Life after Prison Sentence

Abstract 

This paper deals with the strain of convicted felons of non-violent offenses. What obstacles they deal with in order to obtain a stake in society again. The increase in the U.S. imprisonment provided a shift to community from prison for the common poor able-age men as well as women ( Carson and Golinelli, 2013 ). Life after prison is associated with the social integration challenges of linking with members of the family, getting housing and a means of survival. This paper will examine the dynamics of social inclusivity in the early stages after release from prison. However, there is an indication of serious material suffering just after imprisonment. A majority of the released persons are usually unemployed. This is followed by a better number of individuals who get assistance from the public while most depended upon their female relatives in terms of housing and financial support. But, the older individuals who suffered mental illness and addiction were least accepted socially. They were slightly received by families though they experienced weak ties, low rates of employment and insecure housing. Further, there is an indication of anxiety as well as isolation feelings coupled with severe insecurity on materials. Material insecurity and social life adjustment in the outside world develops a transitional stress that hampers links in high imprisoned communities. 

Introduction 

The increase in rates of the U.S. imprisonment changed the social life character in communities that are poor. Admissions as well as releases of prisoners were majorly in the urban neighborhoods that are poor. Imprisonment became part of their normal life occurrences for the existing men’s birth cohorts, specifically minorities who had little schooling (Pettit, 2012). In the year 2010, above 700, 000 prisoners were freed and the rates of incarceration for men who dropped out of school below the age of 40 years reached 12 percent for whites and blacks reached 35 percent (Travis et al, 2014). A developing research literature studied economic and social impacts of imprisonment (Wakefield and Uggen, 2010). According to criminologists, the coming back of past convicts to their respective communities, also known as, re-entry of prisoner became an essential topic for the study of policy on criminal justice. This is because criminologists assessed the turnover on population linked to imprisonment of the neighborhoods individuals in the inner city. The transitional process from reformatory to the community impacts the major relations between the poor communities and the penal system from which penal residents emerge. 

In the study of the challenges of inmates regarding coping with the first effect of moving from prison to community (John, 1970), some researchers claim that appreciating the pathways of reentering the community after prison entails aiming at the difficult changes of the time of release (Christy and Jeremy, 2003). The risk to health which is linked to overdose of drugs are some of the acute effects after imprisonment. Irrespective of the risks, there are program interventions that are operational in the initial periods of re-entering community (Redcross et al. 2012). There is also excessive flexibility of post-imprisonment timeframe, as well as inspiration for distancing from crime seem to be strong. Therefore, the long lasting impacts of imprisonment on communities are based partially on the several personal experiences of the initial periods after release from prison. While the conversion from prison to community may be associated with adverse impacts, the process too was essential in its individual freedom as component of the change in people of the metropolitan neighborhood who are poor. With regards to connection of social relationships among the poor neighborhoods, imprisonment is majorly essential for the distinction it produces between a person and a community. Leaving prison introduces the earlier imprisoned with the responsibility of developing membership in open society, of creating, re-establishing links and learning fresh roles of socialization. Irrespective of high levels of prison release as well as study on the impacts of sentence, there exist few exhaustive circumstances of the mechanisms of arriving in a community after imprisonment. Prison releases are an indescribable population to study (Goffman, 2014) since they are associated with integrated responsibilities and occasionally are on the run (Harding et al, 2014). 

This study provides a structure for researching social inclusivity just after incarceration and offers an empirical assessment of the early months of reentering the community. The study is based on the measurement of social integration linked to housing, support of the family and subsistence as the major indicators through government and employment programs. I will highlight the dynamics of social integration in relation to the supervision of the criminal justice, individual characteristics and the re-entering person’s separation from communal life in their early event of release. By researching the dynamics in the social inclusivity points out on the impacts of imprisonment. However, causal and measurement inference are problems for needy and temporary population usually isolated from institutions of mainstream. However, close scrutiny of the release processes of prisoners proposes a causal method connecting imprisonment to poor results, that is, the challenge of evolution from between custodial and community. The transitional challenge defines the worries of coping to social contact in a free society under the circumstances of serious deprivation of materials. At a personal level, the transitional challenge hampers mental health, triggering relapse and further slows the social inclusivity process. At a community level, transitional challenge largely affects the social relationships in places with high cases of imprison rates. 

