Perception of Re-entry Programs

I. INTRODUCTION

Problem statement

The general perception of re-entry programs for prisoners returning to society has caused a hindrance in the overall effectiveness of the existence of such programs. Research typically aims on successful means to link various re-entry service programs, such as mental health counseling and job-searching; however, the efforts of such services will not be effective, regardless of their benefits, if they are not perceived as constructive and essential means of re-integration into society after a period of incarceration. Petersilia (2000) has noted a lack on the part of policymakers to create systematic and comprehensive prisoner reentry programs. As a result of this negligence, recent gains in crime reduction may be undermined if the tens of thousands of prisoners being released back into communities are not properly reintegrated and monitored (Petersilia, 2000).

Inmate release and re-entry has always been a contested issue, but the number of releases of offenders is at an all time high. According to Petersilia (2000), The numbers of returning offenders dwarf anything known before, the needs of released inmates are greater, and corrections has retained few rehabilitation programs. A number of unfortunate collateral consequences are likely, including increases in child abuse, family violence, the spread of infectious diseases, homelessness, and community disorganization” (n.p.) From a general community perspective, the lack of a well-designated reintegration and monitoring program (i.e. parole) causes unease among the public, and particularly victims of crime (Petersilia, 2000). A proper assessment of the effectiveness of reentry programs may help to encourage ex-offenders from recidivism.

Background and Significance

The root and reality of the issue of prisoner re-entry after imprisonment is that the U.S. has the highest incarceration rate among developed countries (Freudenberg et al., 2005). In a study from 2005, the 2 million Americans that were imprisoned already posed a serious problem for state governments (Freudenberg et al., 2005). Since 2005, the problem has only been exacerbated as rates continue to rise. Because of the large number of prisoners and costs for correctional facilities, state governments are forced to decide between early release of prisoners or cutbacks in healthcare and education initiatives (Freudenberg et al., 2005). As a result, the question coming to the forefront of debate has shifted: According to Freudenberg et al. (2005), “The public debate so far has focused on “back end” criminal justice issues: the death penalty, wrongful convictions, mandatory sentences, and human rights abuses in prisons. For public health professionals, however, “front end” concerns—who goes to jail and what happens when they come home—may be just as compelling” (p. 191). According to Freudenberg et al (2005), jails are defined as “correctional facilities operated by local governments that incarcerate those awaiting trial, sentencing, or transfer to state prisons” (p. 191). The numbers of reentry cases are much higher among state jail inmates as opposed to federal prisons who house those offenders serving much longer sentences. Typically, offenders serving sentences in jails are have been sentences to imprisonment for one year or less. The turnover rate of the more than 10 million people sent to US jails is extremely high (Freudenberg et al., 2005, p. 191). (Freudenberg et al. (2005) note that “Between 1980 and 2002, the US jail population increased by 265%...To date, most public attention has focused on the 600000 people returning annually from state and federal prisons rather than the more than 7 million returning from jail” (p. 191). Statistically, those serving time in jails show a high prevalence of chronic and infectious diseases, various addictions, mental health issues and tendencies towards violence (Freudenberg et al., 2005). As a result, the communities to which these people are returned to, often low-income urban neighborhoods suffer severe consequences (Freudenberg et al., 2005). It is assumed that a positive perception of reentry programs that assist and monitor ex-offenders, specifically within the first six months of release could both avoid recidivism on part of the ex-offender and discourage perpetual crime in the neighborhoods they return to.

Also noted by Freudenberg et al. (2005) is the “The individual, family, and community disruption caused by repeated short incarcerations may contribute to the disparities in health that distinguish low-income, urban communities with high incarceration rates and high proportions of Blacks (defined here as African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans) and Latinos from communities with lower incarceration rates and higher incomes” (p. 191). Programs which aim to re-integrate offenders back into community life must take all of this into consideration. Attitudes and reactions on the part of both the offenders and their communities towards the success of these programs must be considered in the formation of policies that require reentry program adherence with the overall goal of preventing subsequent incarcerations and community security.

