Reply:

Reentry: Saving Offenders from Crime Life

Among others, the problem of reentry has been studied and contextualized to correctional outcomes in the United States. As one of the performance indicators in criminal justice, defining re-entry and assessing the parameters that influence program implementation is crucial. When inmates are released from prison once they have served their respective terms, the dynamics of their reintegration back to the society was a policy issue in the United States back in the 1950s. The parole system was then established in which parole board judges made determinations as to whether an offender can be placed back into the community while under the supervision of a parole officer. The concept of re-entry followed in which greater focus is placed on assisting ex-offenders to find their footing in their community so that the risks of recidivating is reduced (Middlemass & Smiley, 2019). This analysis will explore the concept of re-entry and identify the key components of reentry programs as well as considerations that must be made in the policy front.

Discovery of the Problem: Reentry

According to Cullen and Jonson (2017), the reentry movement is identified by the emphasis on the development of programs that guide prisoners back into the community. Reentry is a subset of the rehabilitative function of corrections. The underlying value of correctional programming is to identify individualized and situational risk factors that can have a criminological effect on the offender within and out of prison, these factors are crucial because when they are not addressed, there is greater chance that the individual will recidivate. Because of this criminological effect, Cullen and Jonson (2017) report that ex-offenders are always at risk of recidivating unless an effective program to guide them regain their ground in the community is availed.

Evidently, the reentry problem suffered the social construction of reality as it has existed for quite some time without being duly recognized as a social problem that needed to be solved, until its implications on individuals, systems and the society became too obvious. There are a number of key characteristics that are expressive of its nature. First, there is a relationship between reentry problem and mass incarceration. The proportion of the United States population locked up in prisons today not only craft the problem that mass incarceration has become, but also reflects the limitations of the system at ensuring an effective transition from the prison system back to the community. Secondly, this analysis has already mentioned the problem of recidivism, the goal of corrections has been to reduce criminality in offenders by correcting their behavior and preparing them for productive lives in the community.

Contrarily, recidivism levels in the United States is expressive of a reentry problem, it shows that the capacity of reentry programs to prevent ex-offenders from recidivating is limited. The results of a review of reentry program outcomes show that these programs do not realize much success in this regard. The third finding provides a reasoning behind this performance. As highlighted by Cullen and Jonson (2017) the poverty of treatment services as should be made available to offenders while in prison and after they are released means that the programs are not able to achieve the rehabilitative and directive effect through which inmates are prepared for a productive life in the community. Finally, inmates need systemic support from state authorities and policy makers in overcoming the barriers that they face once they are released (Ndrecka et al., 2017). Again, this shows that ex-offenders find themselves easily slipping back to crime because they do not get help from the parole authorities in relation to navigating the challenges they face in the new life out of prison.

Components of Reentry Programs and Implementation

Besides the recognition of reentry as a legitimate social movement designated to bridge the gap between prison and the community, there are many fronts in which various entities have promoted the development and evolution of reentry programs. Reentry programs have become richly defined by the scope of specialized services as offered within prison settings as well as when prisoners have been released. There are institutional programs developed around specific functions such as addressing substance abuse, promoting the establishment and maintenance of family bonds, as well as mental health (Visher & La Vigne, 2020). At the institutional level, policies have been used as key instruments with which to operationalize and systemize reentry within the criminal justice and correctional cycle. At the community level, reentry programs have sprouted in the form of community-based reentry programs organized around halfway houses, mentoring, substance abuse, housing, employment, and mental health as key themes.

Public-Policy Considerations

Given the challenges facing reentry programs, effectiveness can only be achieved when a number of considerations are made as aligned with public-policy concerns. Given that there is public support for reentry programs, some of the considerations that must be made when modelling and executing reentry programs is diversity, sound theory as a basis of how the programs are modelled, as well as performance measurements and continuous improvements (Visher et al., 2017). As can be realized from the contextual analysis of the effectiveness of reentry programs in the United States, it is evident that more must be done in establishing an evidence-based platform for continuous improvement of the programs.

Christian Worldview

As defined in this analysis, the concept of re-entry involves providing guidance and preparing ex-offenders to be accepted back into the society and to live productive and rewarding lives as they settle in the community. The scripture emphasizes the importance of protecting human dignity as proclaimed in the passage, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, Galatians 3:28). This passage emphasizes that we are all one in Christ and must therefore purpose to promote unity in the society. Reentry is symbolic of dissociation between wrongdoing and the freshness of starting a new life and the promise of not committing another crime. The scripture distinguishes these constructs in the passage, “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? And what communion hath light with darkness?” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, 2 Corinthians 6:14). Furthermore, reentry also reinforces the concept of forgiveness in relation to paving way for acceptance and reintegration back into the community. The scripture encourages Christians to be forgiving and receive cleansing, this is captured in, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (King James Bible, 1769/2017, 1 John 1:9).

Conclusion

As the trend shifted from parole supervision to reentry, it became crucial to define the term reentry for purposes of institutionalizing its constructs through correctional policy. The limitations of the correctional system diffused into the society in the form of high rates of recidivism and low quality life for ex-offenders. This social problem inspired the ideas behind reentry as focus had to be placed on reintegrating ex-offenders back to the community so as to create a balanced cycle where the correctional system or the society is not overwhelmed.

References

Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Correctional theory: Context and consequences (2nd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.

King James Bible. (2017). King James Bible Online. https://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/ (Original work published 1769).

Middlemass, K. M., & Smiley, C. (2019). Introduction: Critical reentry in the 21st century. In Prisoner Reentry in the 21st Century (pp. 1-10). Routledge.

Ndrecka, M., Listwan, S. J., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). What works in reentry and how to improve outcomes. In Prisoner reentry (pp. 177-244). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.

Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2017). Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter?. Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 136-165.

Visher, C. A., & La Vigne, N. (2020). Returning Home: A Pathbreaking Study of Prisoner Reentry and Its Challenges. In Handbook on Moving Corrections and Sentencing Forward (pp. 278-311). Routledge.