Life after Prison 

Social Inclusivity after Custody 

Incarceration is prejudicial. Its assumption creates for the former inmates the responsibility of arriving and developing themselves in a free society (Harding et al, 2013). Policy analysts employ the phrase re-entry to define the exit of prisoners from prison. Usually, former prisoners locate to another community from which they lived (Massoglia et al, 2013). For some individuals with juvenile imprisonment history, release from prison may provide the initial chance to live in a setting which is non-institutional as an adult. In this case, leaving prison is not much resuming a prior residence or re-entry; however, it is basically a transition from incarceration to community. To be part of the community after the incarceration is a social integration process. Becoming part of that community entails not just staying in a particular locality. The membership of the community shows belonging to a social inclusivity entailing of sets of responsibilities as well as conferring a fundamental living standard. The initial stages of social integration are described as the establishment of family relations, finding a location to live, and accessing a means of existence. Connection to residence, income and family offers the requirements for a more exhaustively and enhanced relationships to community and state that have over the period demarcated full nationality. 

Social inclusivity incorporates simultaneously developing community belonging as well as material security. An established resident, family ties and means of existence receive full contribution in a community life and fulfillment of the appreciated social roles of native, worker and kin. Income, security in housing, and separation from family leaves earlier inmates at the limits of people with little contact with opportunities and integrated social roles that is composed of full community involvement. The aim at social inclusivity widens the description of accomplishment after imprisonment. In disparity to normal emphasis on tendency, an effective transition incorporates achieving a standard level of social and material well-being relevant with communal membership. As providers of social link, revenue support and housing, families play a major role in standardizing the lives of those released from prisons. Also, desistance from crime shows that strong and steady romantic relations may be the turning point in criminal professions, offering an example of the incorporative responsibility of families. 

Recent studies on imprisonment and family life goes beyond the research of desistance through assessment of relationships with children and partners (Wildeman, 2013). Still, relationships which are romantic can still be destabilizing (Leverentz, 2011), specifically where partners depend on drugs or are involved in criminality (Wyse et al, 2014). The cases propose that siblings, grandparents and parents as opposed to partners can be a significant source of material and emotional support (Leverentz, 2011). In studying the family’s role of integration, there is a consideration of the partners as well as kin role in the provision of positive assistances of finance and housing. Permanent housing is also fundamental to social integration. A few researches have studied lack of housing and insecurity of housing just after imprisonment. Studies on imprisonment and insecurity on housing has majorly researched on the use of shelter, however, a more exhaustive incident would also tackle housing transition which includes rooming together with family or housing in single room. 

The following examination considers many varieties of housing as well as endeavoring to examine the security and quality. In conclusion, a consistent income just after imprisonment can meet different other needs. For people of greatly able age men, an important source of income is employment in the early periods of after incarceration release. Employment is important in building pride, day to day routine and social status. Nonetheless, average income is very low after imprisonment and employment has been reported to be above 30 percent. Welfare activities have been established to offer an alternative income source with high unemployment rates and low wages (Harding et al, 2014). 

I will also conduct an analysis of employment rates as well as public assistance receipt in the early periods of imprisonment. That is, studies on recidivism along with the impacts of imprisonment propose how ties of a family, support in terms of finance and housing may vary throughout the population of released individuals. This part explains the difference in social inclusivity incorporating theories of prescribed socio-economic demerits, social control, and the course of life, mental illness and addiction histories, and the variance of social separation. The evolution from reformatory to integration into a public is in several ways a process of just criminology. The official social regulation of incarceration determines, and in several communities supervision by a parole or probation officer arises. Incarceration itself may affect the changeover to community based on the terms of the released. Across a major difference of penal conditions, the level of security on prisons and the program accessibility, for instance, isolation from the public is the basic point of imprisonment (Edin and Pirog, 2014). 

Long terms of captivity isolate prisoners from sharing with the family and work, leaving them ill-furnished for self-living. Usually, the existing imprisonment is the most current in the history of life followed by detention in community jails as well as juvenile institutions. Links to friends and families erode in relation to lengthy periods of imprisonment and prolonged institutionalization history. Behavioral coping to prison tend to be embedded. Long history of imprisonment and sentences can hamper social integration by making weak the ties of family and socializing prisoners into interactions and routines of incarceration life. The formal social regulation usually maintains after prison with occasional supervision of the community (Carson and Golinelli, 2013). 

Parole and probation supervision mainly requires consistent testing of drugs, residence and employment checks and those who violate risk being imprisoned again. The conditions for supervision are meant to reduce recidivism and promote employment. The labor market identified that parolees have high rates of employment after release compared to before imprisonment (Bumiller, 2013). We look forward to parolees and probationers having high employment rates and security of housing to cope with the supervision conditions. Most prisoners are from poor backgrounds; however, those being released still vary in their socio-economic challenge. Race, gender and education are among the social disparities with which the change from prison may differ. Joblessness and low pay have been defined by the low heights of education for both women and women released from prison (Morenoff and Harding, 2014). The human asset related to diploma from a high school can enhance employment that averages at least 12 years of education. As an extremely marginal people, the earlier imprisoned are also faced with prejudice and markets of secondary labor that provide little security on the job or growth of wage. Thus studies on audit find establishes proof of discrimination in labor markets of low wages where junior job seekers with criminal records are faced with great challenges of employment than the whites (Aaltonen, 2016). 

