The Former Incarcerated and Their Reentry - Dissertation Example

? The Former Incarcerated and their Reentry of the of the The Former Incarcerated and their Reentry The incarceration rates in the US are very high and there is no justification for this state of affairs. This has bestowed upon the US the dubious distinction of being the world leader among nations, when it comes to imprisoning its own inhabitants. This obviously detracts from the prestige that this nation attempts to portray (Just Punishment, 2012). Moreover, it reflects poorly upon the image of the US, among the comity of nations. According to Travis, a famous scholar of criminology, during the recent past, there has been a vast change in the area of punishments in the US. There has been a fourfold increase in incarceration, and parole release rates have reduced radically. At the same time, there has been a significant increase in parole supervision. This has been accompanied by a drastic increase in parole revocation, with the result that hundreds of thousands of people are forced back into prison. The policy makers have not accorded much importance to reducing recidivism and enhancing integration of the released convicts into the community (Travis, 2008). Latessa, another eminent professor in criminology claims that there is conclusive evidence, which clearly shows that treatment programs enjoy different levels of effectiveness. In fact, there should be a segregation of offenders into the low and high risk categories. Offenders belonging to the high risk category should be subjected to more intense supervision and treatment, as they tend to benefit from such measures. Services should primarily focus on the factors in offenders that lead to criminal behavior. It is now clear that programs that are properly designed and implemented have the capacity to reduce recidivism to a major extent. On the other hand, improperly designed and poorly implement programs can actually enhance recidivism (Latessa, 2008). ?American society has to envisage the onerous task of reintegrating into society, a large number of released prisoners. This number is quite significant, and was of the order of 635,000 per annum. The prison population, in the year 2002, was around 1.4 million, and 93% of these individuals would ultimately be released into society (Day, 2005, p. 346). Another disquieting feature of this state of affairs is that the average prison term does not exceed 2.5 years. In fact, some 44% of the prisoners would be released within a year of being incarcerated. Public safety is crucially affected, by prisoner reentry, which can be understood as the different activities that enable released prisoners to join the mainstream of society as responsible and law abiding members (Petersilia, 2009, p. 3). The majority of the ex – convicts suffer from social and medical problems. These individuals, in the main, tend to be uneducated, unskilled and devoid of adequate family support. In addition, they have to bear the cross of having been imprisoned, which invariably generates distrust and fear. Another, disquieting feature relates to the prevalence of substance abuse, in nearly 75% of the prisoners, and the affliction of a sixth of prisoners with mental illness. Less than a third of such prisoners are provided with treatment in prison (Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll, 2003). As revealed in a study a by Petersilia, an eminent scholar of criminal justice, the proportion of prisoners with infectious diseases is five times that of the proportion of the US population. The extent of this malaise can be gauged from the fact that around 25% of those infected with HIV or AIDS in the US transit through prison or jail. It has been stressed by experts in the area of public health that HIV will continue to increase in prisons and will eventually increase prevalence rates in the general community (Petersilia, 2009, p. 4). This will be the outcome of imprisoning and releasing a greater number of drug offenders. Furthermore, the number of prison inmates with marketable employment skills or adequate literacy to obtain gainful employment is meager. In fact, 33% of the prisoners were unemployed at the time of their arrest. The level of education is also very poor, at 60%, which is drastically less than the 85% of the adult population of the US (Petersilia, 2009, p. 4). Of late, increasing attention has been bestowed upon prisoner reentry or the process of transition from jail or prison to the community. This process has become the focus of attention not only in the professional literature but also in the popular media (Shivy, et al., 2007, p. 466). Some of the principal challenges identified by the policymakers in the area of prisoner reentry pertain to substance abuse by ex – offenders, physical and mental health, housing, interrelationships, employability and participation in the workforce (Solomon, Visher, La Vigne, & Osborne, 2012). Despite the attempts of a few counseling professionals to include the offender population in