Offender Reentry: Reintegration into Community Life

What do we know about ex-offenders who successfully reintegrate in to community life? 

Incarceration is one of the most popular forms of criminal punishment where, individuals who violate the law are secluded from society and locked up for a significant duration. However, what majority of the criminal justice systems do not consider is how these individuals will be re-integrated back into society. Depending on the danger they pose to society, it is a difficult task for ex-offenders to join into normal community life. According to studies, many of the offenders who are released from prison after years or decades of incarceration it is more likely that they will return to their criminal behaviors. Such ex-offenders usually end up back in prison. This occurrence is mainly due to the lack of effective programs to change behavior and the essential support after release. It is evident that failure to reduce repetition of offenses clearly shows the limitations of the prison system as it does not ensure the safety of the society. In this regard, there are three primary factors that to the successful reintegration of ex-offenders into community life such as environment, employment, and social support. In social support, there are multiple aspects included such as rehabilitation of behavior, substance abuse, and positive social relationships. 

Environment 

Recent research shows that criminal or defiant behavior is learnt from the particular social context. An individual does not just decide to make it his or her life’s purpose to violate all the rules that have been set up by the relevant authorities. Instead, they learn such behavior from family members, parents, siblings, peers and the community at large. For this reason, the environment where an ex-convict is released into will determine his or her successful reintegration to the community life. In this case, it is important to note that the desired behavior of an ex-offender is significant adherence to the laws and regulations of a given jurisdiction. The study conducted by Tillyear and Vose (2011) shows that there is correlation between, recidivism and the community setting where the offender returns after release. Residential stability in particular stood out as the contextual variable that affected cases of recidivism. 

For the ex-offenders who are able to successfully reintegrate into the normal community it is evident that the home setting is significantly different. Young ex-convicts are likely to return to a nurturing environment where crime and other forms of rebellious behavior are highly discouraged. In the American society, this is not always the case as many of the released prisoners are sent back to the chaotic communities filled with criminal activity (Tillyer, & Vose, 2011). However, it is the expectation of the law enforcement authorities particularly the probation officers that the individual avoids any form of behavior that may cause a violation of parole. These high expectations are less likely to be achieved as the setting itself does not allow the ex-offender to behave appropriately. It is also depicted that lack of community resources affects life after release. In this case, lack of financial capability may prompt a released prisoner to resort to criminal activity as a means of ensuring sustainability. 

Many of the released convicts are middle-aged adults who have families like wives, husbands or children waiting for them to come home. However, these family members are not in the best state as they are experiencing an unstable community. Once the prisoner is freed, the kin begin to pester them to provide for their daily needs as was previously the case before they were incarcerated. A study conducted by Durose, Cooper, and Snyder (2014) shows that despite variation in 1994 and 2005, older adults were the highest populations of released offenders. In 1994, the freed individuals below the age of 24 years were 20.6% of a sample of 29,387 prisoners as opposed to 2005 where in the same age group there was 16.9% of a sample of 34,649. However, for individuals above the age of 40years the population was 17.2% in 1994 but increased to 32.1% in 2005 using the same samples previously mentioned (Durose, Cooper, and Snyder, 2014). In this case, it is evident that in the recent times there are more prisoners released who are at the age of fatherhood. These persons are more likely to face the pressure to providing for their families than the younger ones. 

The occurrence of an unstable household presents the ex-offenders with a dilemma upon their release. They have to decide whether they will fail their family members who have accepted them back into society or alternatively fall into the trap of criminal activity and risk being arrested once again. According to research done by Makarios, Steiner, and Travis (2010) the inability of an ex-offender to ensure a stable housing is a vital factor in the cycle of criminal behavior. Gender has little or no effect on the occurrence of recidivism. Therefore, having an appropriate place to sleep with minimum pressure to sustain the lives of more than one person could ensure successful integration as shown by research (Makarios, Steiner, & Travis, 2010). 

Employment 

Another important and probably the most crucial factor towards successful integration into community life is employment. Many of the ex-offenders usually find it difficult to acquire a job where they can earn an honest living. This occurrence is primarily due to various organizations whether big or small require that candidates for an available position indicate their criminal history. Such businesses are likely to engage in an in-depth background research of the shortlisted candidates to ensure that they have an appropriate history that correlates with the company’s image. These activities make finding felon friendly jobs more difficult. According to the Obama administration, receiving an employment is one of the key factors towards reducing the chances for recidivism (Ferner, 2015). The ex-offenders are busy throughout the day or night hence alleviating their association with criminal behavior. The societies that are inclined to accept the ex-prisoners more openly significantly increase the chances for successful reintegration. 

There are those ex-convicts who are lucky enough to find jobs. However, the only ones available are typically low wages. A single individual can barely survive on the pay provided hence taking care of a family becomes even harder. The difficulty of maintaining daily functioning becomes more evident in this case. Undertaking these low-income jobs is tasking for the ex-offenders who were living expensive lifestyles through their illegal sources of income. In this regard, they suffer emotionally as they seek to receive recognition for their hard work to change their behavior (Ferner, 2015). The successful ex-offenders are able to pull through this difficult time as they experience satisfaction from other areas. However, there are those that are unable to achieve the same. The latter will usually recede from the law-abiding behavior and instead choose criminal activities to exist financially in the community. They are fully aware that their actions are a major risk to their freedom as it could easily lead to another incarceration. 

Employment issues are depicted to affect individuals of particular social classifications. For instance, different ethnic communities experience carrying outcomes in the labor market. The whites are less likely to face judgment even after identifying themselves as convicted felons. The members of this community are more likely to come from affluent neighborhoods where they can numerous opportunities to find employment (Ferner, 2015). However, the African Americans and Latina communities are less scrutinized thoroughly for their previous involvement in illegal activities. Owing to the fact that many of them come from low income families and communities, the ability to find honest employment is almost non-existent. From the cases of successful reentry into the community life, it is essential that the ex-convict returns to a positive society. This aspect is where organizations despite their sizes are able to offer the ex-criminals an employment that provides pay that can sustain their lives free from crime. 

