Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
Prisons are temporary. According to the US Department of Justice (2010), around 650,000 people are discharged from prisons every year. They have paid their dues and are given second chances to live outside prison walls. However, for some of these people, being released from prison can be more uncertain than their convictions had been. Most prisoners do not have the slightest idea what really awaits outside for them. When prisoners leave the prison, they need to go back to the society, find a job and become normal, productive and legitimate members of the society (Marbley and Ferguson, 2005 Jucovy, 2006). This sounds simple, but for anyone with a conviction record hanging on his shoulders, the prospect of community reintegration can be daunting. Prisoners are not only constrained by their criminal records but in most cases, they also lack the skills and experience needed to obtain stable jobs and support themselves and their families. Reintegration or reentry for former prisoners includes rehabilitation, training, job placement, and monitoring. According to the US Department of Justice (2010), the purpose of reentry is to help newly-released prisoners gain the skills necessary for them to survive, take control of their lives and stay away from their delinquent past.
The US government recognizes the need for reentry programs to help the growing population of ex-offenders live normal lives. A number of reentry programs had been implemented by both federal and state governments since the 70s. However, statistics show that 50 percent of offenders are rearrested within three years after their release (US Office of Justice Programs, 2010 Wallace Wyckoff, 2008). Reentry programs vary in their impact on the participants. This paper aims to evaluate the effectivity of different re-entry programs in reducing recidivism rate and identify valuable practices employed by different organizations which could be used as a guide in designing new reentry programs or improving old ones. The paper proceeds with a comprehensive review of related literature followed by a conclusion.
Issue Statement
Which prisoner re-entry programs are more effective at reducing recidivism rates
Literature review
There is a wealth of sources dealing with various reentry programs and the prisoners experiences upon release. This review of literature explores the different re-entry models implemented, the legal basis of these re-entry programs, impact of prisoner reintegration to the citizens and the community as a whole and lastly, the characteristics of a successful prisoner re-entry program.
Subtopic 1 Past and Present Prisoner Re-Entry Models
According to Buck (2000), reintegration programs for ex-inmates started with the proliferation of social programs in the 1960s. Authorities wanted to prevent recidivism by addressing the lack of education and skills of ex-offenders. Initial efforts provided no significant results due to lack of cooperation from correctional institutions and the difficulty of dealing with inmates. Despite the disappointing result, initiatives for prisoner rehabilitation continued in the 70s. The reentry models designed in the 70s consisted of extending financial aid and helping ex-prisoners find jobs. One example of this type of program is the Transitional Aid Research Project (TARP) in Texas and Georgia. TARP provided unemployment compensation and job placement assistance to ex-prisoners (Buck, 2000). Another similar program is the Living Insurance for Ex-Offenders (LIFE) program in Baltimore. Unfortunately, providing the financial aid served as a constraint to job seeking, thus both programs failed to motivate offenders to secure employment and avoid recidivism.
In 1979, the government created the Prison Industries Enhancement Certification Program (PIECP). According to Smith, Bechtel, Patrick, Smith, and Wilson-Gentry (2006), the program was initially intended to equip prisoners with the skills needed to live a productive life outside prison. Like the previous programs, PIECP aims to prevent recidivism. Unlike past reentry models, unemployment and insurance benefits were not included in the new program and the main focus is to help offenders get a job and stable income after release. In a study conducted by Uggen (2000), he found that work had a life-changing effect on the lives of criminal offenders over 26 years old (p.542). Having a job prevents offenders from going back to their old crimes (Uggen, 2000 Buck, 2000). Based on these findings, reentry models in the 80s and 90s are centered on helping inmates find jobs by providing necessary training and education while they are in prison.
