Introduction
I decided to look into how support services like housing help and job training affect recidivism rates after someone has been released from prison because high rates of reincarceration are bad for society and the economy. The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration and recidivism in the world. Within three years of being freed, more than two-thirds of those people are arrested again. It is predicted that reincarceration costs the economy a massive $50,000 per inmate per year. High recidivism rates cost a lot of money and have significant social costs (Sulmeisters and Pasko 2021). Social costs include people who keep getting in trouble with the law, unstable families and communities, and people who are not productive at work. The main goal of this study is to find out if robust return support services that focus on two main areas—finding housing and work—can significantly lower the number of people who commit crimes again. This study looks at what happens to former prisoners given access to transitional housing programs and job training workshops after they get out of jail to see if meeting these basic needs makes it easier for them to return to society. The results could give lawmakers solid information on how to focus interventions and money best to break the cycle of reincarceration. Using post-release programs to lower recidivism could help people, families, and communities, and it could also make the criminal justice system less stressed.
Literature Review
In the past several years, an increasing number of studies have been conducted to explore the influence that reentry programs have on reducing the rates of recidivism among formerly incarcerated individuals who have been released from prison. Among the activities that people participate in, researchers have shown a correlation between high rates of employment and housing, as well as other necessities, and a reduction in the likelihood that they will commit another crime. Participation in vocational training and job placement programs successfully reduced recidivism by 8%, according to a meta-analysis conducted in 2020 and included almost 30 experimental and quasi-experimental studies. On the other hand, the success rate for providing stable housing after release reached 10% (Fowler 2020). The authors contend that a reduction in the number of reoffenses committed by formerly incarcerated individuals is more likely to be observed if rehabilitation programs involve income production or other projects that satisfy the fundamental requirements.
Despite their relevance, experts believe that work and housing-related reintegration programs are insufficient. Critically, criminologists like Phillips (2021) stress that the lack of jobs and cheap housing are just two of the problems that ex-convicts will have to deal with. Mental illnesses, drug abuse, and a lack of social support are some of these problems. They make it more likely for people to commit crimes again if they are not treated (Lebbie 2021). Instead of the point-based intervention, reintegration should look into a broader approach focusing on multiple measures. Healthcare is integral to reentry programs that help people returning to society deal with their many problems. For example, the research by Maruna (2020) shows that repeat offenders and mental health problems are related. Integrated programs like the ones in Fahmy et al. (2022) and Goger (2021) deal with mental health and drug use disorders as well as other services for people who have been released from prison at the same time. As an added benefit of successful reentry programs, addiction treatment is also effective. Like untreated mental illnesses, untreated drug abuse also makes it more likely for people to commit crimes again (Sulmeisters and Pasko 2021). Integrated programs are the best way to deal with substance abuse problems because they give people who are dealing with addiction a structured way to beat their addiction and find themselves again after they get out of jail. Social peer networks are a priceless resource for people trying to undergo rehabilitation. When someone is trying to get better, being alone can make things complicated. Like Schwartz’s work (2020), these programs and others play a big part in starting and growing peer support groups. These groups provide services like social connections, support, and a sense of belongingness, making people less likely to commit crimes again. Also, it is essential never to forget the most critical part of providing exceptional services based on social factors. There are significant differences in the primary dose when reentry needs to rely on the group, such as race, gender, age, and so on, according to studies by Fahmy et al. 2022; Collins 2021; and Schwartz et al. 2020). When making restoration programs, it is essential to keep these things in mind so that the operations are culturally aware, flexible, and able to deal with the problems each group of people coming back may face.
It is still anticipated that additional research will be conducted to determine which explicit reemergence administrations and program models are the strongest. For instance, it is still being determined whether the results differ much between programs that provide rapid rehousing and those that provide more serious interim housing with case management (Fowler 2020). Former convicts who take part in voluntary reentry programs may already be more motivated to avoid reincarceration than those who do not participate in such programs (Lebbie 2021). As a result, self-selection biases may affect the outcomes (2019). Experts advise a more extensive deployment of randomized controlled preliminary studies that compare program participants’ outcomes to non-participants’ outcomes to clarify the causal relationship between the two groups more easily.
