Offender Reentry

The tension between rehabilitation and punishment has been increasing dramatically. This is because there have been sharp rises in the prison population and repeat offender rates. When one area is over emphasized in relation to the other, there is the possibility that imbalances will occur. Over the course of time, these issues can create challenges that will impact the criminal justice system and society at large. (Gadek, 2010) (Clear, 2011) (Gatotch, 2011)

Community corrections is continually changing and has been for the past one hundred years. From the early to mid-twentieth century onward it has used three major models, the medical model, community model, and the crime control model. The major turning point for the American community corrections system that led to corrections as we know it today was in 1974 when What Works? - Questions and Answers About Prison Reform by Martinson was published. The system changed practically overnight across the nation. The notion of rehabilitating offenders was dismissed and a more punitive “lock them up and throw away the key” mentality took over. Presently the corrections system is still working in the crime control model, but professionals are trying to restructure how we deal with criminal offenders during and after incarceration. The difficulty in the restructuring is finding the balance between punishing criminal offenders proportionate to their crime, but also rehabilitating them to be productive members of society once they are released so that they do not recidivate.

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

In the United States, each day approximately 1,600 adults are released from state and federal penitentiaries to reintegrate back into the community (Gunnison & Helfgott, 2013). Reentry programs have been created all over the nation to help offenders successfully transition from prison into society. Offenders are confronted with numerous obstacles when attempting to reintegrate back into society. Ninety-five percent of offenders are released to reintegrate back into the community (Davis, Bahr, & Ward, 2013). Upon release, ex-offenders realize that despite the fact that they are no longer incarcerated, they face many restrictions. The restorative justice development rose to address the disappointment of the criminal justice framework to manage victims, offenders, and communities in an integrated way. A core focus of this development has been to expand the role of the community in advocating changes that will avert the issues and conditions related with crime and the demand for a criminal justice intervention (Hass & Saxon, 2012).

During the past decade, there has been a newly found interest in prisoner reentry. This is due to a change in many of the factors surrounding the release of convicted felons and their reentry into to the community (Visher, C. A., & Travis, J. 2003). The number of people incarcerated in the United States prisons has quintupled and correctional facilities are working on getting them back into the community. Over half of the convicted felons that are released from prison return to correctional systems within one year of their release date. One of the most common reasons for their return into the prison systems is because many

The problem with prison reentry has been going on for many years in the United States, as I discussed in assignments one and two. Recidivism issues can often be linked with reentry issues because when offenders are returning to society, they need to be prepared, which is something that our current criminal justice system is not trying to achieve. In order to create some defensible solutions for prison reentry and the recidivism issues linked to prison reentry, the criminal justice system has to realize that there is no one overall solution because every offender have different offenses, different stories, different outcomes, and different prison sentences. Because of this, each offender's return to society will be different, and the reentry

Community Based Corrections programs, also known as halfway houses or Residential Reentry facilities, were established as an alternative for prisoners to complete their term of incarceration in a community setting. Residential Reentry facilities provide a structured environment for low, minimum, and high-risk offenders while allowing them to integrate back into society. Specifically, Residential Reentry facilities provide offenders the opportunity to gain employment, establish financial responsibility, and obtain suitable housing. With the overcrowding of prisons, the ability to participate in Community Based Correction programs enables the convicted criminals as well as prison staff to lessen the loads that come with working in a prison as well as improve the lifestyle that comes with incarceration. As with all things in life, there are positive as well as negative outcomes to the participation of these convicted criminals in community-based programs. In viewing the positive and negative outcomes, the end

Reintegration’s goal is to use the time criminals spend under correctional supervision as a means to prepare the, to be able to reenter/reintegrate back into free society as well equipped as possible (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.10). It is not too far from rehabilitation, but can be more realistic because it focuses on concrete programs such as job skill training or experience building rather than just changing an offender’s attitude.

The growing number of individuals exiting prison each year has prompted renewed interest among academics and policymakers in the challenges of reintegrating former prisoners into society (Visher & Travis, 2003). The challenges of reentry appears to be daunting, as the prospects for successful reentry are often dim. More than 40 percent of those released return to prison within three years, a phenomenon known as the “revolving door” (Pew Center on the States, 2011). This “revolving door” is a

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.

The difficulty of implementing a successful reentry strategy is not only a dilemma for the state of Hawaii but also a national dilemma. Every year it estimated that 650 offenders are released from state and federal prisons nationally and more than a million are released from local jails (BOJS, 2009). At present in the State of Hawaii, there are over 19,000 offenders on probation. On any given day, thousands of these probationers are facing possible revocation and re-sentencing to jail and/or prison terms. If only 5% of the probation population were re-sentenced to jail and/or prison, that would equate to an increase of at least 950 offenders being sent to Hawaii jails and prisons (PSD). Additionally, there are over 1,900 convicted felons on parole statewide. On any given day, the Hawaii Paroling Authority has an average of 180 to 220 outstanding active warrants to retake parolees that poses an undue risk to the public's safety (HPA). More than 50% of those released will be incarcerated again for parole violations

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

A range of behavioral rehabilitative mediations has been utilized to lessen recidivism among discharged detainees. These interventions incorporate multimodal programs that traverse imprisonment settings and groups generally alluded to as reentry projects and in addition solitary centered projects on things, for example, job preparing, instruction, substance misuse programs, sex guilty party treatment, intellectual behavioral preparation, and coaching (Washington State Institute on Public Policy, 2012). Meta-Analyses recommend that in spite of the fact that impact sizes of mediations may now and then seem unobtrusive, diminishments in reincarceration can be exceedingly significant. Investigations of intellectual, behavioral projects report somewhere

The strengths-based approach to offender reentry is a system that develops a health life style for offenders. This system can be apply towards offender because it helps the offender to take correct decisions. Many times offender needs a guide, however, if they apply strengths-based system they would have a live where they don’t need to live in fear.