Other than the effect of the criminal background, education is a vital factor that ensures effective and successful reentry of ex-convicts in the normal society. The development of high skills and competency in a particular job is essential for any candidate wishing to find a high paying job. The individuals may take part in a four-year college program or a two-year training both of which ensure development of skills that employers are looking for (Ferner, 2015). According to the director of the Prisoner Reentry Institute at the John Jay College of criminal Justice, Anne Jacobs, the inmates who receive a college education during their time while incarcerated or when they are released from prison have little or non-existent recidivism (Ferner, 2015). However, the primary challenge is getting the institutions or financial capability that will help provide for tuition fees. Getting to the required level of competency may incorporate a lot of hard work from the ex-offender to overcome the barriers preventing them from achieving success. 

Social Support 

Many if not all of the newly released inmates suffer from numerous struggles that make their lives more challenging once they are released. Research has show that the correctional facilities are not used as a means of rectifying behavior but to punish the wrongful actions of these perpetrators (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010). Convicts have different experiences while in prison whereby interactions with other criminals may affect their perception of the world. High population of the correctional facilities along with the rate of mass incarceration has forced the criminal justice system to lock up low risk criminals with the high-risk ones. For instance, a mere drug peddler and a violent criminal may share a prison cell. This occurrence may lead to the deterioration of the behavior of the former. Once such an individual is released from prison, they are less likely to engage in desirable behavior instead being involved in more severe crimes. 

The experience of an inmate is different in the numerous correctional facilities. There those filled with violent criminals leading to a myriad of prisoner to prisoner violence or sometimes cases of repetitive rape. The individuals who take longer to mature hence have smaller body structures are targeted by the bullies in the jails. As a result, they are more likely to suffer from traumatic experiences. This occurrence may be a significant factor hindering the effective reentry into community life (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010). Furthermore, due to influence of other inmates or in some cases coping mechanisms, the offenders are introduced to different illegal substances. Consumption for an extended period creates dependence which may hinder any prospect of successfully reintegrating into the society. The above individuals will require social support as a means of coping with the struggles they have encountered in prison (Ferner, 2015). The support system may include family members and experts who are made available by the institution. 

Individuals who are successful in reentry into the society usually lead a drug free life. Only a small percentage of the ex-offenders are offered an appropriate rehabilitation program usually before their release. The program enables the inmates to develop skills of coping with withdrawal issues as they set up different ways of supporting one another through the process of becoming sober (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010). It is depicted that the social support programs available in almost every state and federal prison are not as effective as required. Usually, they incorporate only a few hours of orientation where the individual is assessed by a board of parole officers. This practice is ineffective as many of the inmates are incarcerated once again due to small issues within a short period after their release. For instance, failing a drug test is considered a felony under the terms of parole and probation (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010). The ex-offender is imprisoned again despite the fact that the criminal and justice system does not provide effective means of coping with issues of substance abuse. 

Due to the rapid change of the society, there are cases where individuals who serve lengthy sentences are shocked when they return to the society. A person jailed in the early 1990s will not be able to cope with changes that have taken place in the same society after release in 2017. The change in technology, infrastructure and other factors affecting society could overwhelm their smooth reentry (Ferner, 2015). There are numerous released convicts who are not provided with supervision requirements hence suffer the most in such cases. In light of this, social support appears to be an important factor towards successful reintegration into the society. Assistance to get an employment, successful romantic relationships and individualized programs of reentry into the society are the multiple ways of providing social support to an ex-convict (Bahr, Harris, Fisher, & Armstrong, 2010). There are studies that show it is an effective approach for preventing defiant behavior among the released convicts. 

State of Delaware Recidivism Statistics 

Past 

The state of crimes taking place in the country has significantly declined over the last two and a half decades. There are states that have been recognized for their incredible improvements through reduced cases of crime while others are earmarked as a cause for concern in recent year. The latter cases include states like Louisiana, Texas and Florida where criminal issues experience the largest share of media coverage (Serrano, 2015). As a result, there are some who do not get the attention they deserve despite a clear indication of the importance and urgency of the issue. Delaware, the first state of the USA, is at frenzy due to increased crime rates in the region. The case is made worse by continued occurrence of poverty, high level of substance abuse and poor interventions employed to reduce crime (Serrano, 2014). With more prisoners being released from correctional facilities, the rate of crime in the state is at a major risk of imploding. 

The rates have been worrying in the state whereby cases such as violent crimes were classified as the seventh highest in comparison to the other 49 states and Washington D.C. Over a span of five decades the number of violent crimes taking place in Delaware increased from 338 in a population 469,000 in 1962 to 5,048 in a population of 917,053 in 2012. These figures illuminate the drastic surge in violent crimes in the area of more than 1000%. The rate of violent crimes taking place per 100,000 people in 1962 was at 72.1 but increased to 550.5 in 2012. The latter case is however a significant decrease in the violent crime rate where there were numerous cases in the late 1990s of more than 700 cases taking place over 100,000. The year 1998 was the highest level of violent crime at 762.4 cases per 100,000 cases. 

The most worrying factor of the issue in Delaware is the fact that the law enforcement authorities do not have information on its severity (Serrano, 2015). The authorities in the state had failed to keep track of its crime rates and the repeat offenders. Prior to a report published in 2013, recidivism and re-offences in the state were last observed in the late 2000 in a study focusing on criminals in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In light of this, it is evident there is a major gap on the issue of repeat offenders in the past and how they were influenced to commit crimes after their release. The state authorizes did not have adequate information to evaluate their policing techniques nor the interventions for improving safety in the state (Salt, & Hicklin, 2013). This statistical data is vital in any efforts to improve rate of crime and its subsequent occurrence in a given region. Over the past two decades, numerous states have incorporated this information as a primary factor towards reducing crime and its subsequent re-emergence after the punishment of criminals (Salt, & Hicklin, 2013). The states of New York and California are evidence of a success story where financial and emotional burdens are lessened by such data. 

