Social Reintegration: Recidivism, Employment, and Parole System

The reintegration of former convicted prisoners from correctional facilities back into the

society is a process that restorative justice puts premium to. Be that as it may, it has not received

much attention, especially in countries where the justice system leans towards the punishment of

the offenders rather than on their rehabilitation. Proof of this is the international phenomenon

characterized by newly released ex-offenders who find themselves “unprepared for life on the

outside as many lack stable housing, suffer from mental illness, have few job skills to secure

basic employment, and all are marked with a criminal record” (Aloisio & Lafleur, 2014). One of

the contributing factors to this phenomenon, as cited in Aloisio & Lafleur (2014), is the stigma

prevalent in the society against convicted prisoners.

A study conducted by Uggen, Manza, & Behrens (2004), shows that there is a connection

between desistance—or the cessation of offending behavior—of offenders and their successful

transition or adaptation of adult roles as workers, family men and women, and citizens. However,

even if offenders envision themselves and express sincere desire in assuming these idealized

roles in the community, they often lack the resources and social relationships necessary to

accomplish the transition and fulfillment of such roles. As the study shows, many offenders

undergo numerous difficulties in establishing pro-social commitments and thereby fail in

securing an identity that conforms to their respective communities because of the stigma of a

convicted prisoner. This stigma is evident in the restrictions faced by ex-convicts as regards

work opportunities and housing choices, their loss of parental rights, their political

disenfranchisement, and the restrictions on a myriad of social relations which often make them

feel as if they were outsiders “occupying a status that is less than the average citizen” or as if

they were permanently marked or branded (Uggen, Manza, & Behrens, 2004). As such, the
authors argue that offenders must begin skills training necessary to overcome stigma and adopt a

law-abiding identity while they are incarcerated, preferably long before they are released from

correctional supervision. In addition to work and family roles, creating avenues for civic

participation and the restoration of the citizenship rights that offenders lost when they were

convicted may prove central in overcoming the stigma in order to achieve successful

reintegration. During their incarceration, offenders develop the eagerness to establish or re-

establish their roles in the family, workplace and in the community. The authors suggest that

trying on the roles of productive citizen, responsible citizen and active citizen provides a training

of some sort for the offenders, which will help them assume their idealized roles once they are

released. Lastly, the authors recognize that the society and the prisoner must work hand in hand

to make the reintegration of the former to the latter successful, thus public awareness programs

are essential to reduce the stigma associated incarceration.

Breen’s (2011) study on reintegration, however, takes on a different approach—instead

of focusing on the way in which society stereotypes ex-convicts like most literature on

reintegration do, Breen’s study focuses on how offenders interpret and internalize the stigma

itself. Just like the findings of the authors in the previous discussion, this study indicates that ex-

convicts feel like they have been negatively labeled or marked by others because of the fact that

they had a criminal record or that they spent a certain amount of time in prison. Furthermore, this

feeling is exacerbated by how they are treated by the society to the point where former prisoners

are made to feel like they are threats to the society, which consequently impacts their ability to

reintegrate to the former in a negative manner. Breen utilized the labeling theory in her study and

came up with the conclusion that the fear of negative stereotyping felt by offenders leads them to

fall victim to the effects of stereotype threat, ultimately leading to their incapability to reintegrate
altogether. She elaborated this point by stating that labeling and the type of identity it fosters on

the individual is central to the reintegration process as it explains how released prisoners will be

treated by the society once they are released and how they will respond to this treatment. Aside

from this, Breen also enumerated numerous problems faced by ex-convicts with regard to their

attempt to reintegrate into the society such as the lack of social or community bonds, the lack of

opportunities for employment, and the trouble to find adequate housing. All these, according to

the author, increase the likelihood of the offenders’ recidivism, thus amounting to unsuccessful

reintegration (Breen, 2011).

