Prison Reform: The Advantages of Reentry Programs within the Prison Systems

  Abstract  

The prison systems at both the state and national levels have been offering institutional programs to inmates so that their behaviors can be modeled. Increased recidivism rates are still realized even with much effort put into interventional programs. The convicts are released to the society after they have served their terms. They acquired the behaviors while in the prison doors that will determine their lifestyle within the community. Some of the ex-prisoners have become worse and committed other crimes, causing them to end up in the prisons again. However, some of them have benefited from the correctional measures that they were enrolled in while they are in prisons, causing them to adapt well in the community following their release. Some of them have successfully being incorporated in employment opportunities utilizing their vocational skills gained while in prison. The target of the government in rolling out the institutional programs should be to prepare the ex-inmates for reentry into the society successfully. 

Prison Reform: The Advantages of Reentry Programs within the Prison Systems 

State and federal prison systems have dedicatedly offered programs to prisoners throughout their incarceration. Institutional program design entails an extensive collection of services and involvement comprising substance abuse intervention, educational programs, and sex offender program. The purpose of having prisoner enrolled in those interventional programs is so that they can improve their behaviors, both before and following their release from the confinements. Certainly, the purpose of institutional interventional programs are always not just to ensure public safety by reducing the levels of recidivism, but also to enhance safety within the jails by alleviating delinquencies (Linden & Perry, 1983) . Even though US correctional measures essentially give some interventional opportunities within the prison system, research indicates that many prisoners do not get involved within prisons while incarcerated. Following the release of convicts from prison and their introduction to the society, the recidivism rates are still higher (Lewis, 2005; Chan & Ericson, 1981) . Hayman (2003) determined that the convicts released to the society after they have served their years in the prison, do not get far since their family, friends and the government have not been strategic in helping to transition them. Coming up with influential social welfare plans for this group of people released from the society will be better for the ex-prisoners, our government and the community. 

Background on the Effect of Prison Reforms in US 

Globally, the United States of America has 5 percent of the global population. Even with this, 25 percent of the prison population comes from the US. In fact, currently, many inmates in prison have high expectations of introduction into the society after they have completed serving their time for the offences that they committed (Chan & Ericson, 1981) . Nonetheless, after they get their release from the prison, these inmates do not have anything else to do in the society that they are expected to stay in. According to Lewis (2005), Lewis elaborates that pursuing rehabilitative strategies helps since it has the ability to reduce recidivism. The Criminal Justice System of US allocates them some dollars and the means of transport to the community they belong to is also granted. Most of them will not receive a great support from their families once they get back there (Lockwood, 1991). They also are not able to secure jobs because of poor criminal records. They may not get the chance of being employed once a company establishes that they have committed a crime. 

While the convicts are in the prison, they operate as per the regulations and program of the prisons. The prison institutions they are in determine most of their time and the decisions they make. This state makes them to be out of control of their lives (American Correctional Assoc & United States of America, 2009) . When they get out of the prison, they are faced by many critical decisions that they have to make by themselves as well as the days to take care of. They may never know how to go about their life at that fragile period. Through a program called Ban the Box, the inmates can have a chance to learn how to cope with life after prison. That is in the intent of rolling Ban the Box among the inmates (Bagnall et al., 2015) . Through the program, the employers are urged to focus on the skills, experience and prospect abilities of the applicant and not their previous character. The employers should not focus on the past records of these ex-inmates to influence their decisions against the hiring process. This is significant particularly when the inmates have served their time successful and are eager to conduct themselves differently going forward and explore the job opportunities presented to them with high integrity. 

The Prevalent Factors that Heighten Recidivism Rates 

It is significant to recognize the prevalence of recidivism rates among different genders, races, ages and other factors. Bagnall and colleagues (2015) established that recidivism rates are indeed on a higher side for men, non-Whites, young delinquents, and people with longer criminal pasts. This not different from the research by Mobley (2014) that also showed that gender, race, age and criminal history are some of the factors that would predict reoffending of individuals. Research has also revealed that there are dynamic aspects such as those that are exposed to change that are essentially foretelling about recidivism. In their meta-assessment, Bagnall and colleagues (2015) suggested that dynamic aspects like crimogenic requirements such as attitudes that encourage secluded lifestyles, drug and substance use, antisocial acquaintances, individual stress (like worry, hopelessness, schizophrenia) and social attainment (like education, employment, marital rates are highly linked with recidivism susceptibility. As will be elaborated later in this paper, institutional programming is intended to counter such dynamic risk aspects since they are factors that can altered for the better. For instance, offering substance abuse treatment to those offenders that chemically reliant will assumedly enable reduced recidivism rates or proneness. 

A Twist on Prisoner Reentry Programs 

There is a need for a reconceptualization and reconsideration of prisoner reentry such that the prison time turns out to be a pro-social rite of passage and a meaningful one. Instead of lives being wasted by keeping inmates, the prisons could be better places where inmates can be creative and discover their identities and potentials (Chan & Ericson, 1981). This would be easier in a supportive environment that has a nurturing rehabilitative society. The prison can be a place for co-creation, common meanings and intentions for the prisoners. This can happen by encouraging restorative justice systems that brings the best of these prisoners (Linden & Perry, 1983). It may help to eliminate the chances of repeat violations and give the prisoners the chance to demonstrate meaningful post-release lives. 

There should be a transformational shift in the prison environment even with the correctional programs. If the intentions are right from the beginning, there will be a change away from the punitive system to one that is restorative in nature. When a restorative framework is tangible, it can lead to an environment that reinforces interpersonal healing and help the prisoners resume normalcy (Linden & Perry, 1983). The idea of terming or taking ex-prisoners to be ex-civilian to portray their status having had felony convictions and prison experience is redemptive in nature. Treating them as ex-civilians may help the ex-incarcerated individuals to demonstrate crime-free lives (Hayman, 2003). This is because they may not be perceived as criminals or outsiders but they can be accorded respect and be accepted by the society again. However, if they are devalued and feared, it may stigmatize them and they may be pushed to doing the actual crimes. The ex-prisoners should be respected for them to experience restorative healing (Mobley, 2014). For those that were formerly prisoners, the deal is negotiating their non-criminal identities so that they can be retraced back to civilian status in the society. 

The following is the data showing first-time offenders released from federal prison and returned within 3 years. 

Table 1: First-time offenders released from federal prison and returned within 3 years 

Year of release	Number of releases	Number of returns to prison	Returns as a percentage of releases
1986	21493	2440	11.4
1987	22889	2942	12.9
1988	22237	2995	13.5
1989	22221	3225	14.5
1990	25389	3948	15.6
1991	24685	4291	17.4
1992	24280	4429	18.2
1993	25224	4593	18.2
1994	26845	4992	18.6

Source: BJS and BOP data 

The report shows that there has been a steadily increasing rate of readmission to the prison. The released inmates got back to the custody within three years steadily some having committed the same crimes, while some with new criminal records (Prison releases, 2001). The findings on the above study revealed that more offenders got back to the custody for being involved in drug offenses than any other type of offense. Other readmission offences that were committed include property and violent felony offenses. The many programs that are available to inmates should prepare them for employment opportunities and to be useful in the societies they are being ushered into. Exposing the inmates in such programs during their incarceration not just reinforces correctional management intentions like reducing inmate idleness and heightening the safety of staff, but also gives them the chance to be ready for employment opportunities (Chan & Ericson, 1981). It also help in their successful reintegration into meaningful places in the society following their release. 

Drug treatment as a program has been rolled out for inmates, who were later released to the society for 3 years. According to Prison releases (2001), there was high probability among these former inmates for them to be rearrested or to be found to have indulged in drugs in comparison with those never engaged in the program. Programs on work training for the inmates to inculcate prison work experience as well as vocational and apprenticeship skills demonstrated good results. The offenders' mentality changed as well as their behaviors after being released to the society (Chan & Ericson, 1981). The inmates who were part of the work and job skills programs had less probable chance to go back to federal prisons - even to the extent of after 8 to 12 years following their release. 

The Advantages of Institutional Programming 

The institutional programs are intended to boost post-release employment outcomes. Employment opportunities are essential to help inmates successfully join the society from the prisons. It has been established that an ex-inmate who gets a job is less probably able to go back to commit the crime again. Post-release employment is also critical in terms of the cost-benefit aspect (Linden & Perry, 1983) . Even more, when the ex-inmates are engaged, they are normally having taxable incomes that contribute to the revenue of the both the federal and state government (Chan & Ericson, 1981) . Crime is very expensive, encompassing costs associated with the victim, criminal justice systems, and lost-productivity because of those people that are incarcerated. Frazier et al. (2015) allude to this fact as they determine that most incarcerated offenders are released to the community when they have serious health issues. For the government not to suffer more costs on maintaining public health, they should release inmates, especially petty offenders, to avoid the problem of overcrowding in most prisons. The Releases in 2001 gives a new dimension to this, by affirming that rehabilitation programming minimizes inmate idleness and enhances the safety of the staff members. As such, the inmates are equipped with the necessary skills and experiences making them ready for employment opportunities, which enables a successful reintegration of the inmates once released. All these can be addressed through giving the inmates an opportunity for a post-release employment. 

Several individuals feel that the previous inmates are inclined not to be progressive in life. This is because of the crimes that they did in the past and the perception that they will be a threat to the society. Nonetheless, the contrast of the story is that these ex-inmates feel that they should not be judged on their past. It has been evident that if the previous inmates do not get involved in criminal activities, they shall have proved to the society that they are not a threat to those staying around them (Bagnall et al., 2015) . It is therefore significant to offer these ex-inmates a second chance to prove that they have changed and they are now ready to join back the community (Frazier et al., 2015). Indeed, if they had been involved in good interventional programs, the ex-inmates may have no need of interfering with the affairs of their neighbors. 

The Ben Secours program is an interventional program that allows the inmates who have just left the bars to join the society smoothly. This is so especially for some of them who lack somewhere to go even if they are released. These include the category of inmates that have been disowned by the families they belonged to, or the families that are not guaranteeing them support even if they join them (American Correctional Assoc & United States of America, 2009) . The Ben Secours program will help the ex-inmates to be incorporated into the society, as they will be presented a place to stay in (Hayman, 2003). It is a temporary place where they are inspired to work and they become relevant to the society. They will not be left wandering on the streets since this can make them susceptible to getting back to drugs and indulging in deviant activities that would make them go back to prison. Mobley (2014) indicates that a prison should have a paradigm for learning, growth and reconciliation that profits the inmates, without giving chance for lack of humanity, inequality and usurpation of power. 

The interventional programs are critical, especially in avoiding incurring more costs to the society. It has been established that in order for the ex-inmates to be far from trouble and shield them from indulging in crimes, they should have been part of some interventional programs that make them productive in the society. The emphasis by Lewis (2005) makes sense when he indicates that prison and probation need to be focused on the management of offenders, considering the ones that are instrumental to bring down re-offending. The correctional programs for the inmates would reduce their chance to bring down the cases of misconduct, reduce recidivism rates and enhance post-release employment results (Bagnall et al., 2015) . They could easily be absorbed in jobs if the employers can ascertain that the ex-inmates have changed. As a result, this can produce a monetary advantage to the community, majorly through costs that are avoided because the ex-inmates may not go back to crime again. Thus, the correctional programs allows the government and society to avoid costs that may be associated with holding the inmates to the prison again. 

Educational attainment has been linked to reduced recidivism rates. Compared to the public, inmates are always less learned. For instance, Hayman (2003) determined that about 40 percent of inmates entering the Minnesota prisons did not even have a high school diploma or a degree. The likelihood of educational programs in prisons will promote the chance of the inmates from not going back to prison. Low educational attainment is linked to increased antisocial conducts. Low academic performance among the teenagers leads to high juvenile delinquency and future commission of offense. Felony records reduces the chances for someone being employed (Linden & Perry, 1983) . Therefore, educational programs in prison may help the inmates not to indulge in misbehaviors. The basic adult education programs as well as prison-based vocational programs in prison has brought down the recidivism rates because the prisons have their perspective about life redefined. 

While coming up with policy and program approaches to deal with the expected increase in the reentry ex-prisoners, leadership at the society level for social and supportive opportunities need prioritization. The institutions that spearhead these correctional programs need to ensure maximum benefit to the ex-offenders and boost their integration in their communities (Frazier et al., 2015) . The ex-offenders need support from the community. Through campaigns and good leadership, the community can accept the ex-offenders. For the ex-offenders to benefit maximally from the programs, leadership, networking, outreach, and reentry partnerships should be planned strategically planned and implemented accordingly (Chan & Ericson, 1981). More outreach should be done to the prisoners that have been released to the community so that they can be encouraged and guided. In addition, there should more reentry funding to be done to enhance the offering of treatment services to the prisoners while and after they in prison. 

The Framework in Ensuring Success of Prison Reform Program 

Generally, for prison reform programs to be impactful, they should follow the recognized principles of successful correctional intervention. The programs should ensure integrity following their execution such that they do not diverge from their intended framework and challenge evidence-founded program rudiments (Chan & Ericson, 1981; Bagnall et al, 2015; Mobley, 2014). The United States’ correctional programs have progressively utilized the principles of impactful and successful correctional intervention as the leading structure for program execution. However, to some level, the principles still show embody the ideal other than the reality ((Linden & Perry, 1983). Indeed, proven risk evaluation tools are not always utilized to assess recidivism susceptibility, programming measure is not continuously standardized to recidivism risk, as well as criminals are in some cases allocated to correctional programs irrespective of their criminogenic requirements or the level in which they respond. As Bagnall et al (2015), elaborate, several interventional programs are never effective since they are founded on comprehensive criminological framework and thus characterize “correctional quackery (Hayman, 2003).” Simultaneously though, a common basis why programs fail, even those with sound theoretical framework is that they are deficient of therapeutic integrity. They do not comply with the requirements of the framework. Researchers have established that some of the differences in effectiveness seen among meta-analyses of correctional activities are hinged on compromising program integrity. In spite of its significance, program integrity has often been lightly regarded within the correctional exploration of scholars. The harmony from the few current studies on this topic, nonetheless, is that program integrity essential for a correctional program to be successful. 

Conclusion 

Having targeted programming in correctional institutions such as social welfare programs makes the inmates have a reduced chance of going back to prison. Through these interventional programs, the government is able to control the reentry of the inmates back to the society. The society must be willing to give the ex-inmates the chance to prove themselves changed. The inmates can be enrolled in many programs within the prisons even once they have left to join the society. Implementing radical social welfare programs would grant the ex-inmates a fighting opportunity to lead successful lives in the society, which profits not just them alone, but the government and the community to which they belong. 

References 

American Correctional Assoc, & United States of America. (2009). Empirically Supported Reentry: Review and Prospects.  Corrections Compendium ,  34 (3), 1-2. 

Bagnall, A. M., South, J., Hulme, C., Woodall, J., Vinall-Collier, K., Raine, G., & Wright, N. M. (2015). A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of peer education and peer support in prisons.  BMC Public Health ,  15 (1), 290. 

Chan, J. B., & Ericson, R. V. (1981).  Decarceration and the economy of penal reform . Toronto: University of Toronto, Centre of Criminology. 

Frazier, B. D., Sung, H. E., Gideon, L., & Alfaro, K. S. (2015). The impact of prison deinstitutionalization on community treatment services.  Health & justice ,  3 (1), 9. 

Hayman, S. (2003). The Lessons of History: prison reform and unintended consequences. 

Lewis, S. (2005). Rehabilitation: Headline or footnote in the new penal policy? Probation Journal ,  52 (2), 119-135. 

Linden, R., & Perry, L. (1983). The effectiveness of prison education programs.  Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation ,  6 (4), 43-57. 

Lockwood, D. (1991). Can college courses in prison cut crime after release? A review of follow- up studies of prison higher education and recidivism.  American Journal of Criminal Justice ,  15 (2), 134-152. 

Mobley, A. (2014). Prison reentry as a rite of passage for the formerly incarcerated. Contemporary Justice Review. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group, i7 (4), 467 - 477. 

Prisoner Releases, (2001). Trends and Information on Reintegration Programs.  Washington, DC: US General Accounting Office .