Present 

Since 2013, the close monitoring of the state’s crime rates, recidivism and its subsequent interventions to tackle the problem. The Delaware report which closely monitored the ex-offenders released between 2008 and 2009 portrayed high rates of recidivism (Hicklin et al., 2013). The statistics show that approximately more than 50% of the inmates sentenced to more than a year in prison after their release were re-arrested within a year (Hicklin et al., 2013). Furthermore, nearly 75% of the same population was caught by officers for illegal activities taking place only 3 years after release from prison (Hicklin et al., 2013). The data is a clear indicator of the severity of the issue in Delaware. The report published by the Statistical Analysis Center of the Delaware Criminal Justice Council reported specific data where after 3 years of release in 2008 that 77.1% and in 2009 76.4% were rearrested. From this population, 71.7% and 71% were convicted of the crimes that they were charged with (Hicklin et al., 2013). 

Following such reports by the state officials caused significant panic among local citizens and the surrounding states. It was depicted that the need to reduce crime and stopping the cycle of its re-occurrence should be immediate. The main aim of the authorities of the state along with elected leaders to focus attention of these residents and developing strategies that would ensure prisoners are not influenced to undertake illegal or criminal behavior. Suggestions of preventing drug addicts from going to prison and instead seeking rehabilitative treatment have been proposed for implementation (McGraw, 2014). The efforts were presented as a particular means of preventing the negative effects that crime has on families. The governor at the time, Jack Markell enforced a law that mandated for the state to undertake annual recidivism rates (Eichmann, 2013). The aim of this law was to develop better reentry efforts that ensured the released offenders effectively adhere to the law and significantly contribute to the development of society at large. Higher cases of recidivism were reported among inmates 24 years and below as opposed to those above the age of 45 (Hicklin et al., 2013). 

On the same note, men who had recently been released from prison were more likely to return than was the case for women. In this case, approximately, 40% of black males and just fewer than 30% of white males were likely to be arrested in the first six months after release in 2008 (Hicklin et al., 2013). The data is significantly lower for women where more than 20% black women and fewer than 30% white women were rearrested within the first 6 months (Hicklin et al., 2013). Comparisons by race also show higher rates of recidivism among African Americans over the whites in the state. Approximately 80% and 70% African American men and women respectively were rearrested in 2008 while 72% and 62% white men and women respectively suffered the same after a 3-year period (Hicklin et al., 2013). The case is significantly higher in the year 2009 except for the white males which dropped. Therefore, the state leaders would incorporate the information to improve treatment of inmates to correct and rehabilitate their behavior in and out of the correctional facilities. 

Future 

The Community Solutions, Inc. was established and tasked with regulating the Delaware Residential Reentry Center (RRC). This program was the first offender reentry service to be established in the state. The program was funded to incorporate both men and women who had recently been released from federal prison. The facility could incorporate nearly 24 individuals at a go with additional spots for those in-home confinements reaching a full capacity of 34 (Serrano, 2015). Despite the significant evidence showing the importance of reentry programs and centers to reintegrate offenders into community, Delaware was the only one never to have had one of its own. In light of this, the inmates being released in this state did not have the appropriate support to cope with challenges of life after prison. The fact that Wilmington, Delaware is the 6 th most violent city in the nation makes it even harder for these offenders to change their behaviors and become law-abiding citizens. 

The RRC mostly housed residents from Wilmington where participants follow a work release model with a full range of services available including, life skills, treatment from substance abuse, assistance with employment, finance management, problem solving, individual & group counseling, cognitive behavioral approach, and assistance with housing. Following evidence provided by other states, it is depicted that the services offered are essential to reduce recidivism. The offender reentry program achieved a 76% completion rate in January 2014 (Serrano, 2015). There is not enough time to identify the recidivism occurrence in the state, but it is a step in the right direction. The governor also signed numerous bills into law that would play a major role in reducing crime and recidivism. The House bill 167 is probably the most well known as it prevents the employer from asking candidates for a job to check a box if they have a criminal history (Serrano, 2015). This practice allows many of the offenders to effectively attain job interviews where many of them are likely to pass. 

There are instances where many believe the law is ineffective as it fails to protect the ex-offenders after that. After employment, corporations will undertake a lengthy background search of the individual in question and immediately relieve them of their duties if criminal offenses are presented. It is evident that the effect of the getting an ideal job only to lose it a while later could be more damaging to the ex-offender who is making efforts to change behavior than when the interview is not available completely. The large corporations are the most likely to perform such practices in hiring targeted positions. Though the pay is much higher, clients of RRC will often choose lo local businesses despite their lower wages. The strong laws along with data on recidivism rates will help develop programs that work to the best outcome of the ex-offenders and the communities at large. Once the offenders can receive an ideal job, support systems from family and community at large could enable effective improvement. 

In an effort to boost future outcomes on recidivism, it is important for the state officials to develop, more appropriate measures of coping with crime issues. Abigail Jones (2014) who conducts a review of life in Wilmington identifies the demographics of the area. The total population is a little over 71,000 whereby 58% of the total population is made up of African American residents (Jones, 2014). Nevertheless, the police department is made up of 70% whites and only 21% black exacerbating the tensions between the law enforcement and the people (Jones, 2014). The local authorities should level up these incidences while ensuring improved relations with the residents. The high level of social issues affecting the state’s most dangerous place could help in improving interventions for policing efforts and significantly reduce recidivism. Cases of teenage pregnancy, family stresses, increase in drop-out rates, gun violence, and drug addiction should be addressed with high levels of urgency on the latter (Lombardi, 2016). Drop-out cases are at a staggering 60% which means majority of the teenagers do not complete school and instead join gangs (Jones, 2014). 

Another important factor of improving the state of Wilmington is the police force. According to the article by Jones (2014) despite the high rate of violent crime taking place in the city, the homicide unit has just been established. In total, there are 9 individuals including five detectives, a supervisor and a retired detective. Additionally, there are two more agents provided by the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosive (Jones, 2014). The group was only set up in October 2014 and took a month to solve its first case. With a tally of 27 in the year 2014, it is evident that the unit cannot effectively tackle the crimes taking place in the area (Jones, 2014). There were 154 cases of shootings in 2013 that could prove to be a major task to the homicide unit if each one had one dead victim. There is a great need to improve the ability of the police force to effectively tackle crime issues. 