Taking a step further than merely analyzing the effects of the stigma of incarceration on

social reintegration, Workman (2006) proposed the Community-Model of Reintegration which

highlights the importance of strengthening the offenders’ roles as parents, partners, neighbors,

and employees thereby increasing their stakes of becoming contributing and valuable members

of the community. Former prisoners must begin to establish relationships with members of the

community who are sincerely interested in seeing the offenders’ progress into productive

citizens, and can consequently help them create legitimate identities that coincide with the

community (Workman, 2006). Moreover, the model suggests that as the strength and number of

relationships increase, offenders gain the resources—especially human capital—necessary for

them to transition and assume institutional roles like that of a regular employee, a qualified

student, and a member of a legitimate community group. These relationships and roles not only

provide the former prisoners with a sense of community based on commitment and opportunities,

but also delegate responsibilities and obligations that they must attend to in order to continue

being part of the said community.

 Failure to reintegrate into the society can lead to recidivism or the relapse into criminal

activity, generally measured by a former prisoner’s return to prison either for repeating an old

transgression or for a new one. As such, recidivism can be used to measure the effectiveness of

correctional facilities and prisons in rehabilitating inmates. A case study undertaken by Deady in

2014 entitled “Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad” compared the prison

populations and recidivism rates of numerous countries from different continents in order to

assess the penal system of the United States of America. According to her findings, the United

States have the world’s greatest prison population because of a convergence of factors, namely

the implementation of harsh mandatory sentences, the decades-long war on drugs, a politicized

criminal justice system, the lack of social safety net, and the high rate of recidivism (Deady,

2014). The significance of this last factor cannot be overlooked because it implies that 50% of

prisoners in the United States have the tendency to be incarcerated once more within three years

after their release. This is alarming not only because the vicious cycle of re-incarceration adds up

to the cost of maintaining a highly bloated population of the American prison system, but also

because the United States implements longer sentencing policies, which ultimately affects the

well-being of prisoners and their families (Deady, 2014). As a remedy to the failures of the

American penal system, the author recommended the adoption of the policies utilized in the

Netherlands, Germany, and other Scandinavian countries which lean toward rehabilitation and

resocialization rather than punishment. This change of approach is crucial in order to stop the

cycle of recidivism in favor of reintegration programs beneficial both to the offenders and to the

society.

Focusing on programs conducive to reducing the rate of recidivism, thus improving the

ability of the penal system to rehabilitate and reintegrate prisoners back into the society, McKean
& Ransford (2004) suggested three component programs that are most often cited as key to

reducing recidivism, namely substance abuse treatment, education, and employment services.

Substance abuse is deemed as a widespread problem within the prison population, coupled with

re-addiction after release as a probable cause of recidivism and a hindrance to obtaining and

maintaining a stable occupation. Educational programs, on the other hand, tend to the necessities

of the released prisoners to attain the skills required by different job opportunities, as well as the

skills needed in order to retain their employment. Lastly, the significance of maintaining

employment after release cannot be overlooked, as it is deemed as one of the most conducive

factors in reducing recidivism (McKean & Ransford, 2004). Employment services programs

proposed by the authors address the need of released offenders through job preparedness, career

development skills, and job placement.

Bibliography
Aloisio, R., & Lafleur, R. (2014). Inmate Reintegration: Current Practices, Challenges, and Explanations .
United States: John Howard Society of Ontario and The Association for Effective Reintegration in
Ontario (A. E. R. O.).

Breen, A. (2011, May). The Effects of Labeling and Stereotype Threat on Offender Reintegration .
Ontario, Canada.

Deady, C. (2014). Incarceration and Recidivism: Lessons from Abroad. Rhode Island: Pell Center.

McKean, L., & Ransford, C. (2004). Current Strategies for Reducing Recidivism. Center for Impact
Research.

Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Behrens, A. (2004). Less than the average citizen: Stigma, role transition and the
civic reintegration of convicted felons. In S. Maruna, & R. Immarigeon, After Crime and
Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (pp. 261-293). United States: Willan
Publishing.

Workman, K. (2006). Prisoner reintegration- Toward a model of community partnership. New Zealand:
Prison Fellowship.