Reentry programs for inmates: What works and what to improve.

Daniel E. King

Springfield College

Why do so many of our country’s inmates recidivate at one point or another? Why is it

that so many of our released prisoners end up right back where they were? Far too many

released inmates are recidivating and it shows that they are not properly rehabilitated while

incarcerated and upon release. This paper examines reentry programs both pre and post-release

to find out which programs are the most effective at reducing recidivism and straightening out

former criminals for the rest of their lives. The majority of the literature used for this study

involved whether or not people being released from prison were released unconditionally or if

they were put into a program to help them become acclimated to the outside world again.

However, several risk factors increase the likelihood that ex-offenders will return to prison

(Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012).

Although offenders may be put into programs, there have been events in their lives that

already predispose them to living a life filled with crime and delinquency. This is just one of the

limitations that is included among these works of literature. Other notable limitations are that

some criminal justice educators believe that “there is no one rehabilitative intervention likely to

eliminate criminal thinking and behaviors” (Severson, Bruns, Veeh, & Lee, 2011). Both of these

included shows that there is a common belief within the criminal justice system that no matter

how hard law enforcement may work, it is often times a hopeless job. It seems that they are

implying that no matter what we do, people will always recidivate.

The problem of recidivism is a serious one that needs to be addressed around the criminal

justice system. It has been shown that parole and probation are successful at low rates for

helping lower the recidivism of released prisoners. Certain commonalities among these pieces of

literature show that there is most certainly factors that help with recidivism but there is also no

definitive one that is best at reducing it. Among the studies, most of them show that after five

2

years post release, the rates are very similar amongst all released prisoners. There is no

overwhelming difference between those released conditionally or unconditionally. It is shown

that most programs are successful in stopping recidivism over a short period of time but that as

time goes on released prisoners recidivate at much closer rates. One interesting thing that can be

considered a limitation is how different states handle parole. California’s failed parole sentences

are much greater than any other state. Different states are more or less strict in handling their

parolees and probationers (Goldstein, 2014).

Many studies have looked at this problem of recidivism and they have tested and tried

new programs that were hopefully going to significantly lower recidivism. Some programs were

able to help, but like stated earlier, nothing was overwhelmingly effective over a long period of

time. This is where one of the limitations comes into play. Released prisoners can only be

tracked for so long (Durose, Snyder, & Cooper, 2015). Also, when conducting a study, it would

take too long and too many people to stick around and watch over prisoners that participated in a

program for more than five to ten years. Post-release, nobody is going to want to stick around

and watch over prisoners for twenty-five or thirty years. This makes it tough to get a definitive

answer on whether or not someone is eventually recidivating.

Other limitations include the fact that criminals could have predisposed factors that

implement them towards engaging in criminal activity (Wikoff, Linhorst, & Morani, 2012). Of

course, the ability to overlook all of those prisoners that are released is almost impossible.

However, it is true that after five years the risk of recidivism goes significantly down, so the fact

that they cannot be overlooked for so long is not terribly deteriorating to the studies. Knowing

that the chance of the recidivating is significantly less after 5 years means that the studies can

usually be finished after 5 years of overviewing them. Recidivism is an issue that needs to be

3

looked at and programs need to be adjusted. Adjustments to programs are inevitable and

hopefully there can end up being a solid solution.

Another limitation is the fact that not every part of the country is covered in these studies.

The majority of the studies just involve one specific region. Although, there is one study that

covers 30 states (Durose, Snyder, & Cooper, 2015). This is a discrepancy because we do not

know if the habits of criminals are different from those in different area of the country. All of

these limitations may keep us from getting the most accurate results on this topic. My research

has the goal of finding out which programs may be used together to create the best possible

procedures for prisoners being released out of prison back into society. Although these

limitations exist, there is still a lot of valuable information that can be gathered from reading all

of these studies.