Statistics of Successful Reentry Programs in the U.S 

Research has played a vital role in demonstrating the poor state of the criminal justice system. Despite the use of deterrence as a means of preventing future crime, analysis has showed that it is ineffective as the incarcerated criminals are unable to effectively steer away from criminal activities. Approximately 700,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons every year. However, 50% of these ex-offenders are captured and imprisoned within 3 years after their release. This demonstrates the need to incorporate an alternative means that will make sure that the freed individuals lead honest and law-abiding lives in the society. The Department of Justice in collaboration with other federal departments like Labor, Housing and Urban Development, Education, and Health and Human Services established a pilot program to facilitate reentry of released offenders. These federal organizations gathered $110 million for distribution across 69 grantees in 2003 (Lindquist, Wilson, Rossman, Walters, & Lattimore, 2015). The program identified as the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) would attend to both adult and juvenile offenders. The collaborative effort would focus on five critical issues to improve reentry outcomes including criminal justice, health, housing, employment and education. The primary aim of the initiative was to guarantee productive social roles of the convicts through four objectives; 

Reducing recidivism 

Promote changes in correctional systems through collaboration of departments and providing effective strategies for case-management 

Increasing self-sufficiency by improving quality of life 

Promoting better health outcomes by tackling issues of substance abuse, physical and mental health concerns 

Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) 

The SVORI program was not a major success as follow-up evaluations showed that there was little difference between the participants of this program in comparison to non-SVORI offenders. There was a 14% decrease in arrest for adult males, 48% adult women and 25% juvenile males (Lattimore et al., 2012). This is a significant benefit to the various participants of the study as there are a number of inmates who are able to avoid criminal activities. For an extended period, it appeared that the SVORI participants were benefiting from the program though the statistical research did not support the same belief. Data was collected 3, 9 and 15 months after the release of the inmates to identify whether the program was working for the benefit of its participants (Lattimore et al., 2012). State agencies along with the National Crime Information Center would record the occurrence of recidivism among all released inmates. SVORI and non-SVORI groups were analyzed against each other to examine the impact of receiving particular services included in the program (James, 2015). Other factors to consider included the analysis of costs savings where the expenses incurred making arrests and incarceration are weighted against reentry program and services participation. 

There were numerous positive results associated with the participation in the SVORI program. To begin with, for all three demographic groups in the reentry program, there were fewer arrests and a longer time leading to the arrests (James, 2015). For instance, in a follow-up of adult males up to 56 months after their release from showed significantly more positive results in the number of arrests as they were lower than that of the non-SVORI group (Lattimore et al., 2012). The juvenile males in a follow-up period of up to 22 months after their release showed a lower rate of arrest cases than those who did not participate in the program (Lattimore et al., 2012). The adult males in SVORI program were noted to take a longer time to be re-imprisoned and also a lower number of re-incarcerations were evident. Nevertheless, the latter results did not show statistical significance (Lindquist et al., 2015). The results for adult females were not significant as they experienced mixed fortunes. However, it was noted that the results for the male juveniles were positive due to less likelihood of becoming imprisoned though they lacked statistical significance (Lattimore et al., 2012). 

The evaluation for the SVORI program demonstrated the importance of individual change services. In this case, the researchers noted that to ensure effective performance of the released inmates in the community, it was essential that the services provided are specific to each one of them (Lattimore et al., 2012). However, if the service is more practical it serves as a detrimental effect to the ex-offender. This occurs particularly in reference to the time taken to the first arrest among the juvenile and adult male samples. More of the persons in these groups demonstrate longer time to the first arrest due to engagement in personalized services as opposed to the latter. The adult female samples did not show significant benefit through their involvement in either service. 

The SVORI program was regarded as a success due to its significant financial benefit to the federal and state governments. In the 56 months that was fixed as a follow-up period for the adult males, it is evident that the participation in the program allowed the government to save up to $3,567 in costs related to arrests (Lattimore et al., 2012). The services that were set to provide for the individual change of the inmates were modestly successful particularly for the adult males included treatment for substance abuse, education and programs focusing on cognitive engagement (Lindquist et al., 2015). Education in particular was associated with positive results for the adult males. The services aimed at practical needs of the inmates failed to improve non-recidivism outcomes including substance abuse, housing and employment (Lattimore et al., 2012). This occurrence was noted particularly amongst the men. Participation in the SVORI program was associated with positive non-recidivism outcomes in some cases even though it appeared to be favorable for the adult male samples. Nevertheless, the program was discontinued due to lack of statistical significance in differences between the participants of this group and the non-SVORI group. 

Twin Cities RISE! 

The organization is one of the private charities that have come up to assist the state and federal governments in ensuring successful outcomes for among offenders. The organization was founded by Steve Rothschild in 1995 initially using his own money to fund the organization to success (Wascalus, 2013). He identified that there are two problems that are affecting the crime-ridden society of today, racism and poverty. In this regard, these factors together increased the rate of crime in the 1980s and 1990s. The founder of Twin Cities would identify the numerous failures associated with government funded job training and anti-poverty programs that lack a foundation of incentives and accountability (Wascalus, 2013). Their continued support through government funds is through meeting minimum standards set. Though the programs that have been funded since the Welfare Reform Act have provided positive results in terms of increased income for its participants, they have not been able to realize living wage standards. 

One of the major problems affecting effective reentry of ex-offenders into community life is inability to sustain their lives. In this case, a former inmate cannot appropriately survive in the modern community without the required income standards. There are many individuals, particularly from the African American and Hispanic communities, that suffer greatly for the occurrence of poverty in the US. Approximately, 26.2% and 23.6% of African Americans and Hispanics respectively are living in poverty. In Minneapolis where the organization operates, the African American population living in poverty was at 45% as opposed to 14% among the white families (Twin Cities RISE!, 2013). In 2011, African Americans were more likely to experience unemployment than the whites with ratios of 17.7% and 5.4% respectively. In relation to the rate of incarceration, the blacks and Hispanics are at a higher risk of being imprisoned (Twin Cities RISE! 2013). This occurrence shows the urgency of providing a system that will enable members of these communities to avoid rebellious and potentially illegal behaviors and instead aim towards improved living standards. 