Due to discrimination and participation in labor markets that are secondary, social integration can evolve at a slow pace for the earlier imprisoned blacks and Hispanics. Besides education and race, I have also looked at gender disparities in social integration. Qualitative research among poor communities portrays women as more connected to families than men (Edin and Nelson, 2013), which may play a role in enhancing the probability of social inclusivity for women inmates. Further, the high prevalence of sexual exploitation and addiction of drug among women inmates can confer an exclusive challenge that hampers employment projections, security for housing as well as support for family. A perspective of the course of life motivates assessment of social inclusivity for varied age categories. Young ex-prisoners may be adversely aggressive criminals, and parolees of twenties are less approachable to post-incarceration programming. Younger prisoners can maintain close ties with their parents together with other members of the family who offer material support which is against the challenges of social integration. 

Developing community membership may be challenging for the older women and men. Older ex-prisoners may have served multiple or longer terms of imprisonment and may have drained support from family. They may be off-time rivaling for entry-level careers and housing placements which are mostly applied by the younger generation. In addition to vulnerability of socio-economic and age challenges, the major challenge of mental illness as well as addiction due to drug among prisoners affects social incorporation after release. Most people report life time of adverse drug consumption, majorly stating addiction to heroin, alcohol and cocaine. Also, relevant group showed depression diagnosis, post-traumatic stress, anxiety and disorders due to learning. Family members of the imprisoned individuals have experiences in bi-polar and schizo-affective disorders. Mental illness as well as addiction decrease productivity and pressure intimate relations. The diagnosis stigma limits admission to economic and social opportunities. Thus, there is a history of anticipating addiction due to drugs and mental illness which directly affect social integration after imprisonment (Walker et al, 2014). 

Finally, the process of leaving incarceration and re-entering a society is cumulative and impacts on some social integration changes after a while. Those individuals who aggressively build relationships as well as secure material well-being at initial stages are likely to further attract social backing and develop material safety. Conversely, in the event fresh ex-prisoners start the changeover from custody in a stage of unclear social seclusion, inclusivity into the life of community might be thwarted or delayed. In this case, isolation defines the social life detachment where time is spent alone with the lack of successful activity. 

Specific Findings on Life after Prison Sentence 

My assessment of social inclusivity differently determines unstable housing, support of family, community assistance and employment. Social inclusivity is majorly reliable and intensely linked to gender, age, addiction due to drug and mental disease. The quantitative outcomes are outlined in the context of qualitative interviews which define the adjustment and coping that integrates the changeover from imprisonment to the public. 

Support from Family 

Studies reveal that the freshly released inmates were mostly lonely for some occasions their day. The high degree of early family interaction reduced in the initial periods after their release. Further, interaction with families, assured the released inmates direct support measures. Females had a higher chance of receiving monetary support and housing from the members of their families as compared to Males. However, support from the family was weak on ex-prisoners who had a long history of mental disease and addiction due to drugs as well as the old who had attained the age of 44 years and above (Harding et al, 2014). Older ex-prisoners together with individuals who had records of mental disease as well as drug issues were isolated from their family members. In this case, the qualitative information added value to quantitative assessment. Research on life of families of the earlier imprisoned inmates aimed at partners who are romantic and children (Wakefield and Wildeman, 2013), but support for the freshly ex-prisoners were provided by sisters, grandmothers and mothers. We therefore establish that female relatives especially mothers offer support just after release from prison. Gender disparities in support from families portray the close link between earlier imprisoned females and their parents. Therefore, females have a greater chance compared to males in receiving financial support from their parents. Parents especially mothers, usually play a long lasting caring responsibility for their daughters even though they are affected mentally and are drug dependent. For the caring parents, the changeover from incarceration to the public is usually defined as the current episode in a myriad of problems that overlap back to youth stage. 

Housing 

In studying housing of ex-prisoners, we differentiated temporary and marginal living conditions described as living in homeless shelter, a house that is sober or program of residence, or roomed house which is paid on weekly basis, motel or hotel, living in many residence, homelessness and spend night in streets or still in a correctional institution. In every cases, the housing system is either safe or in quarters outside the customary household or a composition of both. Insecurity due to housing was mutual among individuals above the age of 44 years and for the ex-prisoners with mental disease and drug addiction histories (Wildeman and Comfort, 2013). A majority of the ex-prisoners were living in an unstable housing at an early stage of their release compared to the ones less than 30 years of age. There was an improvement of housing although more than half of the ex-prisoners were living in temporary and marginal housing after a given period. Ex-prisoners with mental diseases and a history of drug addiction experienced the same incident. 