According to Smith, et al (2006), PIECP programs may either follow the employer model, customer model or manpower model (p.24). In the employer model, production is done inside the prison and the private company manages the workers (prisoners), as well as the production and distribution of products. In the customer model, prison authorities manages both workers and production but turns over the marketing to a private company. In the manpower model, the workers are managed by the private enterprise but they are employed by the department of corrections (Smith, et al, 2006). Aside from helping inmates gain experience and develop job skills necessary in their return to the community, reentry programs also contribute to the growth of the economy. Smith, et al (2006) noted that from 1995 to 2005, the prisoners earnings amounted to around 276.5 million, of which 162.3 million went back to the state. According to the National Correctional Industries Association, the inmates contributions to the economy were spent on victim programs, prison operations, family support and taxes (cited in Smith, et al, 2006, p. 26). PIECP participants increased from 1,724 to 5,103 inmates from 1995 to 2005 and the cost accounting centers expanded from 86 to 201 during the same period (Smith et, al, 2006).
Aside from the PIECP, there are other reintegration programs implemented by state prison authorities. One example is the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) used in Georgia from 1989 to 1990 (Buck, 2000). This program not only prepared prisoners for their release but also included a 14-week follow up to check how the inmates are coping with their status. According to Buck (2000), evaluation of the program revealed that participants in employer-based models found employment easier than those exposed to the other approaches.
Subsequent models for reintegration not only focused on equipping prisoners with work skills and experience but to help them find jobs and monitor their progress. One example of this model is the Post Release Employment Program (PREP) for federal offenders. In a study conducted by Saylor and Gaes (1996), they observed 7,000 inmates for eight years after their release from prison. They found that 72 percent of those who went through the vocational training found jobs compared to only 63 percent of those who did not. Also, only 6 percent of those who trained reoffended after a year. This is lower than the 10 percent rate observed from those who did not participate in the program.
The Opportunities to Succeed (OPTS) program expands the services from merely offering job skills trainings and monitoring inmates to the provision ofintensive supervision, mandatory substance abuse treatment, employability training, housing, family intervention services and parenting skills, and medical and mental health services (Buck, 2004, p.4). Through this method, the inmates are not only equipped to survive outside the prison, they are given extensive support to succeed in the society.
Another model proposed the community-based method (Osher, 2007 Lynch Sabol, 2001). In this approach, communities are encouraged to take a more active role in helping prisoners adjust from their lives in prison to the community. The model relies on the initiative of the community to extend a hand to the ex-offender.
Other reentry programs implemented by different state correction authorities such as the Texas Project RIO, Chicagos Safer, Georgias Operation TOPSTEP, Marylands Montgomery County Pre-release Center, Ohios Offender Job Linkage are spin offs of the preparation and reintegration model. Ex-offenders are assisted not only in obtaining life skills, but also in seeking employment, retaining their jobs and avoiding crime.
Marbley and Ferguson (2005) proposed the expungement model for nonviolent offenders. This method enables the elimination of the conviction record of qualified offenders and restoration of their civic rights such as the right to vote, serve in jury, obtain visa and travel abroad (Marbley and Ferguson, 2005, p.641). This entails extensive evaluation, preparation and rehabilitation. According to Marbley and Ferguson (2005), this model encourages the support of different resources in the community, from religious to business, to the correction system. Its most rewarding feature is the ability to give inmates a real, accessible shot at second chance. This will motivate prisoners to uphold their parole restrictions and reduce recidivism, thus trim down prison population and cut on prison expenses.
To sum up this part of the discussion, reentry models evolved from programs offering financial aid and work skills to prisoners to models that not only equip prisoners with work skills but also help them find employment upon release. Further developments of the model include post placement monitoring and supervision while newer models propose community-based programs that solicit the support of the different stakeholders in the society. The expungement model proposed by Marbley and Ferguson offers non-violent offenders a chance to start with a clean record.
After discussing different reentry models employed by various organizations, the next section deals with legislative policies created for the implementation of reentry programs.
Subtopic 2 Legislative Mandates Regarding Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
As mentioned earlier, focus on the ex-prisoner reintegration programs started in the 1970s. In 1979, the PIECP was legislated. The implementation of the program was accompanied by extensive evaluation on the link between post-prison services and recidivism. In the 1980s, the Office of Correctional Education (OCE) in the U.S. Department of Education provided grants to strengthen skills development initiatives of the department of correction (Buck, 2000). Prisons were opened up for reentry programs that offer training and education to inmates.