The biggest difference between Twin Cities RISE! from other charity organizations with a similar mission is its intent to ensure personal empowerment (Twin Cities RISE! 2013). The numerous individuals in the two communities who are suffering from poverty usually experience a state of hopelessness (Wascalus, 2013). It is for this reason that many of them are inclined to engage in criminal activities rather than push on to improve living standards. Initially when the company started off, the individuals were only provided with job related skills that would guarantee them employment. Steve recruited 19 men to complete the program and all of them did and successfully got employed. However, 16 of them lost their jobs in no time prompting the founder to incorporate personal empowerment as a brand of the organization and part of enabling participants gain emotional intelligence (St. Anthony, 2015). The primary factor is through incorporation of cognitive restructuring methods that help participants improve their state of mind to become more positive. 

The incorporation of personal empowerment is a vital factor to the success of the program. The graduates of the program experience at least 81% job retention after their first year on the job and after two years it is at a steady 70%. The organization identifies the state of mind as essential in influencing the thoughts, emotions, and behavior of the individual at any given moment (St. Anthony, 2015). Put into practice, the ex-offenders many of whom may have portrayed aggressive behavior may require this type or training. It will enable the ex-convicts to develop ways of coping with the struggles of aggression and rebellions behavior while making efforts to improve their living standards. Twin Cities RISE! identify that these states of mind can be changed and are temporary (Rothschild, 2012). Therefore, if one cannot effectively regulate them internally, he or she is likely to be at the mercy of control to those who influence their feelings. This occurrence is what makes many of the people feel powerless and incapable of success. 

With offices in Minneapolis and St. Paul, the organization provides its program to at risk individuals between 500 and 600 in a single year (Twin Cities RISE! 2013). Though there are various persons that are unable to incorporate the rigors of the program and drop out, those who complete achieve success at a high rate. The program takes about a year for individuals to complete successfully after which graduates can secure a job paying an annual income of $20,000 at a minimum (Rothschild, 2012). The reports in 2012 show a higher rate where those who completed the program earned $25,000 a significant increase from $6,100 between being released and joining TC RISE! Continued follow-up on the students from this charity organization shows that only 16% of those who graduate are likely to commit criminal offenses (Twin Cities RISE!, 2013). However, the rate is higher for those who drop out at 33%. This occurrence continues to be lower than that of the states average of 61%. 

SOAR Career Solutions: Community Offender Reentry Program 

The program SOAR Career Solutions is a program inclined towards improvement of the individual through career development. This corporation was established a means of providing an affordable gateway to improve one’s life through their careers. However, from the year 2006 the nonprofit company began its program to assist in the reentry of freed inmates in Duluth, Minnesota. The program, Community Offender Reentry Program (CORP) through a personalized team of between 11 and 50 assist offenders to transition their lives for the better (Wascalus, 2013). The training focuses on the individuals, core values, passions, and talents which provide a basis of obtaining and retaining an ideal job with a steady income (Wascalus, 2013). The primary aspect of improvement is ensuring the participants of the program with various issues of reintegrating into community life along with the social support essential for success. 

The ex-convict reentry program is significantly different from others of a similar mission. The use of a mentor or development coach who also serves as a case manager assigned to each participant is one of the vital factors for success. Furthermore, the organization does not wait until its participants are released from prison, instead working with them a few months before their release. This practice is employed to ensure smooth transition from the correctional facilities to the community (Wascalus, 2013). The pre-employment workshops and training opportunities are the next destination where participants receive hard and soft skills training. The latter is open for the in-need members of the community. Since the establishment of the offender re-entry program the company has served over 400 where majority are already in employment or improving life stabilization goals before they can start their search (Wascalus, 2013). 

How to improve the Rate of Successful Reintegration in the Community 

Through the above research, it is evident that the process of ex-offender reintegration or restoration into the community is a delicate process. The research analysis on various programs to reintegrate released prisoners into the normal community life has shown that the criminal justice system has to significantly incorporate numerous factors to improve its success. The Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) program was the initial government funded effort to attend to both adult and juvenile offenders. The project only lasted for a few years but was discontinued after its numerous failures. Some of the primary factors leading to its demise include: 

Failure to start the process of reintegration early 

Failure to identify the individuals as clients and not just offenders 

Failure to reassess the frameworks and the integral factors of successful prisoner reentry strategies 

Failure to seek evidence on the success outcomes 

The above issues prompted the criminal justice department to fund various private and state-run organizations that will effectively carry out some of these activities. This effort has realized mixed outcomes delaying the progress prisoner reintegration. For this reason, these factors will be considered as appropriate measures to increase the rate of effective reentry of ex-offenders into the normal community life. 

Starting Early: Transforming Process of Reintegration 

In an effort to improve the rate of successful reintegration of ex-offenders into the numerous government-and nongovernment-run agencies, it is important to note the most appropriate time of beginning the process. As mentioned earlier, most of the prison and criminal justice organizations usually start the process of reintegration only a few days or weeks before the release of the offender. Such efforts usually result in tragic failure where the ex-convicts relapse to criminal activities within a short period. According to statistical research provided, majority of these individuals are arrested and convicted within 3 to 5 years after their release. This occurrence highlights the detrimental if not the ineffectiveness of the integration attempts. It also serves as a clear indicator that of the complexity and difficult nature of the criminal justice process. Therefore, the timing factor focusing on both the start and the end of the intervention programs is vital to its success. 

Starting the process of reentry early should be a fundamental approach for any given organizational initiative. The government, through the advisement of numerous scholarly articles, has championed the critical need of assisting in finding employment. It is for this reason that the majority of prisoner reentry programs focus on helping the individual gain employment (Martin, 2011). The elusive emphasis on gaining employment as the ideal measurement of ex-offender well-being and successful reentry into the normal society life is short-sighted. As a result, the agencies in-charge of the implementation of this intervention wait until the inmate is released from prison. Many of the agencies have ignored the importance of in-jail services to help prepare the imprisoned population begin the process of reintegration. The importance of the early start of the program is depicted as an effective measure of realizing successful reentry. The SOAR Career Solutions program (CORP) is depicted as one of the numerous techniques that similar ones may employ. 

The primary factor to consider in this case is providing numerous services to the inmates a number from the start of the incarceration sentence. It is evident that majority of the convicts will not be in the correctional facilities forever. Therefore, it should be the duty of the authorities in these centers to develop better behavior among the imprisoned populations. The Federal Bureau of Prisons established its philosophy as one where the preparations for release begin immediately on the day of incarceration and the authorities focus on intensifying the efforts at least 18 months before the release of the individuals. A study conducted by White, Saunders, Fisher and Mellow (2012) evaluates the implication of outreach in the correctional facility and the results of recidivism. The research highlights that there have been mixed outcomes in the intervention based in New York City. The program requires intervention at least 90 days before the release of an inmate. 

The reentry program for offenders is largely based on voluntary means where each participant has the option to refuse the services offered in jail. Additionally, the program will include a further post-release 90 day services that the ex-offender will participate. The review of this initiative demonstrated mixed results in the outcomes of the participants. On one hand, when observing the numerous participants as a whole, it is clear that there is little evidence to show that the program is beneficial (White et al., 2012). In this case, the individuals involved in the study did not fare better off than those who did not participate as they returned at the same rate and almost the same time. On the other hand, looking at the participants as individuals, they fared better off that those who dropped out or those who did not participate completely (White et al., 2012). The CORP program is yet another that incorporates a similar practice. Despite its success of in reintegrating ex-offenders, there are a number who relapse to crime. 

Looking at the various programs that have incorporated the early provision of reentry services, it is evident that the timing is quite significant. The most appropriate initiatives to increase the rate of success and significantly reduce recidivism are those that employ prompt efforts that begin at the start of the sentence. The main aim of these programs should not be to demonstrate their ability to provide assistance to get employment, rather to change the attitudes of the individuals and their beliefs about crime. In addition to this, the initiatives should provide services that address mental health issues, mentorship efforts that may include reformed ex-offenders, educational and job opportunity training, and offering connections to community resources. Majority of these services should begin long before the release date identified. 

Identifying the Individuals as Clients Not Criminals 

There are numerous reentry initiatives that classify the released inmates as mere offenders. This attitude has been a primary factor that influences the approach incorporated in the services provided. The most common practice for both the government and nongovernmental agencies is provision of a single or uniform strategy that is employed to fit all the members of the correctional facilities. In many of the case, the one-size fits all usually causes trouble and may fail miserably. The Council for State Governments Justice Center affirms that emphasis on the need for employment is now a traditional service and organizations involved in reintegration should move beyond them (Morenoff, & Harding, 2014). Alternatively, the agencies should incorporate an individualized service that serves the needs of the inmate. Through the research on the various efforts for reintegration into normal community life, the results show that each of the offenders are affected independently and has personal needs that should be addressed as an individual, not a group. 

Through the process of separating the ex-convicts from a single social group to individuals, it is evident that the agencies that assist them will present them as clients not offenders. The terms ‘convict’, ‘ex con’, ‘parolee’ and ‘criminal’ are all depicted as stereotypical notions that have negative effects on the outcomes in the reentry process. The labeling theory and stereotype threat have detrimental effects on the efforts by these agencies (Wout, Danso, Jackson, & Spencer, 2008). The labeling theory identifies that some members of the society have the ability to create and apply attributes to other members within the same group. This practice is depicted as the creation of a label whose application creates an entirely new society (Wout et al., 2008). The impact of such labels is stigmatization as the individuals or group of people are identified to lack the conventional traits of the society. In this case, the attribute of rebellious behavior does not exist until the community defines it as such. 

The labels that the members of society will use to describe an offender are integral in the creation of negative stereotypes. The society portrays offenders as dangerous to the law-abiding citizens and undesirable hence should be alienated at all costs. Such labels will have significant impact on the law enforcement authorities, the individuals who apply reintegration strategies and the released inmates in question (Wout et al., 2008). The effect of this is a practice of exclusion and ostracizing members who bear these labels from legitimate aspects of the society. The regular practice of labeling and stereotyping by the society is a primary factor influencing vulnerability to stereotype threat (Armenta, 2010). In this regard, the ex-offender develops emotions of inadequacy consequently exhibiting negative behavior that could result in a confirmation of the stereotype. The populations at risk of criminal activities particularly recently released felons are most affected by stereotype threats. 

Research shows that ex-offenders are affected in different ways by the labels applied against them. There are those who may have mental stress such that it affects their performance to work towards reforming their behavior. There are others who instead of working against the stereotype label will use it as a title to ward off the interaction with others and may likely lead to involvement in criminal activity (Wout et al., 2008). These occurrences show the importance of addressing their beliefs and attitudes towards crime and work in the reentry programs. The action ensures that the offenders develop a positive personal perspective and make efforts to successfully obtain and retain jobs (Cohen, & Garcia, 2008). They will also construct a negative view of criminal activities making them less likely to violate laws. The impact of stereotype threat also shows that offenders do not all share the same needs or level of risk for recidivism. Therefore, accurately identifying the attributes associated with an individual and delivering a customized service for assistance is vital to successful reintegration. 

The program “Ready 4 Work” by Operation New Hope is one of the reentry initiatives that individualize assistance services to the ex-felons. The intervention has received widespread acclaim by the three most recent former US Presidents including George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. The program incorporates four primary objectives in its approach to working with the individuals; 

Case management which involves treating every individual as unique from the rest. 

Life-coaching: involves social support and encouragement to become a better member of the society depicting the person as a client and individual first not an offender. 

Job Training: identifying the unique qualities of the participant and using them to develop skills for an ideal job also developing strategies for retaining the jobs. 

Job placement assistance: involves the service of helping the participants to obtain interviews and job opportunities where they can become productive and responsible contributors of the society. 

Reassessing the Frameworks of Reintegration Programs 

The strategic principles involved in the current programs for reentry are in no way perfect hence the need to reassess the basic foundation of the services. The Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation (MDRC formal identity as of 2003) is an institution established in 1974 through a collaboration of the Ford Foundation and other six governmental agencies. The primary purpose of the nongovernmental enterprise is documenting results and implementing the positive outcomes of initiatives to improve the lives of the poor. The group identified the need for offender reentry strategies to incorporate an approach based on the Risk-Needs-Responsivity framework (RNR). The technique is a necessary implementation that constantly assesses the risk level for recidivism for each individual participant and delivering a response of preventing risk occurrence (Polaschek, 2012). In this approach, the agencies will identify the risk that an ex-offender or current inmate poses to himself and society at large, the needs they present to ameliorate their beliefs, attitudes of behavior and the required environment that they should engage in to lessen chances of recidivism. 

The principles of risk, need and responsivity have become the critical basis of offender rehabilitation programs that incorporates scientific methodologies in the development of the theoretical approaches used. The model involves guidance towards essential and effective treatment of repetitive rebellious behavior against the law. The study by Polaschek (2012) provides the strengths and weaknesses of incorporating RNR as a Level 1 rehabilitation framework. The study identifies numerous benefits including its unifying power, external consistency, explanatory depth, empirical validity and practical utility (Polaschek, 2012). However, there are also significant weaknesses including the complex nature of the underlying theory, and limited explanatory depth in the responsivity principle and practices of staff (Polaschek, 2012). These factors highlight that despite the critical acclaim received from empirical studies, there is substantial room for advance the model and its application (Polaschek, 2012). This practice should be a common approach that the multiple reentry agencies should incorporate in the assessment of their programs. 

There have been alternative models proposed to improve on the limitations depicted in RNR and other strategic frameworks for the rehabilitation of offenders. According to the research done by Andrews, Bonta and Wormith (2011) the good lives model (GLM) is a possible alternative to enhance effectiveness of the reintegration and reentry of offenders into the society. The model involves a primary focus on building the strengths and capabilities of the offender as an effective means of preventing the risk of reoffending from taking place. In this regard, the approach appears to be a more effective measure to reduce risk as opposed to the traditional technique of risk management (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011). The study identifies that the basic cause for crime is to secure a valued outcome in life. However, based on the inherent human aspect of desire, the behaviors exhibited are antisocial and harmful brought about by deficits in the individual and environment. The latter prevent the actual realization of the desired outcome hence the intervention should incorporate ways of increasing an individual’s repertoire not decreasing the problem. The GLM asserts that a lifetime of restricting activity is not the only means of preventing criminal activities (Andrews, Bonta and Wormith, 2011). 

In an alternative case, there are researchers who advocate for more positively inclined practices in improving the rate of successful reintegration efforts. Desistance from crime is the proposed measure that government and related agencies can employ. The argument identifies that there are individuals in the community whose involvement in criminal behavior had become a systematic pattern (McNeill, Farrall, Lightowler, & Maruna, 2012). Therefore, when they are noted to abstain from such activities their actions are seen as an enigma. The primary goal of offender rehabilitation is producing or advocating for desistance. Despite the lack of a universal definition of the concept, it is evident that there is significant value in understanding it (McNeill et al., 2012). It enables significant deviation from static models that incorporate labeling and stereotyping instead advocating for personal identity changes in people. The framework also calls attention to the fact that a young offender today is more likely to be a father in future than habitually committing crimes (McNeill et al., 2012). In this regard, the model incorporates an idealistic view that emphasizes the need to value people as they are and the potential they could achieve rather than rebuking and judging their present actions (McNeill et al., 2012). 

Building Knowledge on Factors Causing Recidivism and Criminal Activity 

The process of reintegration as mentioned earlier is a critical factor that requires urgent attention. Since the 1970s, the rate of mass incarceration has been on a steady increase due to high cases of criminal activities taking place. However, this action has created another problem for the federal and state governments in the US, overpopulation in the correctional facilities. The criminal and justice department has come under a lot of pressure from activists, elected leaders and affected members of the community to significantly reduce this population in an effort to reduce the costs incurred. From the early years of the 21 st century, the government made efforts to reduce the population through freeing minor offenders and reentering them into the community life. However, the federal prisons efforts have not been quite effective as the ex-offenders would usually engage in the negative behaviors or alternative activities that resulted in their initial incarceration. In light of this, it is evident that the efforts and practices employed in the correctional facilities are a cause for concern. 

The search for the most appropriate technique for rehabilitation and treatment of criminals while in correctional facilities and after that, seems to evade the governmental agencies. Many of them are flying blind in that they barely incorporate any significant techniques for the successful reentry of the ex-offenders. In this regard, the numerous organizations associated with the criminal and justice system only seek to adhere to certain standards of practice as a measure of receiving funding from the government to enable their continued practice. Very few organizations are dedicated and committed to ensure effectiveness of the programs and services they provide. The significant amount of money given to partners to execute the specialty services, limited engagement and view the model presents serve as significant barriers to continued monitoring. Failure to monitor the outcomes realized after the execution derails improvement efforts and slows down the rate of successful reintegration. 

There has been development made in the technology sector that allow effective monitoring and documentation of outcomes realized. The Efforts to Outcomes software developed by Social Solutions serves as an appropriate measure to report outcomes. Such technology prompts the governmental agencies to advocate for increased reporting and improvements from the multiple programs and partners in offender reentry. The government will benefit from continued efforts of monitoring other successful countries in offender reintegration to society. Since the 2002 when Thailand achieved its highest prison population, the national government through its criminal justice system has incorporated various measures to prepare the offenders for their release while reducing recidivism (Rujjanavet, 2008). The implementation of these strategies has been a primary factor in a gradual decline in prison population. One of the primary measures that appear to be avoided by many of the US practices is preparing the community. The criminal justice system and its partners in the integration process note that all the efforts of rehabilitation in the correctional facilities will be undone if the society rejects the reentry of ex-offenders (Rujjanavet, 2008). As a result, numerous programs are enforced to promote acceptance of the changed persons. The study of this measure could help improve the ones used by the US agencies. 

References 

Andrews, D. A., Bonta, J., & Wormith, J. S. (2011). The risk-need-responsivity (RNR) model: Does adding the good lives model contribute to effective crime prevention? Criminal Justice and Behavior , 38(7), 735-755. 

Armenta, B. E. (2010). Stereotype boost and stereotype threat effects: the moderating role of ethnic identification. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology , 16(1), 94. 

Bahr, S. J., Harris, L., Fisher, J. K., & Armstrong, A. H. (2010). Successful reentry: What differentiates successful and unsuccessful parolees? International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology , 54(5), 667-692. 

Cohen, G. L., & Garcia, J. (2008). Identity, belonging, and achievement: A model, interventions, implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 17(6), 365-369. 

Durose, M. R., Cooper, A. D., & Snyder, H. N. (2014). Recidivism of prisoners released in 30 states in 2005: Patterns from 2005 to 2010. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics , 28: 1-30. 

Eichmann, M. (2013, July 31) Majority of Delaware inmates return to crime after release . Newsworks, Retrieved from http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/delaware-feature/57968-majority-of-delaware-inmates-return-to-crime-after-release 

Ferner, M. (2015, July 28) These Programs Are Helping Prisoners Live Again on The Outside . The Huffington Post, Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/if-we-want-fewer-prisoners-we-need-more-compassion-when-they-re-enter-society_us_55ad61a5e4b0caf721b39cd1 

Hicklin, B. J., Bard, M., Gannon, B., Harris, R., Huenke, C., Price, S., Salt, J., & Weidlein-Crist, P. (2013, July) Recidivism in Delaware: An Analysis of Prisoners Released in 2008 and 2009 . Delaware Criminal Justice Council & Statistical Analysis Center, Retrieved from http://cjc.delaware.gov/sac/pdf/Corrections/RecidivismFinalJuly30.pdf 

James, N. (2015, Jan 12) Offender Reentry: Correctional Statistics, Reintegration into the Community, and Recidivism . Congressional Research Service, Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34287.pdf 

Jones, A. (2014, Dec 19) Murder Town Usa (AKA Wilmington, Delaware) . Newsweek, Retrieved from http://www.newsweek.com/2014/12/19/wilmington-delaware-murder-crime-290232.html 

Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., Cowell, A., Dawes, D., Steffey, D., Tueller, S., & Visher, C. A. (2012). Prisoner reentry services: What worked for SVORI evaluation participants. Prepared for National Institute of Justice . 

Lindquist, C., Wilson, J. B., Rossman, S., Walters, J. H., & Lattimore, P. K. (2015). Second chance act adult offender reentry demonstration programs: Implementation challenges and lessons learned. Washington, DC: National Criminal Justice Reference Service, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice . 

Lombardi, J. (2016, June) Road to Recovery - Gloucester Police Department Paves the Way . CSI, Retrieved from http://csi-online.org/news/gloucesterpolicedepartment.html 

Makarios, M., Steiner, B., & Travis, L. F. (2010). Examining the predictors of recidivism among men and women released from prison in Ohio. Criminal Justice and Behavior , 37(12), 1377-1391. 

Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities. Annual review of sociology , 40, 411-429. 

McGraw, P. (2016, June) Three Risk Factors for Addiction . CSI, Retrieved from http://csi-online.org/news/risk-factors-for-addiction.html 

Martin, L. L. (2011) Debt to Society: Asset Poverty and Prisoner Reentry. Rev. Black Polit. Econ., 38:131-143. 

McNeill, F., Farrall, S., Lightowler, C., & Maruna, S. (2012). How and why people stop offending: discovering desistance . Institute for Research and Innovation in Social Sciences, Retrieved from http://eprints.gla.ac.uk/79860/1/79860.pdf 

Polaschek, D. L. (2012). An appraisal of the risk–need–responsivity (RNR) model of offender rehabilitation and its application in correctional treatment. Legal and criminological Psychology, 17(1), 1-17. 

Rujjanavet, S. (2008). Improving the reintegration of offenders into the community: the current situation of Thai corrections. In 135th International Senior Seminar Participants’ Papers (pp. 142-9). Retrieved from http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No74/No74_15PA_Rujjanavet.pdf 

Rothschild, S. (2012) The Non-Nonprofit: For-Profit Thinking for Nonprofit Success . San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. 

Salt, J. & Hicklin, B. J. (2013, Nov) Crime in Delaware 2008 – 2012: An Analysis of Serious Crime in Delaware . Delaware Criminal Justice Council, Retrieved from http://cjc.delaware.gov/sac/pdf/Crime/Crime_DE_2008-12_November%202013.pdf 

Serrano, A. (2014, Dec) Rehabilitation, not Incarceration: Changing Offenders' Paths to Reentry . CSI, Retrieved from http://csi-online.org/news/insights-rehabinsightpost.html 

Serrano, A. (2015, May) Insights: Crime, Recidivism, and Solutions in Delaware . CSI, Retrieved from http://www.csi-online.org/news/insights-crime-recidivism-solutions-delaware.html 

St. Anthony, N. (2015, Dec 12) Twin Cities Rise moves beyond job skills training . Star Tribune, Retrieved from http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities-rise-moves-beyond-job-skills-training/361470361/ 

Tillyer, M. S., & Vose, B. (2011). Social ecology, individual risk, and recidivism: A multilevel examination of main and moderating influences. Journal of Criminal Justice , 39(5), 452-459. 

Twin Cities RISE! (2013, Jan 21) The Two Sides of the Twin Cities . The Huffington Post, Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/twin-cities-rise/twin-cities-racial-inequality_b_2507464.html 

Wout, D., Danso, H., Jackson, J., & Spencer, S. (2008). The many faces of stereotype threat: Group-and self-threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44(3), 792-799. 

White, M. D., Saunders, J., Fisher, C., & Mellow, J. (2012). Exploring inmate reentry in a local jail setting: Implications for outreach, service use, and recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 58(1), 124-146. 

Wascalus, J. (2013, Oct 1) Community Dividend: Development programs help ex-offenders join the workforce . Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Retrieved from https://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications/community-dividend/development-programs-help-exoffenders-join-the-workforce