Reentry is an issue that has social, and public policy implications. Supervision and release as handled by parole has created more intensity among scholars. Many plausible factors have contributed to as to why offenders have a hard time re-entering the community successfully (Nally, Lockwood, Ho & Knutson, 2012). More than 700, 000 individuals are serving time behind bars. One of the main predictors of post-release recidivism is lack of employment (La Vigne, et al., 2008). It is difficult as for most jobs criminal background checks are required, which in itself is an obstacle and challenge in securing employment upon an offender’s release (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2004; Pettit and Lyons 2007; Travis 2005; Berg & Huebner, 2011).
Statistically close to 66% percent of all prisoners who reenter society will be rearrested for a different crime three years after the initial release. Those rearrested would be returned to prison on the basis of parole violation, while others would have incurred completely new charges. This is a vicious cycle that finds a large number of offenders (mostly men) ebbing, and flowing between reentry, and re-arrest. To compound this issue of reintegration is the fact that many of the communities in which these prisoners return are already socioeconomically disadvantaged (Travis, Solomon & Waul, 2001). Removal and re-arrest is a costly cycle that that threatens public safety. Recidivism equates to thousands of new cases annually. Fiscally recidivism absorbs a substantial amount of state funds that are invited in the criminal justice system to address high rates of recidivism. For example, from 1982 to 1997, expenditures on correctional initiatives ballooned from $9 million to $44 billion within a fifteen-year span. This increase does not account for the hefty price tag of arrest, and sentencing practices. It also does not include the cost of victimization.
Prisoners who are currently detained in secure facilities will one day leave, and re-enter society; more offenders are transitioning back to their homes than ever before. Social and government programs are affected by the complex issue of offender re-entry. Most are released to parole systems where few services are available, and conditions are imposed on offenders, which guarantee their failure. The public will not support community based programs, and so policymakers pressure the states to build more prisons. Parolees get released without proper service to aid in their survival. In 2001, more than 2 million offenders would return to either jail or prisons (Petersilia, 2000). The shift in the penal philosophy in the United States in the 1970s changed the face of the correctional system in the United States. Strict sentencing policies reinforced incarceration than rehabilitation. There is no empirical evidence to support incarceration, and the result overcrowding. As the correctional system face issues ranging from the mentally ill, women, to youth in incarceration does not cause offenders to leave more dangerous than when they entered (“Prison Conditions in the United States: A Human Rights Project, 1991”). It is clear that the prison population is growing been increasing. The increase number of parolees returning home has made re-entry a complex issue that pressures public policy makers to create effective treatment programs that will ensure that the re-entry process is effective while lowering recidivism rates.
Daily, more prisoners are leaving our correctional facilities to return to their communities after serving long prison sentence, which makes them unprepared to live life outside of the prison cells, without the assistance they are used to having as they embark on a journey of reintegration. There are inherent difficulties that these offenders experience as they re-enter society, and try to start a new life outside of prison (Travis et. al, 2001). The difficulties they face are varied but most prisoners that are observed often find it difficult to secure employment, to a stable and safe place to live, to remain sober, and to continue their treatment plan (whether for health or substance abuse issues).
Traditionally incarcerated individuals are seen as poor, illiterate and unemployed both before incarceration and after incarceration, with tendencies to be frequently unemployed post-release (Nally, Lockwood, Ho & Knutson, 2012). Uneducated offenders who are re-entering the community are most likely to recidivate (Allen 1988; Batiuk 1997; Blomberg, Bales, and Piquero 2012; Burke and Vivian 2001; Fabelo 2002; Harlow 2003; Nuttall, Hollmen, and Staley 2003; Vacca 2004; Wilson, Gallagher, and MacKenzie 2000; Nally, Lockwood, Ho & Knutson, 2012). For this reason, it is imperative for strong education programs to be in the correctional facilities, which will better equip offenders to life post-incarceration.
Studies show that both employment and family social ties play an important role in offenders’ re-entry process (Berg & Huebner, 2011).Close to two-thirds of those re-entering society will re-engage in criminal behavior with close to 50% will go on to serve more time in prison (Langan & Levin, 2002; Berg & Huebner, 2011). People are often connected with jobs through their family ties making it beneficial for these job-seekers who are already at a disadvantage due to their criminal records, work history, and education making them less marketable (Granovetter, 1974, 1985; Lin, 2001; Berg & Huebner, 2011). These offenders who are re-entering the community for the most part are highly under-skilled and in turn do not have attractive resumes in comparison to those in the general population, and they are also weighed down by the stigma of incarceration (Pager, 2003; Berg & Huebner, 2011). As a result, parolees find it extremely difficult to find gainful employment and become a stable and contributory member of society (Petersilia, 2003; Berg & Huebner, 2011)
Prisoners leave prisons without job security or money. Close to 60 percent of parolees will not be employed in the legitimate labor market. They are likely to be unemployed upon their release due to inadequate skills and/or education (Aos, Miller, and Drake 2006; Batiuk 1997; Chappell 2002; Erisman and Contardo 2005; Harlow 2003; Steurer and Smith 2003; Vacca 2004; Winterfield, Coggeshall, Burke-Storer, Correa, and Tidd 2009; Berg & Huebner, 2011). Similarly employers do not want to hire ex-felons. Since ex-offenders have an extensive rap sheet, managers have to be more judicious as to who he invites (James, 2015). Current low unemployment rates may cause employers to reconsider employing them. The Get Tough crusade of 1980s puts heavy pressure on the treatment of offenders. According to Berg & Huebner(2011) in criminal justice scholarship, findings suggest that offenders who re-enter society and have steady employment or strong family ties are at not as likely to recidivate(Berg & Huebner, 2011). Family ties often are associated with employment, which in turn impact recidivism rates. This theory though hypothetical has strong associations between family ties, post-release employment for offenders and recidivism rates. Family ties have shown strong association with employment upon release and recidivism among this population (Berg & Huebner, 2011).
Close to 1, 600 prisoners will be released a day from federal prison back to their communities, which works out to about 600,000 individuals a year. The stress surrounding reentry is overwhelming for prisoners. Since the creation of prisons, may have faced challenges when they transition from a life of confinement in correctional facilities to freedom on the streets. Policymakers argue that reentry of offenders to their communities is not a new phenomenon, but one that continues to be a correctional issue (Travis, Solomon & Waul, 2001).
References
Berg, M.T. & Huebner, B.M. (2011). Reentry and the Ties that Bind: An Examination of Social Ties, Employment, and Recidivism, Justice Quarterly 28(2). Retrieved from http://www.pacific-gateway.org/reentry,%20employment%20and%20recidivism.pdf
James, N. (2015). Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics. Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf
Nally, J.M., Lockwood, S., Ho, T. & Knutson, K. (2012).The Post-Release Employment and Recidivism among Different Types of Offenders with a Different Level of Education: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study in Indiana. Retrieved from http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/the_post-release.pdf
Travis, J., Solomon, A.L. & Waul, M (2001). From Prison to Home. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. Retrieved from http://research.urban.org/UploadedPDF/from_prison_to_home.pdf