The institution of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 paved the way to the creation of the Office of Correctional Job Training and Placement (OCJTP). The OCJTP was tasked to oversee program coordination between federal agencies and other organizations involved in the training and employment of offenders in and out of prison. OCJTP serves as a catalyst for bringing practitioners together to share best practices and identify developing issues (Buck, 2000, p. 7). It provides an avenue for practitioners to network and learn from the experiences of other organizations. This will help them deal with different situations, and evaluate and improve the program on a wider scale.
The Inmate Placement Program Branch was introduced by the Federal Bureau of Prisons in 1996 (Buck, 2000). This program includes activities like prison job fairs, allowed the posting of job opportunities inside prisons, created employment resource centers, provided assistance in resume writing, portfolio preparation, job hunting, skills training, technical assistance and inmate-enhancement programs (Buck, 2000). The Inmate Placement Program further opened prisons to the opportunities outside. It provided inmates an opportunity to prepare for their release. Through this program, they are assured that there is a job waiting for them outside the prison that could help them start anew.
In his State of the Union address in 2004, President George Bush divulged a a four-year, 300 million prisoner re-entry initiative to expand job training and placement services, to provide transitional housing, and to help newly released prisoners get mentoring (US Office of Justice Programs, 2010). This proposal strengthened reentry efforts of the federal government.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-199), enacted on April 9, 2008 was developed to improve ex-offenders reintegration to the community and reduce recidivism. The act also aims to reunite prisoners to their families, encourage community support, promote development through effective programs and reentry services, and protect public safety (US Congress, 2008). Through this law, government organizations and nonprofit enterprises involved in the reintegration and rehabilitation of ex-inmates are entitled to federal endowments. The Second Chance Act mandates the funding of programs focused on adult mentoring, adult demonstration, juvenile mentoring, juvenile demonstration, and the National Reentry Resource Center. It covers rehabilitation of both juvenile and adult ex-prisoners.
The National Reentry Resource Center was established by the Council of State Governments Justice Center through the funding of the Bureau of Justice Assistance on October 6, 2009. This facility serves as the coordinator of states, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and adultjuvenile correctional institutions (US Congress, 2008) and other organizations that work for the successful integration of ex-offenders to the community.
The Prisoner Reentry Initiative (PRI) was established to support state governments in designing institutional and community corrections-based offender reentry programs (U.S. Office of Justice Programs, 2010). This program focuses on the urban communities hosting a large population of ex-offenders. PRI oversees transition from prison to community by providing prerelease assessment and training aside from offering community integration assistance. The PRI is a joint effort of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Office of Justice Programs (OJP). Likewise, it is also supported by the U.S. Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Labor. These organizations coordinate to address the various needs of both juvenile and adult offenders. The PRI consist of two phases assessment and planning, and the implementation. The first phase, intended for the first 3 months of the program, help offenders prepare for their return to society. Services included in phase 1 are education, treatment, training and mentoring. The second phase occurs during the fourth to the 36th month. In this stage of the program, various community organizations work closely with the offenders in establishing a successful reentry to the community.
The next section of the paper tackles the impact of reentry programs to other citizens and to the community as a whole.
Subtopic 3 Citizen and Community Impact of Prisoner Re-Entry Programs
Studies about ex-offenders noted the importance of job, family and community support for successful reintegration. According to Visher and Travis (2003), community involvement helps in the identity transformation from prisoners to productive citizens (p.93). Being a part of a community restores their feeling of worth and belonging and encourages positive interaction which could prevent the recurrence of crime. All reentry programs are designed to address this need of the prisoners. However, a lesser explored aspect of prisoner reentry is the impact of such programs to the community and the people.
