Effective Offender Reentry Programs For Local Communities

Many offenders who are released from prison encounter many obstacles which hinder their progress towards community re-entry. On their own, many fail to secure employment, housing, or complete education or training programs. Without guidance or assistance many offenders return to crime to support themselves. Fortunately there are number of organizations that see the need for services to assist offenders on their path back into the community. One such organization that has proven to be successful is the Safer Foundation.

According to the studies doing by Bureau of Justice Statistics, 67.5% of prisoners released in 1994 were rearrested within 3 years in the United States. This high recidivism rate clearly indicates that it is important to rehabilitate prisoners in an efficient way to prevent them committing a second-time crime. Ignoring such a high recidivism rate, some people argue that they don’t need a rehabilitation program since it costs too much. However, the 67.5% recidivism rate suggests that society necessarily needs to establish a complete rehabilitation program to solve this problem.

Many would say that offenders are hopeless and if one looks at the rate of recidivism, one would definitely think that our nation’s offenders are indeed hopeless. However, what if there was a way to reduce the rate of recidivism and at the same time rehabilitate offenders in order to make them functioning members of the community? Reentry programs that are implemented correctly cannot only reduce the rate of recidivism but at the same time help to rehabilitate an offender through education, treatment, and therapy. The Second Chance At is a law that went into effect April 29, 2008 (P.L. 110-199) and it allows government agencies to provide services to offenders that will help to reduce the rate of recidivism as well as improve the

To support my assumption there is an immediate need for the implementation of a reentry plan; I have reviewed the opinions of other criminologist such as Reginald A. Wilkinson (2008). Wilkinson (2008) has written several articles on the need for incarcerated offender reentry plans. In one of his articles entitled "Incarceration and Beyond: A Personal Perspective” (2008), Wilkinson states, “the overarching idea is that prison reentry programming should commence upon each offender’s admission to the reception center” Wilkinson goes on to say that those released without a reentry plan will affect the percentage of those returning to incarceration and have a negative effect on a communities budget and security”. Consequently, I can assume that if a reentry plan is implemented immediately, the department will save and better spend its budget dollars and stop what I call “the swinging door effect”. I define the “swinging door effect” as the repeated return of offenders into incarceration within a short period of time such. Based on personal interviews along with release document reviews, I can assume a reentry plan was not implemented and likely created the “swinging door effect”. Consequently, I have found the repeated return of offenders into incarceration within a short period of time is a problem that keeps tax dollars from being spent wisely and will affect a community’s economy and security.

Many criminals are sent to jail on a day to day basis. Once they have completed their sentence they are faced with many problems once they are “free”. These problems can be but are not limited to housing, employment, and substance abuse. The prisoner, once they are released, has a tendency to go back to their old ways and to continue the life of crime they were a part of prior to prison. To avoid this, while a prisoner is in prison, the staff creates a reentry program for the prisoner. The reentry program takes affect once the prisoner leaves prison. These programs are created within the community to help the offender from committing new crimes and to integrate them back into society. These programs are also created to help with

Ex-offenders face many challenges after being released into society after prison. This prolonged issue has gone on for quite some time in the United States, and it has been since recent decade that the United States has discovered reentry for prisoners (Johnson & Cullen, 2015). In 2007, the Second Chance Act of 2007 was introduced to break the cycle of recidivism; to rebuild ties between offenders and their families before and after incarcerated to encourage and support offenders; to protect the public; to provide and promote law-abiding conduct; to assist offenders in establishing a self-sustaining and law-abiding life providing sufficient transition

With the dramatic increase in the prison population since the 1970’s, the number of people released from prison has also seen a steady increase. In 2009, almost 730,000 people were released from state and federal prisons, an increase of more than 20 percent since 2000. Those newly released are often condemned by their time in prison and usually have to deal with a loss of social standing. The transitioning process can present various challenges for them including but not limited to reconnecting with family and peers, finding living arrangements and employment. This transitioning process is better referred to as reentry. Reentry is the process in which individuals return to communities from prison or jail custody, with the goal of reintegrating into society. In addition to feelings of fear, anxiety and uncertainty, this process can be further complicated by the many indirect legal consequences of a criminal conviction, sometimes called collateral consequences, which can inhibit an individual's ability to reenter society.

