There are three significant conditions that lead to a successful reentry; Family support, Employment(Stable Finances) and stable housing, these conditions though also are the challenges to successful reentry as the majority population of ex-prisoners are only just high school graduates, do not have housing, and have very little or no ties to their family.
Family
95% of all prisoners today are going to be released at some in the future (James,( 2015) and the first people they look for support is there family (including spouse and friends), people whom they can lean on while they try to get their feet back in the ground. Families have three essential qualities that make or break the reentry process: financial Support, stable housing, and moral support. For an ex-prisoner just reentering society those conditions are like gold; they who have no job, no money, no home, and possibly no one to lean one, if they have spent more than three years in prison the world outside is going to be so much more different from what they have known. In an Interview, Helen Creddle, who spent 40 years working with prison inmates and ex-offenders made a statement on the viewpoint of an ex-prisoner returning to society:
They haven’t been outside in a long time. The noise, the car lights, little things. Where are the stop lights? I’m making some of this up although I lived it. It took some people I know two years until I walked in and said, “Are you ready?” and they said, “Yes.” Two years. (Cooper, 2013, p. 71)
To an ex-prisoner coming back into society, many things are not going to be the same, so support from their family is usually the first thing they seek. In Maryland, 80% percent of released prisoners reported living with their families two months after their release in Illinois the rate was a bit higher at 88%, with 26% percent of ex-prisoners citing family support as their top reason for staying out of prison (Urban, 2008). Family support can be the foothold a released prisoner needs to start their life again outside of prison.
Employment
Of the three challenges to reentry mentioned Employment most likely the most significant hurdle faced by ex-prisoners. An article in the journal of prison education and reentry reported that: "studies of post-release recidivism identified a variety of factors, such as educational illiteracy, lack of job skills, lack of interpersonal skills, criminal history, or unemployment, as contributors to a relatively high recidivism rate among ex-prisoners” (Lockwood, Nally, Ho, & Knutson, 2015, p. 1). Not only is educational Illiteracy putting these ex-prisoners at a disadvantage, but employers are also typically reluctant to hire ex-prisoners (Lockwood et al., 2015), their history as a convict follows them in their job outlook thus thwarting their plans. In the District of Columbia “Client unemployment was ranked higher than the lack of affordable housing by social service workers as a major problem facing federal prisoners reentering society.” (Urban, 2008, p. 2). It is because of these challenges to getting employment that ex-prisoners are financially dependant on their families during the first few years after their release.
Housing
The majority of released prisoners make plans to live with their families, but when that is not an option ex-prisoners looking for accommodation are met with legal limitations and prejudice:
Federal and state policies often prohibit felons, especially those convicted of drug or sex offenses, from accessing public housing and most, without adequate income to pay the first and last months’ rent plus the security deposit, are excluded from securing housing in the private sector (Geller & Curtis, 2011; Malone, 2009; Mele & Miller, 2005; Roman & Travis, 2006). Even when rental units are available, many landlords are reluctant to rent to ex-felons because of a lack of trust and community safety concerns (Lutze, Rosky, & Hamilton, 2014)
Ex-offenders are usually incapable of keeping stable housing, in Cleveland, 63% percent of released prisoners reported living in more than one location during the first year following their release (Urban, 2008), they tend to shuffle from: motels, temporary homes or shelters, and homelessness.
These three challenges are all examples of the collateral consequences of incarceration, both the court ordered, and the socially implied consequences are practices that have been used since the days of Ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, and Medieval England and were used as a form of social rejection (an added punishment). With the rate of incarceration increase as much as it is in the US these collateral punishments are disabling communities many programs are being built to halt the effect that these punishments have on future generations living in a high-risk neighborhood.
Project Build
BUILD or BUILD Violence Intervention Curriculum, targets males and females who were detained in at the Cook County Juvenile Temporary Detention Center (CCJTDC) (Lewandowski, 2013). The Program initially began in 1993 and is now a subdivision of a larger program simply called BUILD and is designed to help youths in facing detention overcome problems they may meet in their communities like drugs, crime, and gang violence. The program uses the belief that youths turn to crime and join gangs because they lack other opportunities.
BUILD’s primary goal is to curb Gang violence in high-risk neighborhoods in Chicago by providing youths with alternative opportunities like after-school programs, career training and implementing the BUILD curriculum. The curriculum which underwent a re-evaluation in 2000 now includes academic tutoring and assistance, sports and recreational activities, field trips and engagement in Leadership Development and Civic Engagement. (Lewandowski, 2013). In 2000 Luriogio and colleagues did a study on the BUILD program and how it affects recidivism. Luriogio Study used a random sample of 60 Project BUILD students and compared them with a random sample of non-Project BUILD student they found:
Youths who participated in Project BUILD (Broader Urban Involvement and Leadership Development) had significantly lower rates of recidivism compared to non-Project BUILD youths. Among those students who participated in Project BUILD, 33 percent returned to detention within 1 year, compared with 57 percent of non-Project BUILD youths. Furthermore, the Project BUILD participants who did return to detention took a longer time to recidivate (9.6 months) compared to non-Project BUILD youths (7.6 months), a significant difference. (Lewandowski, 2013).
Conclusion
With the mark of incarceration that they have to wear were for the rest of their lives, ex-offenders have their battle to fight even after completing their time. There are many conditions that they have to meet to get their life back on track yet while having both society and the criminal justice system against them. But with the proper support ex-offender can thrive in society.
(Roman & Travis, 2004)Works Cited
Codd, H. (2007, July). Prisoners’ Families and Resettlement: A Critical Analysis. The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 255-263.
Cooper, K. J. (2013). The Personal and Family Challenges of Reentry Interview with Helen Credle. Trotter Review, 64-79, 120.
Hughes, T., & Wilson, D. J. (2004). Reentry Trends in the United States Inmates returning to the community after serving time in prison. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice.
J, C. K. (2013). The Personal and Family Challenges of Reentry Interview with Helen Credle. Trotter Review, 64-79, 120.
James, N. (2015, January 12). Offender Reentry:. (C. R. Service, Ed.) Retrieved from www.crs.gov: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf
Kim Steven Hunt, P. a. (2016). Recidivism Among Federal Offenders: A Comprehensive Overview. UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION. Washington: UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION.
Lewandowski, H. (2013, December 30). Program Profile: Project BUILD. Illinois, Chicago, United States .
Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., Ho, T., & Knutson, K. (2015, june). Racial Disparities and Similarities in Post-Release Recidivism and Employment Among Ex-prisoners with a Different Level of Education. Journal of prison Education & Reentry, 2, 16.
Lutze, F. E., Rosky, J. W., & Hamilton, Z. K. (2014). A Multisite Outcome Evaluation of Washington State’s Reentry Housing Program for High Risk Offenders. In Homelessness and reentry (pp. 471-491). Washington: International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology.
Richard J. Coley, P. E. (2016, Febuary 1). Locked Up and Locked Out: An Educational Perspective on the U.S. Prison Population. Retrieved from www.ets.org: https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PIC-LOCKEDUP.pdf
Roman, C. G., & Travis, J. (2004). Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner Reentry. URBAN INSTITUTE Justice Policy Center.
SUSAN KLINKER LOCKWOOD, J. M. (2015, june). Racial Disparities and Similarities in Post-Release Recidivism and Employment Among Ex-prisoners with a Different Level of Education. Journal of prison Education & Reentry, 2, 16.
Urban. (2008, May 01). THE CHALLENGES OF PRISONER REENTRY: FACTS AND FIGURES. Retrieved from The Urban Institue: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/31786/411683-The-Challenges-of-Prisoner-Reentry-Facts-and-Figures.PDF