As the criminal justice field has studied the topic of recidivism and as it has tried to find

new ways to better the chances of success upon release it has constantly run into brick walls and

been unable to successfully find a finite solution that can seriously help out our recidivism

problem in this country. There is definitely a lot of programs that have been able to make small

differences here and there. The problem with finding one single solution to help keep the

majority of offenders away from criminal activity deals with the fact that not all criminals are the

same. For example, the most violent type of offenders are less likely to reoffend than those

whose crimes are less violent in nature. Only one percent of killers who are released will ever

commit murder again. On the other hand, about seventy percent of robbers and burglars will

commit the same crime at least one more time after their release (Goldstein, 2014). Taking this

into account, we have to realize that programs and post-release supervision must be tailored to

suit the needs of the offender upon their release. The majority of offenders are released into

4

situations that are not favorable for their success and this creates an issue as they try and move

forward into a new life free of criminal activity.

Some studies suggest that the problem lies within the correctional institutions and it

needs to be changed how inmates are treated while they are incarcerated. By treating prisoners

more like humans, they will behave less like criminals (Turner, Myers, Sexton, & Smith, 2007).

This belief says that criminals will respond to their environments accordingly. If they learn

while they are incarcerated that they can do no right, then they may engrave in their brains that

indeed they can only do wrong. This idea can be transferred into their post-release programs,

such as a parole. If parole officers are just a continuation of the degrading acts that they receive

while they are incarcerated, they will continue to feel as if they have no hope and that they will

always be a criminal. We need parole officers and correctional officers that are going to do their

best to make the offenders feel as if they are real humans that can do the right thing and that have

the ability to make a change in their lives. Of course this a tough thing to do considering the

highly stressful lives that they live and the situations they are put in they need to protect

themselves before they can go out of their way to start making changes in other people’s lives.

But, ideally, there would be a way for correctional officers and parole officers to help make the

incarcerated person feel as if they were normal and that they have a good chance of turning their

lives around into a positive future. The idea of making them feel human is a very real idea and a

very attainable goal.

Of course, the best way to feel like you are a human is to be treated like one. Part of this

comes along with having a job. Employment definitely plays a big role in recidivism. Those

who are released to unemployment are more likely to recidivate than those who are able to

acquire employment and provide themselves with a decent income (Valentine, & Redcross,

5

2015). When an inmate is released to parole there is a condition requiring that they attain work

within two weeks. This is to help ensure that they can both afford the parole supervision fees

and that they will be able to live without needing to engage in criminal activity to stay afloat. A

lot of times, the people who are unable to gain employment will resort back to their old ways of

larceny or drug dealing in order to make some side cash that will help support them. Eventually,

they will get caught and end up being another statistic that failed to successfully accomplish their

parole sentence. Not only does employment keep them away from criminal activity, it also helps

them feel as if they are a normal functioning member of society that can positively contribute to

the community and to their families. This is a factor that often goes overlooked and is

sometimes not stressed enough. It is a big help when a parole officer or a sponsor of some sort

will help the recently released inmate in acquiring employment. Not only will it give them the

satisfaction of being employed but it will also show them that somebody cares about them and

that there is a reason to try and change their lives around.

Often times it is more difficult for people to acquire employment depending on their

backgrounds and how long they have been incarcerated for. Age definitely has to do with

recidivating and how successful their post-release lives will go in terms of staying out of

criminal activity. Whether or not this is directly linked to employment is unclear. But, it is most

certainly a factor that must be considered when looking at both employment and age in the same

sense. It can be seen that when someone is younger and released from incarceration, they are

much more likely to recidivate than an older released inmate. Age is still the number one

predictor of re-offense (Chi, & Joo, 2009). In Texas, the age group of forty-five and up

recidivate at a forty-four percent rate. While the age group of eighteen to twenty four was

recidivating at a fifty-eight percent rate at the time of this study in 2009. This could have to do

6

with the fact that people at older ages have been in for so long and do not want to go back. It

could also be attributed to them being able to successfully gain employment because they have

more lifelong connections and know of more employers. Also, it could have to do with the fact

that they have gained wisdom and learned the hard way through life that crime is not the answer.

