History of Reentry Programs for Ex-Offenders - Research Paper Example

History of Reentry Programs for Ex Offenders Introduction Around 600,000 offenders are released from prison annually in the US (U.S. Department of Justice). These people return to the communities with various needs ranging from housing, job, and other basic necessities. However, they pose a great threat and challenge to the community. Nevertheless, depending on a number of factors, most offenders return to prison after committing other crimes. With increased number of returning offenders, Department of Justice (DOJ) deemed it right to create a reentry initiative that supported the creation of programs across the country (May, 2008). This initiative was as a result of the concern of the criminal justice practitioners to tackle the impacts associated with returning offenders. Following this, several programs have been implemented to facilitate the transition of released offenders back to the community and above all to reduce recidivism (May, 2008). 1990s saw an increase in the number of returning offenders, something that prompted and acted as a wakening call for law enforcement and other stakeholders. This lead to intensified supervision partnership between the law enforcement and community based corrections, like Boston’s Operation Night Light (La Vigne et al, 2006). While this partnership showed some promise, the concept of offender reentry was embraced and viewed and a more inclusive approach. As a result, this concept called for support beyond enforcement, to include provision of services like education, employment, substance abuse treatment, and housing (La Vigne et al, 2006). Due to the increased number of recidivism recorded by 2001, the average costs for incarceration in state prisons were estimated to be $ 62 per day for those incarcerated (La Vigne et al, 2006). With such an alarming cost, it was deemed right to put in place strategies that would help reduce the cost. A number of bills deliberated to address numerous offender reentry problems were introduced in late 2004. One of the most notable acts that entail reentry programs for ex offenders is “the Second Chance Act” (HR 4676 and S 2789). This act was designed to reduce recidivism, improve public safety, and support states and communities with grants that would help address the increased number of prisoners returning to the community after being released from prison. The act also focus on assisting ex offenders in getting jobs, mental and substance abuse treatment, and other specific services needed by families of ex offenders with special needs. During the period between 1995 and 2005, the increased number of substance related prisoners was on the increase; with an average of 70 percent of them having a history of substance and drug abuse problems (La Vigne et al, 2006). With such statistics, reentry programs were considered to help these people. Some of the initiatives that emerged as a result of demonstration of commitment to reduce recidivism by the department of labor and justice include community-based and employment-focused reentry programs (Harr, 2008). A good example is the ready4work initiative, which has helped cut recidivism from 15 to 50 percent. Studies have shown that ex offenders who take part in these initiatives are twice likely to get jobs. In this regard, it is necessary for the new congress to fully implement the Second Chance Act that stipulates on funding of reentry programs. In 2007, congress passed the energy independence and security bill act of 2007, which mentions ex offenders as a target for training opportunities in order for them to secure jobs after being released from prison (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). Through initiatives provided in the second chance act, juvenile issues related to reducing recidivism are also spelled out in the act. Various programs that aim at reducing juvenile recidivism is required to be adequately funded (Harr, 2008). Some of these programs include education programs, substance and drug abuse treatment, and care for juvenile with mental illnesses or who need specific care in special cases. With such a history of reentry programs for ex offenders, it can be argued that if the intended goals of these initiatives are focused effectively, they present a promise of reduced cases of recidivism. However, all the key players in these programs should work hard in order to achieve their goals. Most of the reentry programs are designed to address the root causes of criminal behavior of offenders, something that help reduce cases of recidivism (Harr, 2008). When substance and drug abuse offenders are offered with treatment and counseling, they tend to refrain from these drugs. The strategy to offer training programs for ex offenders also help cases of criminal activities, and provide ex offenders with skills that help them earn a living. Family Support The issue of family support in relation to reentry of offenders has been researched and well documented. Studies demonstrate that any strategy targeting cohesion between offenders and their families is associated with better offender outcomes (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). In this regard, correction agencies have come to realize that facilitating good relationship between families and offenders can promote successful reentry. This is arguably true because family forms the basis of individual behaviors and attitudes. All offenders have at least a certain degree of attachment with their families. And in most cases, they tend to seek for family support whenever they are in problems. This means that family stands at a better position to influence the behavior of offenders after release from prison. Apart from the blood relation between the offender and the family, families have more, to do with social support with offenders. When one member of their family is incarcerated, family members undergo psychological and emotional stress during that period (Gaines & Miller, 2011). There is also a significant physical loss such as lose of wage-earning household member and absence of parenting partner. Additionally, these losses go beyond the period of incarceration. One of the most notable one is when former incarcerated person return from prison, they are faced with being stigmatized by neighbors and other local people (Cressey, 1965). Community regard former incarcerated persons as person’s who cannot be trusted in matters pertaining security and wellbeing of the community. As a result, the community tends to stigmatize former offenders as well as their families. This has consequences of the whole family being sidelined and excluded from the neighborhood association and matters concerning economic activities (Gaines & Miller, 2011). In fact, some members of the community may go ahead and migrate to other locations where they feel it’s safe for their families. This has an obvious impact on that particular neighborhood as other communities view it as unsafe place, and this can be extended to the larger society. Another great concern involves the impact of parental involvement in the criminal justice system, and more so as an incarcerated person (Harr, 2008). Children of offenders grow up with many difficulties. Studies have indicated that there is a relationship between criminal activities and poverty. This means that most of the people incarcerated come from poor backgrounds. Therefore, it is apparent that children of incarcerated persons grow up under poverty conditions. When their bread winner is incarcerated, most of these children are forced to look for means of surviving (Gaines & Miller, 2011). As a result, most of them drop out of school and involve in unruly behaviors. They also tend to engage in drug abuse and family violence. If their incarcerated parent was involved in criminal activities to earn a living, some of them would result to criminal activities as well. Family members also have difficulties getting in touch with incarcerated persons. In some jurisdictions, family members are forced to travel for long distances to visit the offender. In most cases, visits take place in overcrowded areas, and this does not give room for positive parent-child interactions (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). However, during reentry, families can serve as critical partners to supervision agencies. They clearly understand each other, and are always ready to provide vital information that would support reentry efforts. Self-Esteem Studies have indicated that former incarcerated persons are faced with individual barriers that act as stumbling blocks in the reentry process. These barriers are in terms of unrealistic expectations of former incarcerated persons regarding what life holds for them after being released from prison. Studies have also argued that former incarcerated persons are not realistic about the challenges they might face when they return home neither do they appreciate these obstacles (Gaines & Miller, 2011). In fact, it has been argued that although some prisoners would like to change their behaviors when they get out of the prison, the ability to do so is hampered by conditions surrounding their environments and their perception about reentry process. For example, a former incarcerated person my feel uncomfortable to freely intermingle with members of his or her community with the fear that they might ridicule him or her (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). In this regard, reentry programs help to uplift self esteem of such a person by giving both emotional and psychological support. In most cases, when people are incarcerated, they lose businesses, jobs, and other important areas of generating income. In this case, former incarcerated person may feel disadvantaged, and this may end up affecting his or her self esteem (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). It is apparent that discrimination by other members of the community create a feeling of disowned, therefore, carrying out day to day activities may be somehow challenging. While in prison, prisoners undergo different hardships ranging from emotional distress emanating from isolation from family members and friends, unpleasant prison life conditions, and lack of freedom (Cressey, 1965). In this regard, these people end up developing low esteem on various aspects of life. The situation can be worsened if the criminal justice system fails to provide with supportive programs that help to uplift self esteem of the offenders. For example, in the case of drug related crime, if incarcerated persons fail to be subjected to relevant therapies, there is a high likelihood that these persons might get back to the same behaviors even after being released from prison. In most cases, this is as a result of these people accepting their condition, and a belief that they cannot change (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). When this happens, these people believe that the life they live suits them, and that no matter how many times they are incarcerated, this cannot change their way of life. For this reason, it is essential that positive attitude be instilled and developed to these people. However, this can only be achieved through integration of appropriate reentry programs. This may involve the use of psychoanalysis approach, where the prisoner is offered with psychiatric therapy in order to boost his or her self esteem (Cressey, 1965). It is also through various reentry programs that offenders are offered with opportunities to learn different skills for them to build confidence that they have something they can utilize to earn a living. Since reentry program involves engaging members of the family and the community in the reentry process, incarcerated persons are assured of cooperation with the community as long as they abide to the guidelines offered by supervising agents (Gottfredson & Hirschi, 2001). This acts as a self esteem to the offenders. Criminal History Criminal history is an essential component to consider during reentry process. Some people have a long history of involvement in criminal activities. To others, it happens to be the first and only incident to be incarcerated. Therefore, persons with a long history of criminal involvement, supervisors have to be a bit keen on their progress during reentry process. At the same time, it becomes difficult for people with a long history of criminal involvement to quickly conform to the requirements of reentry program (Gaines & Miller, 2011). As discussed earlier, some feel that their state of being criminals cannot be changed, and this poses a great challenge to the reentry process. Therefore, learning about criminal history of the offenders is vital as this helps parole officers to determine the approach to use during reentry process. For offenders with a long history of involvement in criminal activities, reentry process is set different from that of those with a short history of involvement in criminal activities (Gaines & Miller, 2011). Other than being subjected to group therapy, offenders with complex criminal history can also be subjected to individual counseling programs. This aims at positively changing their way of thinking and actions. During reentry process, former incarcerated persons are given strict instructions to follow, which, if they breach, they risk being taken back to prison. In fact, in the case of sex offenders, they are required to register as sex offenders as stipulated in Megan’s law (Cressey, 1965). This is one of the most expensive penalties on former incarcerated persons. They are not only subjected to lifetime stigmatization, but also undergo stressful moments as they are closely monitored throughout their lives. In such as a situation, such people require specific attention and support during reentry process. Reentry programs greatly help such former incarcerated persons cope with prevailing circumstances. In this regard, it can be argued that criminal history helps reentry programs identify the best approach and program to subject such former incarcerated persons (Harr, 2008). It also helps former incarcerated persons to cope and increase their self esteem resulting from embarrassment and discrimination by the members of the community. Employment As discussed earlier, former incarcerated persons have problems securing jobs after being released from prison. However, reentry programs help these persons in getting jobs. Since these programs aims at building a good relationship between offenders and the community, offenders are made to understand that their behaviors greatly determines the kind of relationship they will have with the community (Cressey, 1965). In this regard, they are encouraged to desist from their criminal activities in order for employers to have confidence in employing them. This is arguably true because employers look at criminal history of persons they are employing in their organizations. During reentry process, former incarcerated persons are subjected to scrutiny over their conduct as they interact with other members of the community. As a result, supervisors keep a record of their performance, and, through which recommendation for employment can be drawn (Harr, 2008). Many employers would request a certificate of good conduct before employing people. Therefore, if former incarcerated persons improved their criminal behaviors, they are more likely to get jobs than those who fail to abide by the requirements of reentry process (Schmalleger, 2007). Besides, some prisons offer different training programs, which help individuals acquire necessary requirements for persons looking for jobs (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). Not all people have the taste of being employed. Some prefer putting up their own businesses. With this consideration, prisoners are offered with different technical and business oriented trainings. This is to ensure that these people can utilize these skills in putting up and operating their own businesses. This also act as a good alternative for criminals who fear being discriminated over by employees due to their history of their criminal activities. Former incarcerated persons are also assisted in obtaining financial assistance from locally available financial organizations (Hodge, 2009). It is believed that some people commit crimes as a result of desperation in getting jobs or lack of capital and skills required to operate a business. In this regard, it can be argued that assessment of former incarcerated person’s employment record helps reentry agencies identify best means of helping such people. Education Studies have indicated that crimes are associated with low level of education. Areas that report higher number of criminal cases are linked with low levels of education. Due to challenges in life, most people drop out of school and others hardly go to one. As a result, they engage in criminal activities and substance abuse (Cressey, 1965). However, upon conviction, in the case of juvenile, they are offered with education facilities during their stay in prison. Some of education programs are extended even after being released from prison. Parole officers supervise education progress of released juveniles during reentry process. The study and investigation of adult’s education background is if great importance to reentry agencies since it helps to determine the relationship between former incarcerated person’s criminal behaviors and their education background (Schmalleger, 2007). Studies have indicated that educated persons are more likely to adhere to given rules and regulation, and are also more likely to keep off from committing crimes (Cernkovich, Giordano & Rudolph, 2000). The same case may be applicable to former incarcerated persons undergoing reentry process. This is opposed to former incarcerated persons, who would tend to find it difficult adhering to instructions given by supervisors during reentry process (Schmalleger, 2007). Conclusion Persons released from prison pose a great threat and challenge to the community. With increased number of returning offenders, Department of Justice (DOJ) deemed it right to create a reentry initiative that supported the creation of programs across the country. Following this, several programs have been implemented to facilitate the transition of released offenders back to the community and above all to reduce recidivism. Studies demonstrate that any strategy targeting cohesion between offenders and their families is associated with better offender outcomes. This is arguably true because all offenders have at least a certain degree of attachment with their families. Criminal history is an essential component to consider during reentry process. For offenders with a long history of involvement in criminal activities, reentry process is set different from that of those with a short history of involvement in criminal activities. Studies have indicated that former incarcerated persons are faced with individual barriers that act as stumbling blocks in the reentry process. It is believed that former incarcerated persons are not realistic about the challenges they might face when they return home neither do they appreciate these obstacles. In this regard, reentry programs help to uplift self esteem of such a person by giving both emotional and psychological support. Reentry programs help these persons in getting jobs. Areas that report higher number of criminal cases are linked with low levels of education. Therefore, study of all the above discussed variables is of great importance because it helps in the reentry process. References Cernkovich, S.A., Giordano, P.C., & Rudolph, J.L. (2000). Race, crime, and the American dream. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 37(2), 131-38. Cressey, D. R. (1965). Social psychological foundations for using criminals in the rehabilitation of criminals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 2(2), 49-59. Gaines, L. & Miller, R. (2011). Criminal justice in action. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co. Gottfredson, M. & Hirschi, T. (2001). A general theory of crime. Stanford, Calif. Stanford Univ. Press. Harr, J. (2008). Constitutional law and the criminal justice system. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Hodge, A. (2009). Understanding the components within the criminal justice system 101. S. l.: Outskirts Press. La Vigne, G. et al. (2006). Prisoner reentry and community policing: Strategies for enhancing public safety. Washington: Urban Institute. May, C. (2008). Corrections and the criminal justice system. Udbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett Pub. Schmalleger, F. (2007). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the twenty-first century. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice Hall. “U.S. Department of Justice: Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics” (n.d.) Retrieved from www.ojp.usdoj.gov Solhkhah, R. & Wilens, E. Timothy (1998). Pharmacotherapy of adolescent alcohol and other drug use disorders. Alcohol Health & Research World, 22, 2: 1-99. Read More