According to Lynch and Sabol (2001), reintegration programs are often implemented based on the assumption that people are willing to take ex-offenders to their communities. The authors noted that surveys such as that conducted by Anderson and Milligan revealed that public safety is a major concern (cited in Lynch and Sabol, 2001). Although there are no conclusive studies about citizen perceptions regarding the threat posed by ex-prisoners to the community, the presumption stands that people are generally not comfortable welcoming ex-offenders to their midst. According to Lynch and Sabols analysis, the increasing population of offenders returning to the community is like sowing weeds (p. 15). Instead of weeding crime off, integrating ex-offenders to the community increases the exposure to crime.
The fears of the citizens are valid as shown by high recidivism rate. According to Lynch and Sabol (2001), studies in the 1980s revealed that 62 percent of prisoners discharged were rearrested and 40 percent goes back to prison within three years. This implies that ex-offenders can affect the crime rate in a given area. Based on the U.S. Office of Justice Programs (2010) statistics, a study of 15 states showed that around 50 percent of former prisoners were sent back to prison within three years. Another statistic from the same source showed that parole violators made up 34.2 percent of all prison admissions in 2008. This evidence shows that ex-offenders can pose serious security problems to communities due to their susceptibility to commit crimes.
Aside from safety, another concern about prisoner reentry is the capability of communities to absorb prisoners. Lynch and Sabol (2001) found that ex-prisoners are drawn to certain communities in the metropolitan areas of some cities in few states. Based on this finding, the population of ex-offenders is concentrated in several areas. This trend can pose problems as the concentration of bigger offender population in a given area may reduce the capacity of the community to absorb and reintegrate them. Some problems include shortage in job opportunities and high number of competition as most of the population in these urban communities may either be poor or working class who are themselves in need of jobs.
This also poses a challenge to the reentry workers as they have to divide their limited time and resources to service the growing population of ex-offenders in a given area. The shortage of opportunities brought by high competition may force prisoners to take low-paying jobs which may be inadequate to support them and their families. According to Lynch and Sabol (2001), this could increase the probability of engagement in illegitimate income-producing activities (p.19) and eventually to rearrest. To address this concern, reentry programs like the PRI were established. PRI is focused on selected areas. The goal of the program is to bring help to communities who are most in need of assistance. Having participants in a single community made supervision, monitoring and provision of services easier for the program workers.
Contrary to Lynch and Sabols view that reentry programs presume acceptance of community members, Wallace and Wyckoff (2008) believe that reintegration programs are not intended to give prisoners a second chance but to safeguard the community. According to Wallace and Wyckoff (2008), public safety remains a priority and reentry programs are only implemented for legislative compliance purposes. The kind of assistance extended to offenders is limited by legislations and regulations. They mentioned the prohibition of ex-offenders from certain jobs, imposition of curfews and geographical restrictions, exemption from receiving public assistance and food stamps, living in public housing or obtaining Pell Grants for further education and other guidelines as limiting factors in the reintegration of an ex-prisoner. For them, these constraints are evidences of the societys reluctance to offer offenders equal chances given to other citizens. However, they also noted that few citizens object to people who have been incarcerated getting jobs, paying child support and paying taxes (p.41). This is consistent with Finn and Willoughbys evaluation of the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program in Georgia where they found that being a former prisoner had no effect on employment (cited in Buck, 2000). Like most authors studied for this paper, Wallace and Wyckoff also recognized the importance of having a job in keeping ex-prisoners out of prison.
Aside from citizen and community perceptions, the impact of prisoner reentry to the community has financial advantages as well. According to Marbley and Ferguson (2005) given the high cost of incarceration (around 60,000 per inmate per year), getting prisoners out and helping them get into the labor force are beneficial to the government and business sector and in a way to the community. In the evaluation of the PIECP from 1995 to 2002, the National Correctional Industries Association found that PIECP participants earned 231.6 million in gross wages. From this amount, 126.9 million was returned to the economy, 21.5 million of which was given to victim programs 60.5 million was spent on prison room and board 13.5 million was deducted for family support and 31.4 million went to tax payments (Smith, et al, 2006, pp. 25-26). Aside from the savings obtained from reduced prisoner population and tax contributions from productive ex-offenders, Marbley and Ferguson (2005) also remarked the contributions they could provide to their communities through their purchases. Reintegrating ex-offenders to the community makes them responsible and productive citizens and valued elements in the supply and demand chain.