Possibly, it is due to how younger people still have a sense of invincibility and think that they

will not be able to be caught twice. Whatever the reason is, age is still a great predictor of

recidivism. A problem that can be seen from looking at this statistic is that we are using the

same programs for all inmates.

There needs to be differentiated programs between older and younger offenders. We

need to decide which person needs certain types of help and who needs other types. For

example, a younger person may need more counseling and sit down conversations, while an

older person may just need to be reacquainted with family so that they can be reminded what

matters most to them in life.

A lot of the studies showed that there are certain factors that will help with recidivism but

that the number one factor in determining recidivism remains to be the individual themselves

(“Recidivism” NIJ 2012). This study entitled “Recidivism” done by the National Institute of

Justice showed that after five years of release, seventy-seven percent of prisoners were re-

arrested. This study did not include how many of them were reconvicted but it is still a

staggering number to see that more than three quarters of those released in this study would have

at a minimum some sort of run-in with law enforcement within five years. It is truly eye opening

and mind-boggling how tough it is for some people to stay out of trouble. This is a study that

has yet to be concluded as they plan to collect information twenty and twenty-five years post-

release from the offenders. Since it has not been that long yet there is no information on how

7

they have been but eventually we will be able to see that this is a good long term study and we

will be able to gather more information on how people have done since they have been released.

Criminal justice experts will be looking forward to this study to see how people have changed.

Parole and probation are two programs that are highly scrutinized and highly focused on.

In a study published in September of 2015, it was found that there is a six percent higher chance

of prisoners released unconditionally to be re-arrested over a five-year period post-release

(Durose, Snyder, & Cooper, 2015). This is interesting because it shows that active supervision

may be making strides in the lives of offenders. This is good to see because these are law

enforcement professionals that are working hands on with inmates who have been released and

they are able to successfully help these individuals. Parole and probation seem to be programs

that work at a pretty good rate. However, it would be nice to see that six percent figure be

higher, up around a fifteen or twenty percent mark. This study goes hand in hand with another

one that was included in my research. Within the first three years of release, parolees were five

percent less likely to be rearrested or have their parole revoked than unconditional releases

(Ostermann, 2013). This goes to show that active supervision may be a better program than a

pre-release program that would then allow an unconditional release to go be on their own.

It is possible that post release programs are superior to pre release programs. This may

deal with idea that prisoners who are currently incarcerated can’t taste the real world and just go

through the motions in order to get out quicker. Also, maybe it involves the fact that those who

are on probation or parole get to see the real world and feel as if it is such a privilege that they do

not want to let it slip away. This leads to the thought that maybe there should be less

unconditional release and more active supervision in the community. This would certainly put a

strain on the law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice field but it would also possibly

8

lower crime rates and of course recidivism too. This is a possibility that may definitely help.

The idea of active supervision being used more often for more individuals may be a successful

strategy. Officers are very professional for the most part and they are good at helping these

individuals out and getting them in the position for success.

Parole in New York was examined in a study by the New York Department of

Corrections. Of the offenders returning to prison in New York, there was a significant decrease

in new felonies. Only ten percent of the returning prisoners were because of new felonies. This

goes to show that although the parole officers are successfully keeping their parolees away from

committing new felonies, they are still violating their parole at a pretty high rate. Male offenders

had a forty-two percent return rate and thirty-three percent of those were for the violation of their

parole (Annucci, 2014). This is an issue that once again deals with how far the parole officers

are willing to let their parolees go before they send them back to prison. Also, of the parolees

that were released at the age of twenty-one and under, over half of them returned to prison. This

ties in to the fact that younger offenders are more likely to re-offend. This study also pointed out

that burglary offenders returned at a fifty-five percent rate throughout this study.

