Legality of Cannabis by U.S. Jurisdiction

Prisoner reentry is the process by which prisoners who have been released return to the community.[1] Many types of programs have been implemented with the goal of reducing recidivism and have been found to be effective for this purpose.[2][3] Consideration for the conditions of the communities formerly incarcerated individuals are re-entering, which are often disadvantaged, is a fundamental part of successful re-entry.[4]

A 2006 study done by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation[5] statistically evaluated the effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs on the criteria scale of working, not working, promising, and unknown. Findings classify employment-oriented programs as working, drug rehabilitation programs as working, educational programs as promising, and halfway house programs as working.[6]

A 2015 article from The New York Times Magazine commented, "It wasn't until the mid-2000s that this looming 'prisoner re-entry crisis' became a fixation of sociologists and policy makers, generating a torrent of research, government programs, task forces, nonprofit initiatives and conferences now known as the 're-entry movement'."[7] At the end of 2001, there were approximately 5.6 million U.S. adults who had been in the incarceration system.[8] By the end of 2004, more than 3% of U.S. adults were incarcerated or on probation or parole.[8] With prisons becoming overcrowded, there is more political focus on depopulating prisons. In 2016, approximately 600,000 individuals were released from prison and millions were in and out of county jail systems.[9]

The abrupt re-entrance into society means formerly incarcerated individuals require support to reintegrate. The United States federal government allocates some funding for re-entry programs, but there is currently a lack of sufficient resources. Re-entry programs are now receiving more attention from public policy and criminal justice scholars.[10]

Resources for prisoner re-entry programs[edit]

In the past few decades, correctional institutions have seen a shift, with prisoners serving indeterminate sentences and release being assessed by parole boards, to offenders being released from prison after serving determinate sentences.[2] However, those released are not receiving sufficient preparation for returning to their communities due to limited in-prison and post-release reentry programs; this inadequate structure for re-entry directly influences the possibility of recidivism, also referred to as the "revolving door".[11] United States spending for corrections is approximately $80 billion a year, with re-entry receiving the least amount of fiscal attention relative to other parts of the criminal justice system process.[12][circular reference] From 2001 to 2004, the United States' federal government allocated over $100 million for reentry programs.[1] Without increased resources for this target area proportional to that spent on control-oriented aspects of incarceration, the issue that remains is the expansion of access and participation for inmates. While the area of reentry program development is still growing, assessments demonstrate their efficacy for transitioning ex-offenders back into society and reducing recidivism. The potential for well-resourced reentry program has yet to be realized, but public policy and criminal justice scholars believe this to be a deserving area for funding to be re-allocated and prioritized.[6]

Types of re-entry programs[edit]

There are different types of re-entry programs that aim to help formerly incarcerated individuals transition back into society. These programs come in different forms to meet specific needs and challenges faced by returning citizens. Education and vocational training programs are important in equipping individuals with the necessary skills for reintegration. GED programs and college classes provide academic support, allowing participants to earn diplomas or pursue higher education. Similarly, vocational training programs offer practical skills in trades like carpentry, welding, and automotive repair, improving job opportunities after release. Re-entry programs also focus on securing stable housing, healthcare services, and some programs serve sub-sectors of the formerly incarcerated population such as women or juveniles. By addressing these challenges, re-entry programs aim to empower individuals and reduce recidivism rates, promoting successful community reintegration.

Education and Vocational Training Programs for Reentry[edit]

Recently, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of education and vocational training for prisoners reintegrating into society. These programs, along with efforts to address employment, housing, and healthcare, are crucial in equipping incarcerated individuals with the skills and qualifications needed for successful community reintegration. Many correctional institutions now offer educational opportunities like GED programs and college classes, providing inmates with academic skills and qualifications necessary for further education or employment after release. Vocational training programs within prisons also offer practical skills and certifications, these programs not only provide inmates with valuable hands-on experience and industry-specific knowledge but also help reduce the likelihood of reoffending by fostering a sense of purpose and self-worth. Empowering incarcerated individuals with education and vocational skills not only improves their chances of a successful transition back into society but can also contributes to long-term public safety.[13]

GED Programs and College Classes[edit]

Prison education programs are gaining traction in research on reducing recidivism rates. On average, around $12 million is allocated to correctional education programs across all states.[14] These programs have the potential to increase an inmate's structured time during incarceration and help them find employment or pursue higher education after release. These benefits should ultimately lead to a decrease in subsequent offending. Most prisons offer GED classes, vocational training, apprenticeships, and even college classes that can help inmates earn degrees after release. Studies have shown that these education programs have positive outcomes for inmates and cost taxpayers very little. In fact, investing $1,149 in education can save taxpayers over $5,800 in crime-prevention resources.[15]