Reentry programs also provide benefits to firms who hire former prisoners. One of the benefits is the federal bonding program. This program by the Department of Labor provides free insurance to protect an employer in case of loss of money or property due to employee dishonesty (Wallace and Wyckoff, 2008, p.45). This protects the firms from losses due to misconduct of an ex-offender employee. Another is the Work Opportunity Tax Credits (WOTC), which is an incentive for businesses that employ people of certain groups including former prisoners (Wallace Wyckoff, 2008). Through these benefits, the risks associated with employing ex-offenders are minimized. These benefits encourages firms participation the reentry programs and makes the reintegration easier for former prisoners.
Subtopic 4 Successful Prisoner Re-Entry Program Characteristics
As mentioned earlier, various reentry programs had been implemented since the 1970s. Some of these programs had encouraging results while others failed to address the problem of recidivism. Before discussing examples of successful prisoner reentry programs, it might help to first evaluate what made some programs fail. Dhami, Mandel, Loewenstein and Ayton (2006) observed that reintegration failures can be caused by problems in housing, relationships, employment, education, health and substance abuse (p.633). While the statistics for recidivism remains high causing some studies to discount the effect of reentry programs, Hardyman and Irwin (2002) stressed that although ex-prisoners are apprehended after their release, most of their crimes did not result to incarceration. Given this view, we can presume that recidivism rate alone is not enough to measure the success or failure of a reentry program. This makes program evaluation even more complicated. Thus, instead of simply identifying what works and what does not, it may be better to note what features make a program successful
Based on the studies consulted for this paper, the most important characteristic of a successful reentry program is the proper mental programming. According to Bushway (2003), the major cause of reentry failure is unwillingness of former prisoners to change. Reentry programs, no matter how efficient and effective will only work if the person is willing to change and undergo the process. Bushway recognized the need to motivate prisoners to transform their lives. He stated that, The benefits to crime will always outweigh the costs of crime without a massive change in the way they look at the world (p.9). There is a need to inspire people to want to change and turn their life around. According to Bushway, motivation could be the only reason separating a prisoner from his or her old life to a new, more promising one. What is most notable about Bushways analysis is that he stressed on the internal make-up of an individual. According to Bushway, rehabilitation is an option, a day to day decision made by an individual and not something that can be given by any social program. Thus successful reentry program needs to give emphasis on changing the mindset of the individual before any kind of training or job placement could occur.
One successful reentry program using this strategy is the Better People. Better People, based in Portland, Oregon, gives emphasis on altering the mental workings of former prisoners through cognitive behavioral model moral reconation therapy (MRT) (Buck, 2000, p.12). Through this therapy, prisoners are encouraged to develop a more affirmative mindset, to resist the easy way and be more responsible with their actions. In addition to the mindset programming, job placement and job retention assistance is also provided by the organization.
Another characteristic of a successful reentry program is ability to equip prisoners with the right work skills that would help them survive after their release. Programs like the Safer Foundation in Chicago offer job assessment, and in-prison educational courses as well as job placement services (Buck, 2000). Some programs offer more than job trainings. According to Dhami, et al (2006), prisons not only worsen problems, they also generate more. Recognizing the need to address these concerns and prepare prisoners to a life outside the prison, some organizations include life coaching and job preparedness orientation in their programs. The Montgomery County Pre-release Center in Maryland is a 500-bed facility used as holistic treatment hub for selected prisoners. The facility offers employment assistance, counseling and life skills training for inmates six months prior to their release (Buck, 2000, p.10). The Virginia Cares program also offers life skills seminars in different correctional facilities. Georgias Operation TOPSTEP program includes the preparation of documents such as birth certificates, Social Security cards, review programs and resumes in their pre-release program.
