transition from life in prison to functioning member of society.
Another critical point of contact for an individual in the reentry process is his/her parole officer. In many cases, parolees see limited presence of an officer. In many of these cases the individual simply checks in sporadically and experiences an officer who merely serves a supervising and monitoring role. Parole officers could be more effective by connecting individuals to services to aid in their transition, rather than solely serving as an individual with whom an offender is required to intermittently check-in (Bowman & Travis, 2012). According to the Seiter and Kadela (2003) study on the effectiveness of programs targeted for prisoner reentry, multiple initiatives have positive outcomes and should be made available for the growing prisoner population. Seiter and Kadela indicated that vocational training and work release programs are useful in teaching employment readiness skills and in reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Additionally, users of drug rehabilitation programs are less likely to continue drug use post-release, make a parole violation, or commit a drug-related delinquency. Lastly, Seiter and Kadela opine that halfway house and general prerelease programs are effective in lessening future crimes—and their severity (2003).
Prisoner reentry is a growing concern due to the constantly expanding prison population. “The policies around reentry have become increasingly an avoidance of risk,” thus, offenders are continually being reincarcerated in a revolving door phenomenon (Seiter & Kadela, 2003). This exposes the many shortcomings in release policies and reentry programs. A considerable percentage of those individuals who return to society and are not reincarcerated remain largely unsuccessful in their attempts at reintegration. This is due to their unpreparedness and the barriers in place for attaining employment and adequate housing. Because the United States spends a bulk of its expenditures on imprisoning offenders, a portion of this expense should be used to develop and improve programs to impede the cycle of crime and to supply offenders with the necessary services for a successful adjustment back into society. In order to improve existing programs—and to create effective new programs—reentry programs must go through comprehensive assessments to determine who recidivates, when they recidivate, and why they recidivate (Severson, Bruns, Veeh, & Lee, 2011).
With continued research and analysis to determine the many needs of ex-offenders and to make the vital changes in the United States’ system of prisoner reentry, the U.S. can begin to move forward in repairing its previous shortcomings and in making sure everything possible is done in order to ease a prisoner’s transition from incarceration to society and provide him/her with the necessary tools to become a functioning member of society.
References
Austin, J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry: Current Trends, Practices, and Issues. Crime & Delinquency, 47(3), 314-334.
Bowman, S. W., & Travis, R. (2012). Prisoner reentry and recidivism according to the formerly incarcerated and reentry service providers: A verbal behavior approach. The Behavior Analyst Today, 13(3-4), 9-19.
Ducksworth, J. (2010). The prisoner reentry industry. Dialectical Anthropology Dialect Anthropol, 34(4), 557-561.
Grieb, S. M., Crawford, A., Fields, J., Smith, H., Harris, R., & Matson, P. (2014). “The Stress Will Kill You”: Prisoner Reentry as Experienced by Family Members and the Urgent Need for Support Services. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 25(3), 1183-1200.