We are starting to see some parallels between studies. Parole is effective, but once again

we see that it needs to focus more on the specific needs of the individuals in their custody. The

burglars should be only allowed out early for parole if they are promised that they are going to

have employment. If people with this type of history don’t have employment, then they will

probably steal again because it is something that will solve their problems. Also, young people

may have been kicked out of their houses and they have no where to stay. We need to make sure

that we can ensure housing and employment for these released prisoners. Whatever the case may

be, criminal justice professionals must re-examine how to treat offenders and the proper way to

9

handle each individual case. It is most certainly a tough thing to do but we need to realize that

not everybody is the same and they everyone has specific needs that we need to incorporate into

their treatment.

In another study that used an intent to treat approach showed minor reduction in the

overall recidivism. This method of treatment and reentry practice showed that there was only a

2.2% reduction in overall recidivism over a two-year period (Farabee, Zhang, & Wright, 2014).

The main focus of this study was employment post-release and the housing situations that the

offenders were put in to. This study looked at two groups, one who received employment and

one who was just given one free meal and a list of community resources. The results showed

that those who received an employment opportunity, they were two percent more successful than

those who did not. Here, we can see that it is most definitely a factor in recidivism rates but it is

not overwhelming. Since the employment was a result of the reentry teams’ efforts it shows that

the employment may not be the best predictor. If the offenders were the ones who went out and

got employment on their own, it would show that they care more. Those who care more about

their own employment are more likely to succeed in the outside world. This may be the reason

that the number is so low at only two percent, since some of the offenders were just accepting the

employment opportunities because they know it would help them. It is still unmeasurable

whether or not someone truly cares about changing their life and it is sure that this is still the best

predictor of recidivism.

Employment programs are absolutely beneficial for people getting released from

incarceration as touched upon earlier. There was a study done by Philip Cook and colleagues

(2014) that took a look at high risk offenders in Milwaukee that studied the employment based

program for post release offenders. The study used a method that involved both a “reach-in”

10

program and a post-release program that set these offenders up for employment and gave them

the ability to sustain a good income. This study proved that employment does in fact lower

recidivism rates for sure. The one limitation of this study was that it cost so much money to go

into prisons and set up employment opportunities that it would not be practical to implement a

procedure like this nationwide. This study shows that even the most violent high risk offenders

are less likely to commit crimes and engage in criminal activity when they are steadily employed

and financially stable.

Community supervision is most definitely a factor in the recidivism of released inmates.

In a study from 2012 it looked at a comparison of those who decided to forgo parole release and

max out their sentences with those who chose to use parole. It resulted in showing that those

who were on parole were much more successful than those who decided to max out their

sentence (Ostermann, 2012). One thing to take in to consideration when looking at the results of

this study is the decision making of the individuals. The individuals who used parole were 9%

less likely to be reconvicted of a crime than those who chose to max out their sentences. This

could have to do with the fact that they chose to ignore the option to get out of prison. This

reflects on their mind sets already that they were not willing to take help from other individuals.

This is worth looking into because their propensity to ignore help and not want other people to

be involved in their life may lead why they make poor decisions and ended up being back in jail.

The overall findings of this study show that those who voluntarily forewent a parole opportunity

would most likely have benefitted from some sort of community supervision.

Other factors that play a role in recidivism often deal with the offender’s history of drug

use and/or alcohol abuse. The impact may differ depending on whether or not they offender

receives drug treatment or alcohol counseling. There is different types of treatment they can

11

receive and these different types of treatments will most certainly have a different impact upon

each type of person depending on their tendencies and needs. It is shown that those who receive

treatment take much longer to recidivate than those who receive no treatment at all (Krebs,

Strom, & Lattimore, 2009). It has also been seen that people who receive residential treatment

fail quicker than those who receive non-residential treatment. This is an interesting fact to take a

look at. Using this information, the criminal justice system can tailor things to focus more on

treating people once they are out of prison rather than only while they are in. An integration of

both types of treatment may be a potential change that could be made to affect the way drug and

alcohol abusers could be treated to help with recidivism.