Participants in these organizations are set to succeed outside the prison.
Aside from equipping prisoners with the necessary life and work skills, most of the programs offer job placement. Through this service, prisoners can start working immediately after release. According to Buck (2000), former offenders with concrete post-prison plans in place prior to release had lower rate of recidivism. Buck stated that only 27.6 percent of the prisoners with post-release employment reoffended while 53.9 percent of those who had no plans did. Having a plan and obtaining the opportunity to work on it gave these prisoners direction.
Wallace and Wyckoff (2008) also noted the importance of providing appropriate work skills. There are constraints about the kind of occupation ex-prisoners are allowed to perform and being aware of these constraints can help program managers provide the suitable training and avoid frustrations. Some of the examples given by the authors are people with drug records are barred from pharmaceutical companies, theft or fraud convicts are barred from financial firms, former prisoners are not allowed in jobs requiring professional licenses.
Another characteristic of a reintegration program is the ability to help prisoners retain their jobs. Most prisoners not only lack the skills but also the experience, thus getting into the workforce could pose a challenge for them. Maintaining a job for a longer period of time is an indicator of a programs success. The Center for Employment Opportunities (CEO) in New York encourages job retention through its Vocational Development Program. Through this program, participants are encouraged to keep growing and improving. The opportunity to learn new things and advance in their career gives ex-inmates something to look forward to and help them to stay longer in their jobs.
Another characteristic of a good program is the ability to foster relationship with other organizations in the community. One secret for CEOs placement success is its wide network of companies. CEO works with 300 firms which offers former prisoners involved in the program a wide range of work opportunity and company to choose from. This also enables the organization to come up with appropriate job matching which accounts for its 65 percent placement success. South Forty Corporation in New York also employs the same strategy. Through its strong relationship with various firms and organizations, South Forty Corporation maintains around 70 to 85 percent annual placement rate of over 2000 ex-offenders joining their program.
Developing a strong network not only helps in the job placement of ex-offenders but also in reducing recidivism. Reentry programs not only provide ex-offenders jobs but also a network with ex-inmates, program managers and other people. This kind of link is important as most prisoners especially those incarcerated for a long time may not have connections outside prison. Or, as Bushway (2003) observed, a prisoners network outside the prison is the same he had prior to incarceration, and in some cases it could be the same group that led to the persons involvement with illegitimate activities that eventually led to conviction. Thus, having a network of people going through the same experience and people who understand and willing to help is valuable for the success of the prisoner.
Despite the problematic assumptions associated with recidivism rate, it remains the ultimate measure of a reentry programs success. Reentry programs are designed to help offenders stay away from crime and stay out of prison. Smith, et al (2006) evaluated the recidivism rate of joining PIECP program against working in traditional prison industries (TI) and participation in other than work (OTW) activities while in prison. The result showed that of the 6464 inmates discharged from 46 prisons in five PIECP states between 1996 and 2001, PIECP participants obtained work faster and had lower recidivism rate than those who came from the other two groups. PIECP participants also showed better result in all other aspects of the evaluation such as job retention, higher wages, rate of re-arrest and imprisonment. This shows that joining the reentry programs not only prepared offenders to seek employment but also provided mental and emotional buffers that helped them succeed in the long term.
Lastly, a successful reentry program gives participants a chance to have a better quality life. The Emmaus Community is based on this principle. Emmaus Community is a rehabilitative community for offenders who spent more than five years in prison. Although the community is designed for disintegrated and stigmatized prisoners in need of social rehabilitation (Frhwald, Frottier, Aigner, Gutierrez-Lobos, 1997, p. 647), it was mentioned in this review because of the positive result of the program despite the extremity of the cases involved. The group consists of people previously confined in psychiatric hospitals, alcoholics, drug dependents, unemployed and homeless. The initial prognosis for the group was hopeless but the study showed that enhancing the quality of life through work opportunities, housing, and supportive community, significantly improved their conditions. Moreover, relapse reduced over time (Frhwald, et al, 1997). Most prisoners may not need to go through such extreme rehabilitation but the concept of enhanced quality of life after prison could be a valuable approach in developing a reentry program. The experience of the Emmaus Community implies that no cases are hopeless given the right approach.