the design and delivery of interventions aimed at career development, this development has been to a very limited extent. For instance, during the period 1973 – 1998, a mere 0.4% of the inmate or juvenile delinquent population had been considered for the purpose of sampling. This was with regard to the publications of the Journal of Counseling Psychology (Shivy, et al., 2007, p. 466). Counseling psychologists are endowed with specific expertise in the area of career development and transition. This is in addition to their proficiency in the areas of personal and work related adjustment. Therefore, it comes as a major surprise that there is a distinct absence of career development interventions, with regard to ex – offenders. In addition, multicultural concerns assume importance, as almost 50% of the ex – offenders are African American and a fifth either of Asian or Latino origin (Shivy, et al., 2007, p. 466). It was stated by Wolff & Draine, in their informative article, “Dynamics of Social Capital of Prisoners and Community Reentry, Ties That Bind” that correlation among people is effected by social relations, and it facilitates their functioning in their communities. Such connectedness with friends and members of the family provides concrete benefits. Moreover, social relations enable individuals to access or stake claims to resources that enable them to function independently to the extent possible (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 457). Some of the possible varieties of resources provided by such social relations are; emotional support, which engenders confidence, promotes perseverance and a sense of wellbeing and safety; care giving, which includes the provision of direct care to those afflicted with chronic or severe illness; direct access to food, housing and clothing, and education (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 457). These resources have a tangible influence on the wellbeing and health of the individual in the community In addition, there is considerable evidence in the related literature, regarding the importance of support from family members and friends. Such support has a beneficial effect on health outcomes, compliance with treatment, quality of life (Walen & Lachman, 2000, p. 7). These scholars further claimed that with regard to those who have been released from institutions, there is a beneficial effect on their tenure in the community. Moreover, research studies have revealed that there is considerable variation in the composition and size of social networks (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 458). Furthermore, such variation is directly related to the chief results and the characteristics of the individual. An instance of this fact is provided by those afflicted with mental illness. Such people have smaller networks in comparison to the general population. In addition, social networks that are smaller and which enjoy a lesser amount of diversification are associated with higher incidence of repeated hospitalization (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 458). Moreover, such limited social networks produce inferior treatment outcomes. In addition, a major portion of the research on social relations has concentrated on the influence of social connections on wellbeing, service utilization behavior and health of individuals with damaged health. Recent research perspectives have been widened with the intention of examining the effect of social relationships on public health (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 459). Scholars like Colvin, Vander Van and Cullen have highlighted the latent preventive effect of social relationships on criminal behavior. Stress has been laid on the legitimacy and stability of social support and the manner in which this could forestall crime (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 459). This prevention of crime, results from the formation and buttressing of internal defenses in the individual, with regard to crimogenic tendencies or influences, and relating individuals to activities and opportunities that promote the welfare of society (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 459). As such, there are certain social relationships that protect society from crime. Russell & Huang, in their scholarly article namely “Rural Libraries and Communities: Providing Better Services through Creation of Social Capital” envisages the importance of social capital in a societal system. The accretion of social relationships is termed social capital. At the level of the individual, social capital constitutes a set of active connections among people that can be utilized to access essential resources in a social system (Russell & Huang, 2012). Obviously, every individual possess a distinct quantity of social capital. This stock consists of a network of personal connections that can be relied upon during times of need. The wealth potential of those with whom an individual is connected, determines the benefits such an individual derives