The process of reintegration in United States prison systems…
In an ideal criminal justice system, reintegration must work hand in hand with rehabilitation to provide former convicts the opportunity for education, employment, and housing, as well as an improved parole system that aims to prevent further offenses.
Reintegration as a goal of the United States criminal justice system often fails to provide enough resources for ex-offenders re-entering society after prison. Almost all criminal justice processes intend on returning their inmates back into society, allowing them to participate in conventional roles within their community, however, not all provide a basis for reconciliation between the victims and offenders. For reintegration to work, the offenders, the community, and the victims must all be willing to participate in accepting the outcome. This is particularly difficult, as stigmatization creates barriers to full participation in the community. The labeling theory suggests that attaching the label of a “criminal” or “felon” to an individual has an effect on their self-conceptions and overall behavior towards society. These stigmas can create a sense of vengeance or hatred towards the community they live in, only accentuating the disadvantages they had experienced prior to their conviction.
Rehabilitation is a necessary element in returning former convicts back into their community that continues to be overlooked by the criminal justice system despite evidence supporting its effectiveness. For a criminal to be properly integrated into society after prison, their maladaptive relationship with the public must be treated to avoid further offenses. According to Matthew Robinson (2009, p. 252), rehabilitation is the least recognized of all justifications for punishment due to misunderstandings and false beliefs that it doesn’t work in most people. From public opinion polls in the United States, Roberts and Stalans (2000) found nationwide support for a higher emphasis on rehabilitation as a substitute for punitiveness. This widespread support poses the question of why we still choose to ignore this as a method of preventing re-offenses after release. Rehabilitation is an important aspect of reintegration, as it provides the resources to heal damaged relationships between the offenders and their communities. In changing our current processes to focus more on restorative justice than punitive justice, we could potentially bring these individuals back to the status they held before their convictions. This, in turn, would make reintegration more successful in terms of their mental health and attitude towards society. Ideally, the concept of restorative justice applied to our current system would include several programs working to repair dignity and create healthy relationships with a sense of community among all who were affected. Robinson (2009, p. 254) outlines a set of programs that support the system of restoration. The first program suggested, victim-offender mediation and conferencing, calls for meetings between all of the affected parties and allows for safe reconciliation before reintegration. Victim and ex-offender assistance, another recommended program, provides mental health, social, and legal support to assist with reintegration. Lastly, giving offenders the opportunity to participate in community service projects as a repayment to society eases them into cooperative relationships as they continue through the process of re-entering. Restorative justice programs like these have been created throughout the country but have not yet become a standard of reintegration. Practicality and limited funding and for this type of rehabilitation justifies why we have not yet established a better system for our country. If further research continues to be executed regarding the effects of rehabilitation on reintegration, practicality should become less of a barrier to the widespread use of restorative methods and ideally, funding would become more available as the use of punitive justice decreases.
Although rehabilitation is a key element in reintegration, upon release from prison, individuals are given little support in finding employment, housing, and education. While finding employment and housing may be a more obvious necessity as one is released from prison, education is just as critical. Irwin and Austin (1997) specify that on average, offenders enter prison with the equivalent of a tenth-grade education and leave prison with no advanced education and the additional stigma of being a convicted felon. The Sentencing Project (1998) also estimated that ex-offenders earn approximately 70% less money than they had been making prior to being convicted. So, while housing and employment are important in reintegrating back into the community, further education is almost always needed, especially to acquire a job paying more than minimum wage. While it is not necessary to earn more than minimum wage, socioeconomic status is shown to have an effect on levels of deviance across the United States population. In this case, the lower the income, the higher the rate of criminal activity. To lower the risk for repeat offenses, education and vocational skill development should be required in prisons, and access to education outside of prison should also be provided if needed or desired. A good education increases the likelihood of finding a job after release, although, the number of jobs available for convicted felons is dropping at an increasingly fast pace. Petersilia notes that for previous offenders, the unemployment rate across the United States lies around 25% to 40%, with California seeing up to 80% unemployment even a year after release. Regulations concerning what fields ex-inmates are not able to pursue remain quite important for safety and legal reasons, however, they make it increasingly difficult for these individuals to blend in with the rest of society after release. If they are unable to obtain a job that will provide sufficient income for their cost of living due to the societal label placed upon them, reintegration would be considered a failure. In an optimal reintegration system, a program designed to assist in finding or providing employment after release would resolve this issue. Depending on the level of involvement, this could be a very feasible policy. If funding is available, assigning an employment advisor to those looking for a job after discharge would be effective in educating and preparing the inmates for life outside of prison. Though finding work as an ex-offender has proven to be a struggle for most, finding a place to live takes higher priority and carries stricter guidelines. With no chance to secure housing before release, a large number of ex-inmates end up homeless, especially those without friends or family to help them find or pay for a place to live. With the levels of parolee homelessness rising, Petersilia states that they “ increase citizen fear, and that fear ultimately contributes to increased crime and violence.” The additional label of being homeless only makes it more difficult for these ex-offenders to reintegrate. Petersilia also reminds us that landlords often dismiss renter applications when background checks reveal a criminal history. So, even if past convicts are able to find a job, they still may have trouble finding a consistent place to live. Providing housing for released inmates is something our reintegration system struggles with to a great extent and ideally, we should find a way to place individuals back into society without doing harm to them or the community. Either way, transitional housing may only become widely available if the rest of the system is reorganized in consideration of the budgets for each program.
While the policy of parole in the United States functions as an essential component of ex-convict supervision, it also proves to be one of the main reasons for rearrest. According to Austin and Irwin (1997, p. 113), “most inmates are rearrested at least once after being released”. Although it is commonly thought that the reason for rearrest is because they committed another crime, it often is due to a violation, or suspected violation, of parole. These technical violations are not typically labeled as crimes, however, for parolees, they can result in severe penalties. As I previously mentioned, the ability to find housing after prison remains an issue in our current reintegration process. In many cases, parolees are prohibited from residing or communicating with anyone who has been convicted of a crime as a condition of their release. This means that due to the regulations of the parole system, some released offenders are not able to accept help from their friends or family if they carry a past criminal record. Reentering society with no friends or family can make it exceedingly difficult to get back to normal life. It is a shock to leave prison and live without the routine they were used to with no one to rely on in their community. With prisons being more of a holding facility than a method of rehabilitation, Irwin and Austin clarify that it makes sense for the parole system to be in place for monitoring processes. The issue is that if the current parole system’s goal is to prevent rearrest, the goal is clearly not being met and something needs to be done to fix it. This could mean developing a new system of parole that functions more similarly to that of social services. Laws with the ability to send ex-convicts back to jail for violating that would otherwise have minimal repercussions on non-criminals must be put to an end. Imposing strict rules on an individual instead of offering support does not set them up for success. Instead, we should focus on supervision strictly for support in the areas needed. Also, rather than being punished when a rule is broken, they should be rewarded for progress as a method of encouragement. This change is practical, but only if the criminal justice system in the U.S. is willing to flip the parole system upside down. Doubt in this method will always be an obstacle, but aside from that, the funding currently used for parole could alternatively be used for social services if the U.S. decides to reorganize their processes. Rehabilitation should become a necessary function of post-prison life and redesigning the parole system is an effective way to do so.