Incarcerated Individuals and the Struggles Back to Society

Introduction 

Exoneration may be a desirable experience for many convicts, but the stereotyping and rejection that comes from society make some ex-prisoners desire prison life. Rebuilding a normal life after imprisonment is made difficult by stigmatization and negative attitudes that people create towards those in incarceration. 95% of ex-offenders are released back into the community, but 76.6% are re-arrested in five years ( Emasealu 2017 ). The high recidivism rates indicate the need for proper reintegration into society, as well as finding income-generating activities for them. According to the Bureau of Justice (2018), only 12% of employers are willing to employ ex-convicts, which makes it necessary to equip them with hands-on skills, housing, and counseling. In social work, professionals will likely encounter such individuals. Understanding the culture and perception of the community they are seeking reentry into is essential in choosing how to help them. Counseling is one significant way of assisting ex-offenders. Formerly incarcerated individuals need resilience, determination, and encouragement to pick up their lives from where they left, or start over. However, with proper counseling to clear any doubts, it promotes successful reentry after imprisonment. Counseling incarcerated individuals will promote their integration to society and reduce their recidivism rate. 

Literature Review 

Correctional Options 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reveals that an average of 59,040 individuals are released annually, with six out of ten being reconvicted. The government uses an average of $28,000 annually in correctional facilities, yet the rate of re-arrests is still high ( Oudekerk et al., 2018). Understanding the high recidivism rate requires an understanding of the population composition in correctional facilities based on age, gender and background. The jail population is hard to monitor since it is highly fluid, with individuals coming in and leaving after weeks or a few months. Offenders in police cells and jails are awaiting trial or incarcerated for misdemeanors. The population of prisons is however more rigid, as convicts serve long term sentences for felonies. 

According to the report by Oudekerk et al. (2018), the number of prisons has declined in the last ten years as compared to the period between 2000 and 2010. The plummeting number of prisons increases inmate populations, as more offenders are held in jails. Offenders are also punished through probation and parole, which ensures facilities are not overcrowded. Offenders found guilty of committing minor crimes serve under community supervision. Such individuals are not allowed to travel far and required to check-in in their probation officers regularly. In a case that they fail to adhere to the set guidelines, they may be incarcerated as a precautionary. For individuals who have been in correctional facilities but have proven disciplined and law-abiding, they may be allowed to complete their sentence outside the facility, which is known as parole. Parole can be decretory or mandatory. Although the U.S. banned parole in 1987, some people benefitted from it and is still practiced in other countries. 

Lin et al. (2018) point out that the type of correction that an offender receives dramatically determines how they are perceived by society after completion of the sentence and their likelihood of recidivism. Offenders sentenced to probation are in constant interaction with their families and friends and return to their normal lifestyle quite easily after serving their sentence. Those in jails are also incarcerated for weeks or a few months, and the community easily takes them back. The gravity of their mistakes is also less as compared to felonies. Prisoners, especially those convicted for capital crimes such as murder, robbery and homicide, face most challenges when re-entering society. Society has a negative attitude, mixed with fear, as they still perceive them as criminals. Ex-prisoners are also most likely to be re-arrested if their correctional process was not well done. 

Recidivism Rates 

The Bureau of Justice Statistics in 2018 conducted research to determine the rate of recidivism, noting increases and decreases over the last five years ( Oudekerk et al., 2018). Offenders who fail to show up for drug tests or when required by their probation officers and ex-offenders who are arrested, whether found guilty or nor are termed as cases of recidivism. However, the bureau excluded these cases in its research. Recidivism was counted only in instances where ex-offenders were found guilt and re-incarcerated. A study by Yukhnenko, Sridhar, & Fazel (2019) indicates that the chances of being arrested decreased as the years after being released from prison increased, with the rate reducing from 41% in the first year to 20% in the second year . 

The findings by Yukhnenko, Sridhar, & Fazel, 2019 also indicate that among the 41% arrested during the first year, 65% of the recidivism was among men, versus 35% women. Hispanics were the most arrested, accounting for 47%, blacks 46%, and 40% for whites. However, the percentages for recidivism are based on the number of original convicts. Hispanics and Blacks comprise a significant population of correctional factors, which could be attributed to their backgrounds. Their neighborhoods encourage a “tough” lifestyle, characterized by drugs and violence. The gravity of what the offender had done also determines the chances of being re-arrested. According to a U.S. Sentencing Commission report (2019), nearly 64% of prisoners who had been convicted of violent offenses were arrested within eight years compared with about 40% of those convicted of nonviolent crimes. The research was carried out among 25000 ex-prisoners. The high recidivism brings into question the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs and the role of counseling for ex-offenders re-entering society. 

The field of offender reentry has not been an area of interest for many social scientists, until in recent years when researchers have been engaged in a meta-analysis of the issue. The National Reentry Resource Center working in collaboration with the Urban Institute developed the “What Works” in Reentry Clearinghouse that provides studies that meet the required criteria. Studies that were included in the clearinghouse evaluated the success of a reentry program policy or practice by providing evidence-based on the effect of the solution on recidivism, mental health, housing, employment, and substance abuse. The studies were also based on random assignments or quasi-experiments, with a sample size of at least thirty individuals for the experiment and as controls. The currently published studies are therefore evidence-based, with all conclusions being derived from data-driven discussions. 