Findings like this are worth noting and using in the future. Learning from successes and

failures is potentially the key to finding the right solution to stopping or at least lowering

recidivism rates. There will never be a zero percent recidivism rate but the goal of lowering it

substantially is worth trying to achieve. A criminal justice system that not only discourages

reoffending, but also one that informs and educates offenders on the best ways to stay out of

trouble is what needs to be strived for. Starting by looking at the most effective methods and

blending them together is most definitely a solid starting point.

Social programs for reentering offenders into the society must also take into account the

environment that an individual may be heading back into after they are released. There are other

factors that possibly somewhat skew the results other than just the community that offenders

reenter in to. Some of these factors include having less education, and the seriousness of the

offender’s incarceration profile (Mears, Wang, Hay, & Bales, 2008). These factors will possibly

affect the results but it is seen that those who live in high crime areas are more likely to

recidivate earlier. Results of this study also show that having a prior record definitely results in a

12

greater likelihood for failure. When looking at the social influences of a community on the

effects of recidivism it is seen that those who live in more densely packed neighborhoods and

cities are more likely to recidivate than those who live in rural areas where the population is

more spread out. Now, it is unclear if this is due to the level of police force in the area or the

unavailability of post-release programs for areas where there are so many released prisoners.

The criminal justice system needs to find out a way for people to receive supervision even when

they are in areas that are over packed and swarmed with a lot of released prisoners. In situations

where it is known that an offender is to be released into a high crime area or into a densely

packed city, it should be seen that they receive a different level of supervision and a different

type of programming to get them ready for what type of world they are about to be sprung back

in to. There can be programs that start while they are still incarcerated. The goal would be to

educate the prisoners on what to expect when they get out, how the society has changed, and to

get them housing and proper employment that will allow them to stay away from gang activity

and criminal involvement.

Parole is one of the proven post-release programs that has been shown to be effective in

lowering recidivism rates at a level that is beneficial to society as a whole. This type of

community supervision can be utilized to get offenders the help they need from professionals

who care and most often have a history of being in law enforcement. The data states that parole

can reduce recidivism by 8% over the first 3-year period following a release when comparing

parolees to unconditional releases (Ostermann,. 2013). Obviously, it would be nice to see a

higher number than an 8% difference, however it definitely shows that there is benefits to being

on parole and going through active supervision following the release. One issue that this study

by Ostermann brings up is the fact that after the 3-year period of active supervision, the

13

difference rate between parolees and unconditional releases goes down to only 1%. Clearly, this

shows that there is an issue within the system and there needs to be some tweaking done to

perfect it and make sure it can be done even better. A big problem may be that the parole boards

across the country are short-sighted. Also, a lot of Parole Officers may only try to produce their

numbers to be successful and they may not show complete care for the offender themselves. If

the Parole Officers and the parole board are only being short-sighted then there is an issue within

the system itself that needs to be addressed. Hopefully, measures can be made to ensure that the

people involved in the system will care enough about the offenders themselves and making to it

that they will be pushed away from crime and put in good situations to succeed. Another

potential issue that could be causing a problem here is active supervision being too hard to get

for every offender out there. There is such a large and growing population of prisoners and

people being released that there is not enough law enforcement agents to watch over all of them.

If there was a way to get everyone active supervision in the community, it could be deeply

beneficial to the population of ex-offenders out in society.

Though there is issues with the lack of active supervision and the long-term effects of it,

it is valuable enough to keep in place and to continue working with. Active supervision and

specifically parole can be very helpful to older parolees as well (Ostermann, 2013). Older

parolees have historically been more successful in staying away from recidivating. This could

have to do with them being easier to talk from the Parole Officers because their age is more close

together. It could also deal with the fact that they have done more time and have learned enough

that they don’t want to be locked up again. Parole should definitely stay in use and be used in

even better ways in the future.