Hallett (2011) remarks that academic research has primarily focused on the experimental design and subsequent evaluation of re-entry programs rather than larger impacts such as economic change and shifts in demographics of prisoners. Hallett’s (2011) study employs the use of sociology of punishment in conjunction with the defective re-entry system. Furthermore, Hallet (2011) cites the concerns of scholars in regards to the disappearance of typical entry-level jobs for males in light of the current economic crisis, which also affects other factors of successful reintegration like crime-prone neighborhoods and impoverished families. Researchers like Richards and Jones (1997) saw the probability of the increased rates of re-incarceration years ago. The researchers write, “ The prison system is perpetuating growth by its own institutional failure to properly prepare prisoners for release. The system is a revolving door that shuffles prisoners from one level of custody to another, from probation to prison, from prison to work release and parole, and from parole back to prison (Richards & Jones, 1997, p.15; Hallett, 2011) Richards and Jones (1997) discuss the state of incarcerations in Iowa, but this can be seen as a nation-wide crisis that has only been exacerbated in recent years.

Hallett points to the 2010 update of the book, The Jobless Future, by Aronowitz and Difazio (2010), which aptly addresses general unemployment rates, the problematic notion of securing jobs for offenders—one of the most important factors in successful re-entry-- and the shift from post-industrial employability to the new global economy. The writers explain, “what is disappearing is not work but real jobs; the assumption of long-term employment that entailed pension, health insurance, and other benefits” (Arnowitz & DiFazio, 2010, p. xi; Hallett, 2011, n.p.). Rhodes (2008) conducted interviews with probationers who had secured income upon re-entry, employers and probation officers. Data collected suggested that social ties and employment were positively correlated. Rhodes (2008) notes, “Not only do social ties offer ex- offenders access to employment, they also encourage and foster the development of a self-identity in which paid work assumes an integral role” (p. 2). The lack of jobs for current inmates serving sentences in jail is exacerbated by a complex system of socio-economic factors, which in turn affect perceptions on reentry programs that have been viewed as overall unsuccessful by many scholars. More importantly, though, research as to the attitudes and beliefs of ex-offenders who are involved in reentry programs as opposed to those who resist such assistance would help make a case for the importance of funding such programs. Benefits of well developed and well funded programs could benefit both ex-offenders and their respective communities.

While there is no general consensus among researchers as to the exact net impact of imprisonment on related or perpetual crime, it is generally agreed that community attitudes do have a significant impact on the likelihood of a return to criminal activity. According to Hirschfield and Piquero, (2010), “The general public tends to demonize offenders as dangerous, dishonest, or otherwise disreputable (Gaubatz, 1995; Young, 1999), so the label of ‘prisoner’ or ‘ex-con’ is highly stigmatized (Harding, 2003; LeBel, 2008). Employers, co-workers, and neighbors who hold negative attitudes are more likely to exclude ex-offenders from conventional economic and social activities (Clear, 2007; Pager, 2003)” (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010, p.28). Hostility towards this stigmatized population reentering communities around the country not only perpetuates stigmatization and disadvantages for ex-offenders, it also has a strong impact on their families and the places they reside (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010).

There are many mixed perceptions of the impact of perception of re-entry programs. While many note a serious lack of pragmatic, effectual programs to help ex-offenders obtain jobs and avoid re-incarceration, others suggest that this is an extension of appropriate punishment that could help deter others from engaging in criminal activity (Williams & Hawkins, 1986) (Hirschfield & Piquero, 2010, p. 28). In a broader context, however, it can not be denied that neighborhoods that tend to house numerous offenders or ex-offenders become stigmatized as a whole, with associations as “bad places” in which social organization and progress holds little probability (Clear, Rose, & Ryder, 2001, p. 341).