Studies indicate that participating in such programs reduces the likelihood of reoffending. Some states, like Ohio, mandate these programs to address inmates' educational needs and facilitate successful reentry at a low cost.[14] Recent research has focused on the effectiveness of these programs, showing lower recidivism rates for participants.[15] However, while postsecondary programs consistently show benefits, the effectiveness of GED programs varies.[16]

Efforts to evaluate these programs are increasing, but further research on outcomes is necessary. Ohio's prison education programs, part of the reentry-focused initiative, offer incentives for participation and completion, potentially reducing sentence lengths.[14] Overall, these programs play a crucial role in addressing the educational needs of incarcerated individuals and reducing recidivism rates.

Vocational Training[edit]

The National Institute of Justice Crime Solutions website contains information from a study on Corrections-Based Vocational Training Programs.[17] Vocational training programs in correctional facilities aim to help incarcerated individuals with job skills, reducing their chances of reoffending and improving their chances of employment after release. These programs cover various industries like carpentry, electrical work, cooking, and auto repair. By teaching valuable skills, vocational training not only prepares individuals for work but also keeps them busy with productive activities, which can help reduce behavioral issues in prison.[18] However, despite the potential benefits, participation rates in these programs may be dropping due to reasons like lack of awareness, interest, or funding.[19]

Several studies have shown that vocational training is effective in lowering recidivism rates and increasing employment opportunities.[18] discovered that inmates who participated in vocational training were much less likely to reoffend compared to those who didn't, with a significant 12.6 percent decrease in recidivism rates among participants.[20] Similarly, Davis and his team reported that vocational education programs significantly increased the chances of finding a job after release, with participants being twice as likely to secure employment compared to non-participants.[21]

Different institutions may have different requirements for vocational training programs. These requirements can include factors like age, current offense, time until release, and educational background. Some facilities may even require individuals to have a high school diploma or GED before they can participate in vocational training.[22] Overall, vocational training programs are important because they provide incarcerated individuals with the opportunity to gain employment skills and reintegrate into society successfully. This ultimately helps to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and improves public safety.

Integration into Existing Reentry Programs[edit]

Integrating prison education programs in reentry initiatives is essential for meeting the educational needs of incarcerated individuals and lowering recidivism rates. These programs, like those in Ohio,[13] offer incentives for participation and completion, potentially shortening sentences.[14] By addressing criminogenic needs and offering structured education and training, these programs help inmates prepare for successful reentry into society. Research shows that education and employment play key roles in reducing reoffending.[21] The positive outcomes linked to program participation highlight their significance in aiding the transition from incarceration to community life.[15] Therefore, integrating prison education programs into reentry initiatives is a promising approach to breaking the cycle of recidivism and supporting successful rehabilitation and reintegration.

Reentry Resources after Incarceration[edit]

Employment[edit]

With approximately 2 million people[12] incarcerated, the prison population constitutes a large portion of the U.S. labor force. An essential argument for putting prisoners to work is in-prison productivity translating to preparation for entering the workforce post-release. Prison labor is cost-effective for tax payers, allows prisoners to contribute to their families from inside through the generation of income, and can be a form of restorative justice[23][circular reference] for victims. Poor resources and a prison infrastructure unfit for large-scale labor serve as barriers for establishing effective employment re-entry programs in-prison and post-release, which would include making livable wages, vocational training, education, and skill development accessible to the U.S. prison population.[4] Current funding levels only have the capacity to provide a small percentage of prisoners the opportunity to engage in "commercially rewarding work."[4]

The "Returning Home Study" conducted by the Urban Institute from 2001 to 2006 found that ex-prisoners who worked before imprisonment, and those who find employment soon after release, are less likely to be re-incarcerated within a year of release. The same study found that releasing prisoners to parole supervision both reduces the likelihood that they will engage in substance use and makes it easier for them to find employment after release.[24]

Programs assisting ex-offenders to find employment[4][edit]

Housing[edit]

In a study from New Zealand, the ability to secure stable housing was found to reduce the likeliness of recidivism by 20 percent.[25] Housing providers struggle to make housing available to ex-offenders because of safety concerns and failure to accommodate to the specific needs of formerly individuals without guaranteed income or access to social welfare support.[25] In New York City, "more than 54 percent of people released from prison moved straight into the city's shelter system in 2017."[26]

Across the country, initiatives are being made to assist ex-offenders find housing.[26]