from the stock of social capital. Thus, social capital constitutes a repository of good will that enables the members of a community to access the resources of the latter (Wolff & Draine, 2004, p. 459). Petersilia, & Reitz, asserted in “The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections” that the prisons in the US are overcrowded and a large amount of funding is required for corrections. For instance, in the year 2009, an amount in excess of $60 billion had to be incurred as expenditure, in this area. This area of expenditure is second, only to Medicaid, and has been deemed to be unsustainable (Petersilia & Reitz, The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, 2012, p. 7). Notwithstanding, the huge and ever escalating expenditure, reoffending has been more or less constant at a very high rate. The situation is indeed disheartening, and 50% of the released prisoners have been seen to return to prison or jail, within three years. Those who are released from prison, suffer from serious medical, social, mental illness problems, which remain neglected in most of the cases (Petersilia & Reitz, The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, 2012, p. 7). This famous article has shown that despite the large amounts being spent of prison corrections, reoffending is occurring at high rates and with disturbing frequency. Pager, an eminent scholar of criminology, stated in an article, “The Mark of a Criminal Record” that the presence of a criminal record constitutes a major impediment for procuring a job. This has significant implication for racial disparities. As of the year 2003, there were more than 2 million incarcerated persons (Pager, 2003, p. 937). As of the year 2008, data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics disclosed that there were between 12 to14 million ex – offenders, who were of working age. Such people find it very difficult to obtain a job. This large population of ex – offenders were instrumental in reducing the total male employment rate by 1.7%. Such reduction in employment leads to losses in the US economy that varied from $57 to $ 65 billion, on account of lost output (Schmitt & Warner, 2010). These statistics pose a challenge to the US economy, which should be addressed on a war footing. As per Schmitt & Warner, conviction for a felony or a term in jail or prison has a substantially detrimental effect on future employment. Some of the reasons for this are that time spent in incarceration can result in the impairment of the human capital of the worker. Some of the areas affected by the deterioration of human capital are formal education, on the job experience, punctuality or customer relations (Schmitt & Warner, 2010). In addition these scholars claimed that incarceration deprives individuals of social networks that can provide assistance in procuring jobs. Moreover, the former inmate is provided with social networks that tend to promote criminal activity. Conviction for a felony or incarceration tarnishes the image of the individual to the extent that employers hesitate to employ them (Schmitt & Warner, 2010). Furthermore, several of the states enjoin substantial legal limitations on the employment of persons who had been convicted for a felony, such as restrictions on professional licensing and employment with the government. All the same, the task of enumerating the influence of conviction for a felony or incarceration on ensuing labor market effects proves to be onerous (Schmitt & Warner, 2010). As per the research conducted by Glaze, & Bonczar, several of the felons and prisoners had faced difficulties in obtaining jobs, prior to their convictions, and this would in all probability have continued even in the absence of trouble with the law. As of the year 2008, there had been around 5.1 million individuals under probation or parole (Glaze & Bonczar, 2009), and approximately 2.3 million in jails and prisons (Sabol, West, & Cooper, 2010). There are a few agencies that help the process of prisoner reentry, some of the facilities offered by these entities are; assisting the released convict to comprehend the C.O.R.I report; learning the strategies necessary for obtaining a job, despite having a criminal record; providing help in preparing a resume that best depicts the skills of the ex – convict; advice on the manner in which the legal issues related to the ex – prisoner are to be addressed during the interview; and by providing referrals to employer who view C.O.R.I favorably (The Work Place, 2005). Historically, federal funding for prisoner reentry had emerged from the Department of Justice; however, other departments of the government have taken an active party in this initiative. This has been due to the recognition of the fact that education, employment, health and housing are crucial for ensuring the success of any prisoner reentry program. For instance, funding for Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative has been provided by the Departments of Justice, Education, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services (Ismaili, 2010, p. 175). In addition, the Second Chance Act was enacted on 9 April 2008, during the Bush regime. This act brought about a considerable broadening of the offender reentry grant program that was in force at that time. In addition, this act allocated $330 million for programs that involved offender reentry, substance abuse, housing, counseling, education and mentoring services, to mention a few of the veritable plethora of programs (Reid, 2011, p. 411). However, the reentry of prisoners into the community generates a number of challenges for the individuals who had been previously incarcerated, as well as for the communities in which they live. Some of these are; procuring and continuing with employment, obtaining affordable housing, gaining access to social services, and the concerns and fears of the public regarding recidivism and safety (Blessing, Golden, & Ruiz – Quintanilla, 2012). Considerable attention has been bestowed upon prisoner reentry by communities, policy makers and social welfare agencies. However, such reentry does not invariably result in positive or equal reintegration. This activity constitutes a passive experience for communities, as it transpires without any regard for their consent. Thus, prisoner reentry is an activity over which communities cannot exercise any control. On the other hand, reintegration connotes an active experience for communities, which have to undertake deliberate action (Rich, Owens, Haspel, & Engle, 2008). This is all the more true of the institutions and organizations of a community. The Second Chance Act had as its objective, the betterment of outcomes for individuals returning to communities after being released from jails and prisons. This act has emerged as a pioneering effort in the rehabilitation of ex – convicts, and it authorizes federal grants to non – profit organizations and government agencies (Second Chance Act). Such grants have to be utilized for a number of activities; such as, providing assistance in seeking employment, treatment for substance abuse, procurement of housing, family programming, extending support to victims and services that could mitigate recidivism (The Second Chance Act Frequently Asked Questions). More than 4% of state budgets are allocated for corrections. This amount is employed for defraying the cost of construction, salaries to prison staff and healthcare. In the US, prisoners are the only segment of the population who are assured of free health care. With the increase of their numbers and age, health care depicts a steady increase. In fact, the total corrections operating budget of state witnesses a 10 to 15% allocation for healthcare and this proportion shows a gradual annual increase (Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, 2009, p. 5). In addition to the scarcity of resources, politics and public sentiment favor a drastic reduction welfare programs related to prisoners. For instance, in the 1990s, several of the privileges enjoyed by prisoners were discontinued. This was accompanied by the enactment of several statutes that abolished smoking, weight – lifting equipment, telephone calls, hot meals and family days, among other things. It has been contended by those who favor this trend that incarceration should be punitive (Petersilia, When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry, 2009, p. 5). On being released from prison or jail, the ex – convict has to face a number hurdles, while seeking employment, housing, and new personal relationships. It is the duty of the service providers to assist prisoners in developing the social skills necessary for dealing with difficult situations, such as dealing with family members and old friends who are engaged in illegal activities (McNeil & Barber, 2009). Furthermore, academic programs have to become open to a greater degree with regard to the field of corrections. This change of attitude is essential and could prove to be of great benefit (Sung & Gideon, 2010, p. 401). The US constitutes a wealthy nation that is extremely punitive. This has drastically increased the numbers of those incarcerated, which in turn entails a massive escalation of costs and loss of human potential. Initiatives to diminish budgetary allocation for corrections and mass incarceration could prove to be disastrous, if there is no clarity regarding the manner in which the released convicts are treated (Petersilia & Reitz, The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections, 2012, p. 7). Although there are measures to contain the problem of prisoner reentry at the home, they are not effective due to reasons of political and public sentiment. Moreover, lack of resources is a major cause for reduced budgetary allocation of funds towards corrections. In addition, a major share of the funds is spent on constructions, salaries of prison staff and health care of prisoners. It is necessary to bestow attention upon the issue of improvement of skills of prisoners, while they are undergoing a sentence. As such, communities should provide much more help towards ensuring the wellbeing of prisoners, in cases of reintegration. List of References Blessing, C., Golden, T. P., & Ruiz – Quintanilla, A. (2012). Community Living for Inmates. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://cirrie.buffalo.edu/encyclopedia/en/article/14/ Day, R. D. (2005). Relationship Stress in Couples: Situations Involving Infidelity, Infertility and Imprisonment. In S. J. Price, & P. C. McKenry, Families and Change: Coping With Stressful Events and Transitions (pp. 333 – 354). SAGE. Glaze, L. E., & Bonczar, T. P. (2009, December). Probation and Parole in the United States, 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from U.S. Department of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus08.pdf Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2003, May). Employment Barriers Facing Ex-Offenders. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://www.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410855_holzer.pdf Ismaili, K. (2010). U.S. Criminal Justice Policy: A Contemporary Reader: A Contemporary Reader. Jones & Bartlett Learning. Just Punishment. (2012). Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://law.hofstra.edu/academics/academicresources/readingassignments/2012-13/fall/firstyear/criminallaw_burke/Burke/criminallaw_burke_firstreading.pdf Latessa, E. (2008). What Science Says About Designing Effective Prisoner Reentry Programs. Looking Beyond the Prison Gate New Directions in Prisoner Reentry (pp. 13 – 20). Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis26report.pdf McNeil, W. A., & Barber, F. (2009, June). Recidivism Reduction Strategic Plan Fiscal Year 2009 – 2014. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from Florida Department of Corrections: http://www.dc.state.fl.us/orginfo/FinalRecidivismReductionPlan.pdf Pager, D. (2003). The Mark of a Criminal Record. American Journal of Sociology, 108(5), 937 – 975. Petersilia, J. (2009). When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. Oxford University Press. Petersilia, J., & Reitz, K. R. (2012). The Oxford Handbook of Sentencing and Corrections. Oxford University Press. Reid, S. T. (2011). Criminal Justice Essentials. John Wiley & Sons. Rich, M. J., Owens, M. L., Haspel, M., & Engle, S. M. (2008, December). Prisoner Reentry in Atlanta: Understanding the Challenges of Transition from Prison to Community. Retrieved October 7, 2012, from Emory University: http://oucp.emory.edu/PrisonerReentryAtlanta.pdf Russell, S. E., & Huang, J. (2012). Rural Libraries and Communities: Providing Better Services through Creation of Social Capital. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from World Libraries: http://www.worlib.org/vol20no1/russellprint_v20n1.shtml Sabol, W. J., West, H. C., & Cooper, M. (2010, June 30). Prisoners in 2008. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from U.S. Department of Justice: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/p08.pdf Schmitt, J., & Warner, K. (2010, November). Ex?offenders and the Labor Market. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from Center for Economic and Policy Research: http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/ex-offenders-2010-11.pdf Second Chance Act Public Law 110 – 199. (2008, April 9). United States of America. Second Chance Act. (n.d.). Retrieved October 7, 2012, from The National Reentry Resource Center: http://www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/about/second-chance-act Shivy, V. A., Wu, J. J., Moon, A. E., Mann, S. C., Holland, J. G., & Christine, E. (2007). Ex – Offenders Reentering the Workforce. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 54(4), 466 – 473. Solomon, A., Visher, C., La Vigne, N., & Osborne, J. (2012). Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry: Research Findings from the Urban Institute's Prisoner Reentry Portfolio. Retrieved October 8, 2012, from http://www.urban.org/projects/reentry-portfolio/ Sung, H.–E., & Gideon, L. (2010). Rethinking Corrections: Rehabilitation, Reentry, and Reintegration. SAGE. The Second Chance Act Frequently Asked Questions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 8, 2012, from Families Against Mandatory Minimums: http://www.doc.ri.gov/documents/reentry/FAQ%20-%202nd%20Chance%20Act.pdf The Work Place. (2005). Helping Boston Work. Retrieved October 6, 2012, from http://www.theworkplace.org/programs/prisoner_reentry.html Travis, J. (2008, January). Rethinking Prisoner Reentry: The Policy Implications of High Rates of Incarceration. Looking Beyond the Prison Gate New Directions in Prisoner Reentry (pp. 1 – 12). Wisconsin Family Impact Seminars. Retrieved October 10, 2012, from http://www.familyimpactseminars.org/s_wifis26report.pdf Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17(1), 5 – 30. Wolff, N., & Draine, J. (2004). Dynamics of Social Capital of Prisoners and Community Reentry: Ties That Bind? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10(3), 457 – 490. Read More