Evaluation of re-entry programs for ex-offenders has been a consequence of the enormous rise in incarceration in the U.S. over the last 30 years, now coupled with economic crisis and tight budgets for policy makers. According to Morenoff and Harding (2011) it is estimated that “600,000 people are released each year from state and federal prisons in the U.S.” (p. 6). Many challenges, particularly stigmatization, create barriers for ex-offenders and the system in place that are supposed to help them avoid returning to criminal activity and thus re-incarceration. While there is still much to be done in terms of research and policy-making, even on such a tight budget, the following circumstances provided by Morenoff and Harding (2011) and echoed by related literature should inform the organization of re-entry programs and the perception of both inmates and the systems in place to re-integrate them: “Returning to a more residentially stable baseline neighborhood was associated with a lower risk of recidivism across all outcomes, but the association was only significant in the case of absconding and returning to prison for a new conviction; Being employed for longer periods of time substantially reduced the risk of all recidivism outcomes in all models, but employment status did not mediate any of the neighborhood effects on recidivism” (p.11). Morenoff and Harding (2011) believe that these are a few of the major points from their research that suggest that neighborhood reception, and thus perception, of parolees upon return and beyond has a significant impact on recidivism, and hence re-incarceration.

It has been widely known noted that the first three years, and even more specifically the first 6 months, of re-entry after imprisonment is a crucial time for ex-offenders who are most likely to return to criminal activity in this time frame. The integration of re-entry programs can not be successful if it is not well-designed based on research and strictly enforced. The perception of re-entry programs by offenders might consist of the fear of further stigmatization. Worse still, they might see the current systems in place as ineffectual and believe that returning to a life of crime is their only viable option, given the circumstances they are returning to—often impoverished families and neighborhoods. Additionally, the perception of the offenders themselves by their communities may be impacted by the success of such re-entry programs. Those residing in the same neighborhoods as ex-offenders are likely to feel reassured of their safety, knowing that the ex-offender is being properly paroled and monitored. As employment and neighborhood reception are found to be critical determinants of a successful re-entry into society after imprisonment, it would serve all parties involved if programs worked to create situations in which ex-offenders were accepted and employed by their community instead of out casted, which strongly heightens risk for recidivism.

References

Arnowitz, S. & DiFazio, W. (2010). The jobless future (2nd ed.). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.

Clear, Todd R. (2007). Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantaged Neighborhoods Worse. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Clear, Todd R., Dina R. Rose, & Judith A. Ryder. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime & Delinquency 47, 335–51.

Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., Crum, M., Perkins, T. & Richie, B.E. (2005) Coming Home From Jail: The Social and Health Consequences of Community Reentry for Women, Male Adolescents, and Their Families and Communities. American Journal of Public Health. 95 doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.056325.

Gaubatz, Kathlyn T. (1995). Crime in the Public Mind. Dearborn: University of Michigan Press.

Hallet, M. (2011). Reentry to what? Theorizing prisoner reentry in the jobless future. Critical Criminology.

Harding, David J. (2003). Jean Valjean’s dilemma: The management of ex- convict identity in the search for employment. Deviant Behavior 24, 571–95.

Hirschfield, P. & Piquero, A. (2010). Normalization and legitimization: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes towards ex-offenders. Criminology 48(1), 27-50.

LeBel, Thomas P. (2008). Perceptions of and responses to stigma. Sociology Compass 2, 409-432.

Morenoff, J.D. & Harding, D. J. (2011). Final Technical Report: Neighborhoods, Recidivism, and Employment Among Returning Prisoners.

Petersilia, J. (2000, November). When prisoners return to the community: Political, economic and social consequences. Sentencing and Corrections: Issues for the 21st Century 9, n.p. U.S. Department of Justice.

Rhodes, J. (2008). Ex-offenders, social ties and the routes into employment. Journal of Internet Criminology.

Richards, S.C. & Jones, R. (1997). Perpetual incarceration machine: structural impediments to post-prison reform. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(1).

Williams, Kirk R., and Richard Hawkins. (1986). Perceptual research on general deterrence: A critical review. Law & Society Review 20, 545–72.

Young, Jock. (1999). The Exclusive Society: Social Exclusion, Crime and Difference in Late Modernity. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.