14

The true measure of a successful program has many levels to it. It is not all about

statistics and employment and housing. It often has more to do with the people who are working

with the offenders. When people are treated with respect, and made to feel like people and not

criminals it really makes a difference. Since supervision has widened from typically non-violent

offenders to more violent offenders that normally wouldn’t be allowed on parole or probation we

have seen more probationer and parolee failures leading to incarceration. Each year, about 30%

of prison admissions are parole violators (Paparozzi, & Demichele, 2008). This clearly shows

that there is an issue with parole. Although it is better than having no supervision at all, it could

definitely be improved. Part of the problem may be that the parolees don’t feel as if they are

being treated like people and they stay in a criminal mind set. If they were treated like people

who were working class and had employment they may feel more like a part of society and it

would help them from engaging in criminal type activity. Another issue is that 15% of all

incarcerated persons are probationer failures (Paparozzi, & Demichele, 2008).

Accompanying certain needs that parolees and probationers need is key to the success of

such post-release programs. Another big issue is that the funding for both parole and probation

has not been increased proportionately with the amount of parolees and probationers that are

being released into society each year. When used properly, respect, treatment, surveillance, and

enforcement could be the keys to making sure that offenders stay on a straight and narrow path

guiding them away from criminal engagement. Probation and parole are good sources of

supervision and they are good programs that can be used to help keep offenders out of trouble.

Using these in the correct way allow parolees to feel integrated into society while knowing that

they are under scrutiny and will be punished if they do not follow the conditions of their

sentences. All of these things working together can give a message to the released prisoners that

15

they do have a good chance of succeeding and that they can do it with the help of the people

around them.

Expectations are a big part of someone’s chances to do well when being released from

prison. More likely than not, if you have high expectations for yourself then you will try and

reach those goals. However, “prisoners who are unrealistically optimistic and whose forecasts

contradict those based on assessment instruments will likely be refused parole (Dhami, Mandel,

Loewenstein, & Ayton, 2006). People who expect too much out of themselves are often going to

break down when and if they don’t achieve their goals. People who expect to find housing and

employment will have a really tough time dealing with it if they do not by the time they expected

to. An accurate depiction of how well a prisoner may do on the outside is tough to acquire. If

we can work with prisoners and help them know what to expect they may not feel so let down

which in turn would help them from returning to criminal activity. If they have lower goals, but

ones that are still significant in making them successful they may be given more confidence and

more strive to keep getting better. A tough situation is that when people with high expectations

don’t see the results that they wanted, they will often resort to the type of life that got them in the

situation that they are in because that is really the only life that they know. Properly working

with these offenders and helping them set reasonable goals to attain and then giving them

programs before they get released that will help them become acclimated to their environments

out of prison could be a good step in associating certain programs with successful stints without

recidivating.

When reentering into society from incarceration there are so many things needed to help

make it a successful reentry. With good quality programs and services, there can be a much

easier time for the offender to make it back to living a life free of criminal activity. Stable

16

housing and employment are most likely the two biggest factors in a successful reentry. Without

programs to make this easier for prisoners to return to society it can be a real force on the family

and friends of the previously incarcerated person. It was found that many offenders used drugs

or engaged in sex for drugs, money, or transportation early in the community reentry process as a

result of difficulty in accessing services to meet basic needs (Luther, Reichert, Holloway, Roth,

& Aalsma, 2011). Though this seems like a drastic measure, people will do whatever it takes to

survive. When people, especially ex-offenders, are put on the streets without a job, or housing,

and no active supervision, they will do whatever it takes to try and survive out there. Keeping in

mind that the only lifestyle they know involved drugs, and criminal behavior, they resorted right

to it often times.

Many prisoners described pre-release housing plans falling apart once they were back in

the community (Luther, Reichert, Holloway, Roth &, Aalsma, 2011). This is definitely an issue

for these people getting put back in to tough situations. A lot of the time they will be told

something when they are inside prison and be let out to find completely different situations than

they were promised. It is always tough for these people when they are in impoverished

neighborhoods that are covered with criminal activities going on all around them. How can you

ask someone to not do what they’ve been doing their whole lives when they have no other means

of survival? These reentry participants are put in extremely tough situations. The criminal

justice system can change the way this is handled. A lot more of the funding that is received for

the system can be used to secure housing for released inmates. If they have somewhere to live it

makes finding a job so much easier. Not only does it make finding a job so much easier but it

also allows them to set up routines in their lives. When someone has routine it is easier for them

to stick to it and stay on a better path. As a criminal justice system, changes need to be made to

17

help people gain housing and employment before they can expect them to start making real

changes with their lives and the way they live.

When researching this topic, it was seen that there are several things that can be done to

improve how the criminal justice system deals with reentry as a whole. Some of the biggest

changes and improvements need to be made in housing, employment, needs-assessments,

personality assessments, and overall respect of the offenders. There are some really good things

that already exist in the system that allow prisoners to get a chance at success upon their releases.

For example, parole and probation are both a very good start. These two institutions are helpful

and they reduce recidivism to an extent worth noting that they are successful. An eight percent

reduction (Ostermann, 2013) is definitely a good starting point for a reduction in recidivism. If

systems could become more integrated there will be more upside for successful reentries. For

example, if parole was tailored together with a pre-release program that could help prisoners find

a good place to live with an employment opportunity in the same area that would do wonders for

the chances of success in that situation. The biggest problems are found when programs are

singled out. If you put a drug abuser in a housing facility with other drug users, the chances are

something is going to go wrong. The criminal justice system needs to use evaluations of the

people and their needs to see where to put them and how to put them in the best chances for

success. For housing, the biggest thing is a bed with a roof and shelter for them to make them

feel like they have a solid home where they can live and be comfortable as a human being.

Employment is of course the next biggest thing behind housing in terms of setting up the

offenders for success. The job search is one of the toughest things for people fresh out of lock-

up. It would be much better if laws weren’t so strict against hiring people with criminal records.

It is understandable that the laws exist but it really makes it tough for people to make the best of

18

their second chances. The criminal justice could work in conjunction with a laborers union to

ensure that a certain amount of positions be left open each year for reentering prisoners. This

would help indefinitely in keeping people clean and smart and away from engaging in criminal

activity. Prisoners released into a situation where they were going to be employed saw a two

percent reduction in their recidivism rates (Farabee, Zhang, & Wright, 2014). This shows that

employment does lower recidivism. If the criminal justice system could incorporate housing and

employment into the same programs they would be combining the two percent figure with the

eight percent figure from housing. When programs start to come together and incorporate more

of a total-package type care for the released prisoners it will start to become more and more

beneficial for them and it will be more successful.

Although there were a few limitations in the research that was studied for this report,

there are definitely some good programs and systems. Improvements could be made by tailoring

needs-specific activities and programs for people who are about to be released from prison. It

could be suggested that reintegration efforts start earlier in their sentences and not just

immediately prior to their release. It would be nice to see drug users receiving counseling

throughout their entire stay in a prison. Something like this could go a long way letting them

know that someone cares instead of having them in their cells thinking about their entire lives by

themselves. Little things like this would go a long way when tied in with the other programs that

include housing and employment.

People who are in there for more violent offenses like assault and even murder can be

treated differently than someone who is locked up for selling drugs or unarmed robbery. People

who do violent things most certainly should see some counseling while they are locked up so

they can try and learn from their mistakes and move on. It makes no sense to have a bunch of

19

violent offenders just telling their stories about how cool they were when they were on the

streets. It is going to make people in there with them want to go out on the streets and seem as

tough as they can be. That is another problem with prisons these days. People get out and wear

the fact that they’ve been imprisoned as a badge of honor or toughness.

Criminal justice practitioners can make improvements with all of these things. It is going

to be very tough to do and it is most definitely going to take significant time. But with the

correct people in charge and the right people working as the officers, it can be done. With the

help of housing programs and employment programs, in collaboration with law enforcement

agencies, the criminal justice system will be able to potentially put these people in the best

positions to succeed. It is an exciting future for how to help these people out and a lot can be

done and there is much room for improvement. Recidivism will be at a much lower rate in the

future if all of these systems start to work together better and more often. It is a bright future for

the criminal justice system and it will definitely become better at lowering recidivism and putting

ex-offenders in the best position to successfully stay out of prison for good.

20

Works Cited

Annucci, Anthony. (2014, November). Return rate for parolees committing new felony crimes hits historic low. Department of Corrections (2014). Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.doccs.ny.gov/PressRel/2014/Recidivism_Rates_2010.pdf

Chi, K. Y., & Joo, H. J. (2009, Spring). Predictors of recidivism across major age groups of parolees in Texas. Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://www.cjcj.org/uploads/cjcj/documents/predictors_of.pdf

Cook, Philip J., Kang, Songman, Braga, Anthony A., Ludwig, Jens, O’Brien, Mallory E. (2014). An experimental evaluation of a comprehensive employment-oriented prisoner re-entry program. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12-20.

Dhami MK, Mandel DR, Loewenstein G, & Ayton P. (2006). Prisoners' positive illusions of their post-release success. Law and Human Behavior, 30(6) 631-647.

Durose, M., Snyder, H., & Cooper, A. (2015, September). Multistate criminal history patterns of prisoners released in 30 states. Retrieved March 03, 2016, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/mschpprts05.pdf

Farabee, D., Zhang, S. X., & Wright, B. (2014). An experimental evaluation of a nationally recognized employment-focused offender reentry program. Journal Of Experimental Criminology, 10(3), 309-322.

Geerken, M. R., & Hayes, H. D. (1993). Probation and parole: Public risk and the future of incarceration alternatives*. Criminology, 31(4), 549-564.

Goldstein, D. (2014, December 04). The misleading math of 'Recidivism'. Retrieved March 08, 2016, from https://www.themarshallproject.org/2014/12/04/the-misleading-math-of-recidivism#.9fkIkH37V

Kimora. (2008). The emerging paradigm in probation and parole in the United States. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46(3-4), 1-11.

Krebs, C., Strom, K., Koetse, W., & Lattimore, P. (2009). The impact of residential and nonresidential drug treatment on recidivism among drug-involved probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 55(3), 442-471.

Luther J.B., Reichert E.S., Holloway E.D., Roth A.M., & Aalsma M.C. (2011). An exploration of community reentry needs and services for prisoners: a focus on care to limit return to high-risk behavior. AIDS Patient Care and STDs, 25(8) 475-481.

Mears, D. P., Wang, X., Hay, C., & Bales, W. D. (2008). Social ecology and recidivism: Implications for prisoner reentry. Criminology, 46(2), 301-340.

21

Ostermann, M. (2013). Active supervision and its impact upon parolee recidivism rates. Crime & Delinquency, 59(4), 487-509.

Ostermann, M. (2012). Recidivism and the propensity to forgo parole release. JQ: Justice Quarterly, 29(4).

Paparozzi, M., & Demichele, M. (2008). Probation and parole: Overworked, misunderstood, and under-appreciated: But why? The Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47(3), 275-296.

“Recidivism.” (n.d.). National Institute of Justice. Retrieved March 08, 2016, from http://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx

Severson, M. E., Bruns, K., Veeh, C., & Lee, J. (2011). Prisoner reentry programming: Who recidivates and when? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50(6), 327-348.

Turner, S., Myers, R., Sexton, L., & Smith, S. (2007). What crime rates tell us about where to focus programs and services for prisoners. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(3).

Valentine, E. J., & Redcross, C. (2015). Transitional jobs after release from prison: effects on employment and recidivism. IZA Journal of Labor Policy, 4(1), 1-17.

Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289-299 11p.

22