This section provided a discussion of some characteristics of an effective reentry program. It was noted in this section that an effective reentry program should start with the development of proper mental attitude. Rehabilitation is a mind game and unless a person has the right mindset, no program could help him reintegrate to the community. Other characteristics include ability to equip prisoners with the life and work skills, prepare for release, find and retain jobs and stay away from crime. Also noted is the community-based character of a program which not only helps the prisoner reintegrate to the community but also encourages the community to participate in making the post-prison life of ex-inmates better.
Conclusion
Prisons are temporary and most prisoners have to go out and start a new life as citizens of the community. Reintegration programs are designed not only to make this prison to community transition easier for the prisoners but also to keep them away from their past crimes. Diverse reentry programs had been designed since the 70s and the results vary. Older models focus on making the transition easier by providing financial assistance and job placement opportunities. This model evolved and newer approaches eliminated the financial aid but increased the extent of program involvement. Reentry programs today include prerelease assessment and training, job placement assistance, and continuous supervision and improvement. The goal is to help ex-inmates become responsible and productive members of the community and keep them away from the prison.
The reentry program is based on two important legislations, the PIECP enacted in 1979 provided for the implementation of programs that will equip inmates with life and work skills necessary to survive outside the prison. The other legislation, The Second Chance Act was made law in 2008. This further strengthens the reentry programs for returning prisoners through bigger funding and more comprehensive training and development efforts. This facilitates easier reintegration of prisoners to the community by providing better opportunities not only to the inmate but also to the firms and organizations willing to get involved with the program.
Studies on the peoples perception about ex-inmates are contradictory. Some believe that people see them as threats to the safety of the community while other authors contend that criminal records do not bother people that much. Community involvement in prisoner reentry gives people a chance to offer support to ex-inmates. Furthermore, studies revealed that the return of prisoners to the community has financial benefits one comes from reduction in prison expenses, the other is from taxes paid by the ex-offenders though their new jobs and the last is a result of their personal consumption.
Also discussed in the paper are the various features of an effective reentry program. It was noted that it entails the development of proper mindset, it enables transition from prison to community through appropriate life and work skills trainings and job placement assistance, and lastly, it has long-term impact on the participants by helping them retain jobs and avoid committing crimes.
Based on these discussions, the successful prisoner reentry program in reducing recidivism is the comprehensive model that offers prerelease preparation, release assistance and post-prison support. Prerelease assistance will help prisoners deal with their personal issues and equip them with necessary work skills. Assistance during release helps prisoner adjust to the community, seek the right employment and find housing and support. Post-prison support includes continuous monitoring, supervision and assistance until the prisoner is ready to make it on his own. This ensures the successful integration of the prisoner and provides them with the needed network to survive outside the prison. Lastly, a successful reentry program is also community-based. It integrates the need of the prisoner to be a part of the society and the need of the people to feel secure and safe. It provides an avenue for the community to reach out to the prisoners and get them involved in community activities. This will provide the inmates the much needed network and support group, at the same time, give the citizens opportunity to be of help and interact with the new members of their community.
Based on their results, the new models of reentry programs have all the necessary features of an effective reentry program. The Post Release Employment Program (PREP) resulted to a reduced recidivism from 10 percent observed from the control group to only 6 percent from the participants. Buck (2000) observed that the better trained a prisoner gets, the lower is the chance to commit crime. He stated that 35.5 percent recidivism rate was observed in inmates who completed at least one training prior to release while 44.1 percent recidivism rate was observed from those who did not attend any training.
One area for improvement is changing the prisoner mindset. This can be accomplished by understanding the prisoners and getting them motivated to transform their lives.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment