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.
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.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
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 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.
In 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 .