  • In Alameda County, California, homeowners are partnering with formerly incarcerated individuals and allowing them to rent. At Impact Justice, ex-offenders are paired with homeowners for housing and guidance for reintegration.
  • In Delaware, a commission was created to increase access and support for Delaware state inmates to secure housing and employment.
  • In Washington state, the Tacoma Housing Authority is offering housing assistance for ex-offender, at-risk college students.
  • In Seattle and Washington D.C., landlords are no longer allowed to screen for felony convictions on rental applications.[27]

Healthcare[edit]

Other reentry programs focus on improving health among ex-prisoners, which tends to be significantly worse than that of people who have never been imprisoned.[8] While incarcerated, prisoners face higher rates of chronic and infectious diseases, mental illness, and substance use disorders.[28] After release, the difficulties faced during reentry exacerbate these health conditions, which is demonstrated by a link between incarceration history and poorer physical and mental health. Formerly incarcerated individuals face a lack of access to primary care services, mental health conditions, low health literacy, and difficulty obtaining medication access after release.[9] Along with these reintegration barriers, formerly incarcerated individuals also face toxic social stress since they have to adjust to a new life and the transitional period is very unstable. The challenges reconnecting with their communities lead to a lack of social support, which is usually crucial to preventing negative health outcomes.[9] These factors create a specific need for healthcare services during the period of reentry. A 2007 study found that, during the first two weeks after release, the risk of death for formerly incarcerated individuals was 12.7 times that of general community members.[8]

Healthcare-focused reentry programs are designed to aid in the transition back to society, improve health outcomes for the formerly incarcerated population, and reduce recidivism.

Healthcare reentry programs can focus on factors such as discharge planning, substance use disorder treatment, or mental health. A 2020 study evaluated three types of healthcare reentry programs: a swift, certain, fair (SCF) program for drug-involved probationers; an aftercare program for drug-involved offenders; and, a comprehensive reentry program. In the SCF approach, patients were given graduated punishments that target abstinence through frequent drug tests and monitoring, and this model was found to be less effective in reducing recidivism.[29] The second program was a residential program of recovery homes for individuals dealing with substance use disorder. Residents live together and provide a supportive, sober social network.[29] This program increased employment and reduced substance use, but it did not affect incarceration levels.[29] The third program provided holistic health services through institutional caseworkers and supervision agents in the community.[29] It provided planning, support, and direction for individuals to address their needs. This type of program was found to be most effective in reducing recidivism.[29]

Additionally, healthcare reentry programs vary in their timing. Some begin only after release, while others begin while the individual is still incarcerated. A 2013 study evaluating best practices in healthcare-focused reentry programs found that programs that began discharge planning prior to release and were based in the individual's community were more successful in improving health outcomes.[30] Discharge planning aids in continuity of care since individuals are transitioning from the prison healthcare system to their community healthcare system. Success of this practice was seen in the Connecticut Building Bridges Community Reentry Initiative (CRI) in 2004.[30] The program included personal meetings with case managers months before release to discuss the individual’s goals for their health and to assess any potential risk factors for health issues after reentry.[30] By addressing holistic health needs one month before release, the program had over 60% of its participants meet goals related to health supports and their recidivism rate was only 16%.[30]

Since healthcare during incarceration is managed by the government, there is debate surrounding responsibility for healthcare during the reentry period. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Estelle v. Gamble stated that the government has an obligation and responsibility to provide adequate medical care to the incarcerated population, but there was no mention made of responsibility for healthcare on discharge or after release.[31] One perspective is that the government does have an obligation to ensure continuity of care after release.[31] Another perspective is that reentry should be based in the community and supported by private providers. Private providers have greater independence to make quick decisions since they can avoid bureaucracy.[31] Private providers are also “not constrained by civil service rules and salary scales”.[31] One compromise position in this debate is to use government funding and grants to establish connections to private/community-based programs upon release.

Some healthcare reentry programs are independent organizations, while others are directly integrated in healthcare systems. One example of a healthcare-focused reentry program is the Transitions Clinic Network. Funding for this program is from a variety of sources, including different government funds and grants. This organization aims to build a healthcare model for individuals returning to the community from incarceration.[32] They work with primary care clinics across the country to adopt a model of healthcare that improves health and reentry outcomes.[32] They employ community health workers with a history of incarceration to work with patients, which helps ensure that the lived experiences of the incarcerated community are incorporated in the development of the program.[32]

Some existing healthcare organizations and hospitals offer healthcare reentry services:

Re-entry for women prisoners[edit]

Women prisoners and formerly incarcerated women are advocating for the need for gender-specific re-entry programs in-prison and post-release, specifically focused on healthcare, substance abuse, mental illness, and family reunification.[33]

For women prisoners concerned about family reunification post-release, comes with challenges of securing housing and employment, necessary for meeting child welfare requirements. In cases where these requirements cannot be met, women ex-offenders claim to benefit from rehabilitative counseling to deal with the strain incarceration has on the relationship between mothers and children.[34]

Juvenile Re-entry[edit]

Juveniles in the justice system often require different treatment and consideration than their adult counterparts. While there is constantly ongoing debate about the ways in which juvenile punishment should be given (whether it should be the same level of severity or differ in approach), often in the form of policy and moral debate, one of the most common methods of responding to juvenile offense is placing juveniles in re-entry programs.

Juvenile Reentry is a culmination of services, often presented in the form of programs, that help to reintegrate displaced juveniles back into the community. These programs are often designed to discourage juvenile delinquency and prevent such crimes from happening again.[35]

Juvenile Re-entry programs involve many stages with each stage playing its own role in helping the juvenile to reform. There is the entry phase, placement phase, transitional phase, and community-based aftercare phase. Each of these stages involves varying degrees of supervision over the juvenile while the delinquent is given safer surroundings and taught valuable lessons and ways of life that ultimately will help them to be a more valuable and safe addition to the community.[36]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b Travis, Jeremy; et al. (1 June 2001). "From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry". Urban Institute. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.212.6235.
  2. ^ a b Seiter, Richard P.; Kadela, Karen R. (1 July 2003). "Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising". Crime & Delinquency. 49 (3): 360–388. doi:10.1177/0011128703049003002. S2CID 55736383.
  3. ^ Petersilia, Joan (2004). "What Works in Prisoner Reentry - Reviewing and Questioning the Evidence". Federal Probation Journal. 68 (2).
  4. ^ a b c d Travis, Jeremy (October 1999). "Prisons, Work, and Re-Entry". Corrections Today. 61: 102–105, 133.
  5. ^ "MDRC | Building knowledge to improve social policy". 2018.
  6. ^ a b Seiter, Richard (January 2004). "Inmate Re-Entry: What Works and What to Do About It". American Correctional Association. 29: 1–5, 33–35.
  7. ^ Mooallem, Jon (2015-07-16). "You Just Got Out of Prison. Now What?". The New York Times Magazine. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2017-11-28.
  8. ^ a b c d Binswanger, Ingrid A.; Stern, Marc F.; Deyo, Richard A.; Heagerty, Patrick J.; Cheadle, Allen; Elmore, Joann G.; Koepsell, Thomas D. (2007-01-11). "Release from Prison — A High Risk of Death for Former Inmates". The New England Journal of Medicine. 356 (2): 157–165. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa064115. ISSN 0028-4793. PMC 2836121. PMID 17215533.
  9. ^ a b c Semenza, Daniel C.; Link, Nathan W. (2019-12-01). "How does reentry get under the skin? Cumulative reintegration barriers and health in a sample of recently incarcerated men". Social Science & Medicine. 243: 112618. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112618. ISSN 0277-9536. PMID 31665655. S2CID 204965417.
  10. ^ Seiter, Richard P.; Kadela, Karen R. (1 July 2003). "Prisoner Reentry: What Works, What Does Not, and What Is Promising". Crime & Delinquency. 49 (3): 360–388. doi:10.1177/0011128703049003002. S2CID 55736383.
  11. ^ Shawgo, Ron (March 2008). "The Revolving Door of Re-Entry". Corrections Forum. 17: 74–80.
  12. ^ a b "Incarceration in the United States".
  13. ^ a b Pompoco, Amanda; Wooldredge, John; Lugo, Melissa; Sullivan, Carrie; Latessa, Edward J. (May 2017). "Reducing Inmate Misconduct and Prison Returns with Facility Education Programs". Criminology & Public Policy. 16 (2): 515–547. doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12290. ISSN 1538-6473.
  14. ^ a b c d Brazzell, Diana; Crayton, Anna; Mukamal, Debbie A.; Solomon, Amy L.; Lindahl, Nicole (2009). "From the Classroom to the Community: Exploring the Role of Education during Incarceration and Reentry". PsycEXTRA Dataset. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  15. ^ a b c Drake, Elizabeth K.; Aos, Steve; Miller, Marna G. (2009-02-13). "Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Crime and Criminal Justice Costs: Implications in Washington State". Victims & Offenders. 4 (2): 170–196. doi:10.1080/15564880802612615. ISSN 1556-4886.