Employment and Community Assistance 

A study on the ex-prisoners at an early stage regarding activity or employment linked to social activities on the basis of time and use revealed that they had an arrangement of work just after release as well as some was employed on jobs of work-release which continued after imprisonment. More importantly, activities linked to employment entailed positions of job application, usually online, replying to assistance-needed emblems, or for the few who had union cards, attending halls of hiring in developing trades. Programs included food stamps enrollment and any other social activity, attending meetings on anti-addiction and gathering gains from agencies of the public and programs of the community. There was a steady development on program activities. Those who spent meaningful time doing nothing were also present. The rates of activities related to employment and idleness were low. Few ex-prisoners were engaged and looking for job immediately after their release (Bumiller, 2013). 

Conclusion 

My assessment presents an index by employing the usage of time-use information from the earlier time after release where seclusion is measured with detachment from families as well as inactivity as indicators. Ex-prisoners who idle and spent time alone are not receiving support from family, they experience insecurity of housing and lack employment in the preceding time. Challenges due to social and economy, formal social control, addiction histories and mental illness, and preliminary isolation can all shape the earlier periods after release from prison. This explanation of the constraints, capacities and resources of earlier prisoners inspires a qualitative assessment of social integration. I have also added the qualitative assessment with descriptions of coping strategies and adjustments adopted by the earlier imprisoned individuals in the period of transition immediately after release. 

References 

Aaltonen, M. (2016). Post-release employment of desisting inmates.  British Journal of Criminology ,  56 (2), 350-369. 

Bumiller, K. (2013). 1 Incarceration, welfare state and labour market nexus The increasing significance of gender in the prison system.  Women exiting prison: Critical essays on gender, post-release support and survival , 13. 

Carson, E. A., & Golinelli, D. (2013). Prisoners in 2012: Trends in admissions and releases, 1991–2012.  Washington DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics . 

Edin, K., & Pirog, M. A. (2014). Special Symposium on Qualitative and Mixed ‐ Methods for Policy Analysis.  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management ,  33 (2), 345-349. 

Forrest, W. (2014). Cohabitation, relationship quality, and desistance from crime.  Journal of Marriage and Family ,  76 (3), 539-556. 

Geller, A. (2013). Paternal incarceration and father–child contact in fragile families.  Journal of Marriage and Family ,  75 (5), 1288-1303. 

Harding, D. J., Wyse, J. J., Dobson, C., & Morenoff, J. D. (2014). Making ends meet after prison.  Journal of Policy Analysis and Management ,  33 (2), 440-470. 

Leverentz, A. (2011). Neighborhood context of attitudes toward crime and reentry.  Punishment & Society ,  13 (1), 64-92. 

Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities.  Annual review of sociology ,  40 , 411. 

Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities.  Annual review of sociology ,  40 , 411. 

Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities.  Annual review of sociology ,  40 , 411. 

Turney, K. (2013).  Liminal men: Incarceration and family instability  (No. 1478). 

Turney, K. (2015). Hopelessly devoted? Relationship quality during and after incarceration.  Journal of Marriage and Family ,  77 (2), 480-495. 

Turney, K., & Wildeman, C. (2013). Redefining Relationships Explaining the Countervailing Consequences of Paternal Incarceration for Parenting. American Sociological Review ,  78 (6), 949-979. 

Visher, C. A., Bakken, N. W., & Gunter, W. D. (2013). Fatherhood, community reintegration, and successful outcomes.  Journal of Offender Rehabilitation ,  52 (7), 451-469. 

Walker, J., Illingworth, C., Canning, A., Garner, E., Woolley, J., Taylor, P., & Amos, T. (2014). Changes in mental state associated with prison environments: a systematic review.  Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica ,  129 (6), 427-436. 

Western, B., Braga, A. A., Davis, J., & Sirois, C. (2015). Stress and Hardship after Prison1.  American Journal of Sociology ,  120 (5), 1512-1547. 

Wildeman, C., Lee, H., & Comfort, M. (2013). A new vulnerable population? The health of female partners of men recently released from prison. Women's health issues ,  23 (6), e335-e340. 

Wildeman, C., Wakefield, S., & Turney, K. (2013). Misidentifying the effects of parental incarceration? A comment on Johnson and Easterling (2012). Journal of Marriage and Family ,  75 (1), 252-258. 

Wyse, J. J., Harding, D. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (2014, June). Romantic Relationships and Criminal Desistance: Pathways and Processes. Sociological Forum  (Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 365-385).