A standout amongst the most imperative elements impacting an offender's effective reintegration back into the community is the social bonds and connections the offender has kept up all through his or her sentence. According to Visher and Travis (2003), the quality of family connections significantly affects the successfulness or failure of the post discharge arrangement. This is because, according to Naser and Vigne, released prisoners relied on family members extensively for housing, financial support, and emotional support. In spite of what the vast majority think, offenders have a tendency to have expectations of family backing and these elevated standards are generally met or surpassed after discharge (Naser & La Vigne, 2006; Benson et

The United States justice system can be described as a cycle, where people enter the prison system, are released, and upon failure to integrate into society soon find themselves back behind bars. Although the means in which the cycle is perpetuated can be argued, the rate of re-offenders is constantly trying to be reduced. One term used to define this type of convict is recidivism, which is the repeat criminal action of a convicted inmate. Recidivism is fastly becoming a issue in the United States as it has been shown that 70% of convicted offenders have been reconvicted within three years of release (Esperian, 2010, p. 322). As crime of any background can be detrimental to society, this high rate of reentry into the justice system has stimulated

Namely, the reentry programs consisted of Life Skills, Work Crew in which, one was paid thirty dollars a day, individual counseling, paid internships, along with, funding for continuing education goals. Nevertheless, these programs are no longer available due to the loss of funding. Now when an ex-offender gets released from a confined setting they are left to fend on their own, which many times leads to some ex-offenders

The strain on taxpayer’s money to sustain an inmate has been the source of many debates in recent years. Per the U.S. Bureau of Prisons, on average, it costs 31,286 dollars to house one inmate. Some Maximum-Security prisons cost as much as 60,000 dollars an inmate and goes on to name that the most expensive prison, Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, costs approximately 90,000 dollars a year (The Law Dictionary, 2012). While the thought of alleviating the cost associated with jails and prisons, is an unreachable goal, the goal of lowering the number of recidivist and in turn lowering overcrowding is attainable. Prison programs that do their best to rehabilitate offenders often see a cycle of returners coming through their doors in a matter of years or even months. Once the rehabilitated offenders are released, they often find themselves without the proper tools to find jobs or housing and resort to illegal activity to support themselves; thus, landing them back in jail or prison. The advantage of allowing offenders to partake in reentry programs is the wide range of services that can be beneficial to their reentry back into society and it explains the importance of having reentry programs in corrections. Having quality programs for offenders such as educational programs, work release programs, and drug abuse programs. A proper program geared towards reducing recidivism should appease the many issues an offender may have which requires correctional funds to be allocated to reentry

According to the Office of National Drug Control Policy published on November 30, 2011, more than 700,000 people are released from state and federal prisons each year (1). The Bureau of Justice Statistics states that in 1980 the amount of inmates that were incarcerated was around 300,000. That number has increased to over 1,600,000 inmates admitted into the state prisons which is shown to date by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2007(4). Showing the increase in these numbers only means that there will be even more people released into our communities once their prison sentence is up. Once inmates are released from prison, more than two-thirds are rearrested within three years of their release and half are re-incarcerated (1). There are many reasons as to why these prisoners may be rearrested after their release, some of which include not having a place to go once they are released, not having a job and not having the resources to be able to obtain help for any of these issues. There have been many policies and acts that have been implemented in order to try and break the cycle of arrest, incarceration, release and re-arrest. One of the biggest acts that has been implemented is the Second Chance Act.

The answer to “are significant changes needed in regards to offender reentry into the communities”, is yes. However, I am torn on whether “significant” is the word I would use, in regards to offender reentry anyway. Nevertheless, I do think changes need to be made even though there are numerous programs in place. Yes they can all use some adjusting, and yes I am of the opinion that a big issue exist with the lack of supervision for all released offenders. Unfortunately, there is a large percentage who are not required to be under any supervision at all upon release. Regardless of the crime they were convicted of and the sentence they received, there should be a minimum timeframe for all newly released offenders to be required to

As the number of offenders reintegrated back into society increases; “reentry programs can help former offenders reintegrate into society without continuing to engage in crime” (Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D.M, & Morani, N., 2012).

The criminal rehabilitation places in the U.S are the halfway houses. These halfway houses are often located in suburban communities and they have the sole aim of keeping the offenders in the society. The name originates from the reality that they halfway amid the prison and the community. The logic behind halfway houses is often that criminal activities originate in the community. Hence, communities have the responsibility of trying to correct the individuals. Also, sending an individual with deviant criminal behaviour to prison will worsen the problem. As a result, the appropriate place for such treatment is the community where this will prevents an individual from breaking the constructive social ties. The programs in the halfway houses often involve work or study release and group sessions for counselling and therapy. Most programs for criminal rehabilitation vary depending on the administrators and their rehabilitation skills and experiences (Palmer, 2003).