Challenges of Reentry after Incarceration 

The U.S. releases close to 300,000 ex-offenders into the community. While some may have successfully gone through rehabilitation and prepared for decent lives outside the facility, the majority face challenges that ultimately lead to their re-arrest. The social disorganization theory ( Bellair 2017), attempts to explain the rise in crime as a community issue as opposed to a personal matter. The social disorganization theory serves to shift mindsets from focusing on the ex-offender as the problem, and instead focus on the role of society in the successful reintegration of the ex-convict. A community that does not support reentry makes life difficult, which often pushes them back into crime. Ex-offenders who find families that embrace them without prejudice are less likely to slide back into crime. A study done by the Urban Institute showed that 68% of people released from incarceration facilities settled in the seven most populated cities (Appleman, 2018), where they can live without stigma due to the enormous population. In such cities, they do not worry about housing and healthcare, as they can live in cheap houses and access medical care cheaply. 

Employers are reluctant to hire people with criminal records, no matter how minor. The time spent in correctional facilities also creates a gap in career life, which employers often question. Applemen (2018) notes that as a result, most ex-convicts secure low skill jobs despite their qualifications, as a last resort to earn a living. For some individuals who may not accept such terms, they resume crime to earn a living. Some unjust employees also take advantage of their desperation and fail to pay them, as the majority lack the means to sue them or are denied access to worker unions. In another study, Li (2018) points out that the attainment of practicing licenses from professional bodies is also made hard by obstacles placed on people with criminal records. In the end, they resolve to hands-on jobs that do not demand a lot. 

The Importance of Counseling 

The Building Blocks initiative has taken upon itself to counsel ex-offenders on community reentry. Such initiatives complete the rehabilitation process started by the government. The government reforms behavior through instilling discipline and skills, but that is not enough to let the ex-offender reclaim their lives. Mental preparation on what to expect as well as a continuous follow up on ex-convicts ensure the discipline and skill acquired from the facility help them lead a normal life again. Counseling links the person’s expectations to the real world. The frustration of their expectations not being met is a source of the slack back. 

Bellair (2017) hypothesizes that Counseling prevents frustration because the ex-offender has someone to talk to. When they cannot secure a job, going back to crime is not an option. Some counselors connect them to employers who do not mind hiring ex-convicts, or donors who believe in giving them second chances. When being released from incarceration facilities, individuals are often motivated to regain their life. The zeal is maintained through constant encouragement and provision of a means to connect their dreams to practicability, a process that could be tiring and very bureaucratic. This hypothesis is affirmed by Li (2018), who states that having someone to remind them of their aspirations after they left incarceration ensures they do not take shortcuts, which are often criminal. Even in cases where their families are not willing to take them back, they can survive on their own with a stable source of income. The recidivism rate of individuals who went through counseling after release until they were properly integrated into society is lower than those who did not undergo counseling. Counseling incarcerated individuals will promote their integration to the community and reduce their recidivism rate. 

Dependent and Independent Variables 

The independent variable of the study is counseling. The independent variable in a study means that it is not influenced by the other variable. In this case, counseling is not dependent on integration into society and recidivism. Integration into society and recidivism is determined by counseling, therefore the dependent variable. The success of integration into community depends on whether counseling is done, and how it is done. Counseling could be done, but in an ineffective way, which proves insufficient, and lowers the chances of the individual being properly integrated into society. Increased quality of counseling is directly proportional to the success of integration into the community. On the other hand, counseling is inversely proportional to recidivism. Proper counseling lowers the chances of recidivism and vice versa. 

References 

Appleman, L. I. (2018). Deviancy, dependency, and disability: The forgotten history of eugenics and mass incarceration. Duke LJ , 68 , 417. 

Bellair, P. (2017). Social disorganization theory. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice . 

Emasealu, H. U. (2017). Prison Libraries and Prison Education: Books towards Post Incarceration Reformation and Rehabilitating. Library and Information Science Digest , 10 (1), 1-14. 

Li, M. (2018). From prisons to communities: Confronting reentry challenges and social inequality. The SES Indicator (American Psychological Association , 11 (1). 

Lin, A. L., Ong, G., Yeo, C. Z., Chia, D. X., & Kaur, J. (2018). Effective rehabilitation through evidence-based corrections. Practice , 6 (1). 

Oudekerk, B. A., Langton, L., Warnken, H., Greathouse, S. M., Lim, N., Taylor, B., ... & Howley, S. (2018). This report was prepared by Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), RAND Corporation, NORC at the University of Chicago, and the National Center for Victims of Crime using federal funding provided by BJS. 

Yukhnenko, D., Sridhar, S., & Fazel, S. (2019). A systematic review of criminal recidivism rates worldwide: 3-year update. Wellcome open research , 4 .