  16. ^ Batiuk, Mary Ellen; Lahm, Karen F.; Mckeever, Matthew; Wilcox, Norma; Wilcox, Pamela (February 2005). "Disentangling the effects of correctional education". Criminal Justice. 5 (1): 55–74. doi:10.1177/1466802505050979. ISSN 1466-8025.
  17. ^ "Practice Profile: Corrections-Based Vocational Training Programs | CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice". crimesolutions.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  18. ^ a b Wilson, David B.; Gallagher, Catherine A.; MacKENZIE, Doris L. (November 2000). "A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders". Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 37 (4): 347–368. doi:10.1177/0022427800037004001. ISSN 0022-4278.
  19. ^ "Home | Bureau of Justice Statistics". bjs.ojp.gov. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  20. ^ Aos, Steve; Phipps, Polly; Barnoski, Robert; Lieb, Roxanne (2018-03-08), "The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime", Costs and Benefits of Preventing Crime, Routledge, pp. 149–175, ISBN 978-0-429-50126-5, retrieved 2024-04-10
  21. ^ a b Davis, Lois; Steele, Jennifer; Bozick, Robert; Williams, Malcolm; Turner, Susan; Miles, Jeremy; Saunders, Jessica; Steinberg, Paul (2014). "How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation". doi:10.7249/rr564. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  22. ^ "The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming | Urban Institute". www.urban.org. 2002-05-30. Retrieved 2024-04-10.
  23. ^ "Restorative justice".
  24. ^ "Returning Home Study: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry". Urban Institute. Retrieved 6 May 2016.
  25. ^ a b Mills, Alice (2013). "Housing ex-prisoners: the role of the third sector". Safer Communities. 12: 38–49. doi:10.1108/17578041311293134.
  26. ^ a b Pew Research Center (April 23, 2019). "Where 'Returning Citizens' Find Housing After Prison". Pew Trusts.
  27. ^ "Criminal History Protections - CivilRights | seattle.gov". www.seattle.gov. Retrieved 2024-03-20.
  28. ^ Binswanger, I. A.; Krueger, P. M.; Steiner, J. F. (2009-11-01). "Prevalence of chronic medical conditions among jail and prison inmates in the USA compared with the general population". Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health. 63 (11): 912–919. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.090662. ISSN 0143-005X. PMID 19648129. S2CID 206990171.
  29. ^ a b c d e Doleac, Jennifer L.; Temple, Chelsea; Pritchard, David; Roberts, Adam (2020-06-01). "Which prisoner reentry programs work? Replicating and extending analyses of three RCTs". International Review of Law and Economics. 62: 105902. doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105902. ISSN 0144-8188. S2CID 214513688.
  30. ^ a b c d Woods, LaKeesha N.; Lanza, A. Stephen; Dyson, William; Gordon, Derrick M. (2013-05-01). "The Role of Prevention in Promoting Continuity of Health Care in Prisoner Reentry Initiatives". American Journal of Public Health. 103 (5): 830–838. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300961. ISSN 0090-0036. PMC 3698835. PMID 23488516.
  31. ^ a b c d Mellow, Jeff; Greifinger, Robert B. (2007-01-01). "Successful Reentry: The Perspective of Private Correctional Health Care Providers". Journal of Urban Health. 84 (1): 85–98. doi:10.1007/s11524-006-9131-9. ISSN 1468-2869. PMC 2078255. PMID 17131191.
  32. ^ a b c Wang, Emily A.; Hong, Clemens S.; Samuels, Liz; Shavit, Shira; Sanders, Ronald; Kushel, Margot (2010-03-01). "Transitions Clinic: Creating a Community-Based Model of Health Care for Recently Released California Prisoners". Public Health Reports. 125 (2): 171–177. doi:10.1177/003335491012500205. ISSN 0033-3549. PMC 2821844. PMID 20297743.
  33. ^ Diggs, Michelle M. (January 2014). "ESTABLISHING SELF-SUFFICIENCY—REENTRY AND INCARCERATED WOMEN: A GRANT PROPOSAL PROJECT". UMI Dissertation Publishing: iii-44 – via ProQuest.
  34. ^ Moses, Gloria (March 2014). "FEMALE EX-OFFENDERS AFTER INCARCERATION: A STUDY OF THE RE- INTEGRATION EXPERIENCES OF FEMALE EX-OFFENDERS THREE YEARS AFTER RELEASE FROM PRISON". UMI Dissertation Publishing: iv-119.
  35. ^ "Practice: Juvenile Reentry Programs - CrimeSolutions.gov". www.crimesolutions.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  36. ^ "Reentry | Youth.gov". youth.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-15.

Further reading[edit]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner_reentry