In addition to program affiliations, systemic issues contributing to recidivism cycles must be critically examined. Lebbie (2021), who identifies as a critic, contends that mass incarceration and the “rehabilitation industrial complex” exert a significant influence on recidivism. It is claimed that implementing punitive measures within the criminal justice system is not conducive to the rehabilitation process. Consequently, this hinders the resolution of the underlying issue, perpetuating the recurring pattern of criminal behavior. Reform proponents, such as Fowler (2020) and Phillips (2021), emphasize the importance of community-based alternatives to incarceration and incarceration in the fight against crime. Aside from that, the programs minimize recidivism and address social justice issues in the criminal justice system.
Reentry interventions are currently seeing a resurgence due to the advent of new technologies that advocate alternative approaches to dealing with the complicated difficulties newly jailed populations face. According to Leblie’s (2021) article, various indicators suggest the potential of CBT programs for fostering the need to deal with life’s obstacles and survival skills after release. Maruna (2020) disagrees, claiming that technology-mediated support systems are platforms and tools that provide resources and information to prisoners. These new cars provided greater flexibility and scalability regarding passenger capacity, allowing more people to be accommodated.
Methodology
This study used a secondary research approach, which draws on existing literature, to assess the impact of reentry programs that provide ex-offenders with work possibilities, assistance in finding housing, and other services. The secondary analysis of the data was chosen for its ease and value in aggregating previously examined data to what is now being researched (Newman & Gough 2020).
The literature review used a variety of databases and search engines. Some of these included Google Scholar, PubMed Central, Google Books, Digital Commons Network, ResearchGate, WorldCat, and the university library system they belong to. Words like “reentry programs,” “recidivism,” “reincarceration,” “transitional services,” “housing assistance,” “employment programs,” and others were used (Pandey and Pandey 2021). Relevance and the method used for the research were used to choose the sources.
Qualitative and textual thematic analysis was used to order and assemble the data from the literature review (Newman and Gough 2020). Across studies, common themes included the types of post-release treatments that were looked at, differences in how well the programs worked, how they affected different groups of people, problems with the research methods, and what the results meant for policy and practice. Sources were examined to see if the benefits of reentry services are the same or different.
By using secondary data, the results of previous studies can be carefully put together to assess the evidence supporting the effectiveness of strategies for reducing recidivism. It also helps to find the remaining knowledge gaps where policy decisions still need to be based on primary study for data with a more robust evidence base. Based on empirical results from the literature, the review aims to come up with valuable conclusions for policymakers and practitioners trying to lower the high rearrest rates. One of the problems is that it only uses data from datasets that have already been released.
Results
This literature review compiled the results of 15 experimental studies, ten quasi-experimental studies, and five meta-analyses that looked at reentry programs and were released between 2016 and 2022. The studies looked at the rates of recidivism for more than 20,000 people who had been in prison and were now in reentry programs that offered job training, housing, medical care, drug treatment, and social services.
Employment Programs
Several studies have demonstrated that taking part in job training and career development programs while incarcerated or after release can considerably reduce recidivism. In a 2020 meta-analysis of 18 randomized controlled trials of vocational and transitional work programs for formerly incarcerated people, 90% of the studies found that program participants had lower rates of rearrest or reincarceration over 1-3 year follow-up periods than control groups who did not receive the interventions (Donato-Sandoval 2023).
Vocational skills training programs, which give jailed persons education and certifications in trades such as construction, manufacturing, and food service, reduced recidivism by 12% on average (Collins 2021). Some examples of vocational training interventions include carpentry, plumbing, culinary arts, and computer literacy classes. Among these, transitional labour programs that place recently released prisoners in temporary, subsidized occupations reduced recidivism by an average of 9% (Schwartz et al. 2020). The programs provide job-ready training, social assistance, and progressive reentry into the workforce. Incorporating cognitive behavioural therapy aspects into vocational training may help fit the purpose. Sullmeisters and Pasko (2021) did a 2022 study. They found that individuals who completed their prison time with both work skills and cognitive behavioural therapy training committed 15% fewer offences in the future than those who were solely trained with work skills. Cognitive behavioural therapy improves motivation, problem-solving, impulse control, and other skills.
Housing Programs
The study’s findings revealed that reductions in recidivism, particularly once housing, services, and support are provided, had a beneficial impact on the future of formerly jailed people in terms of their likelihood of reoffending. Individuals who have previously served time in jail must be allowed to live in a safe neighbourhood with a stable residence to successfully assimilate into society. Housing stability is an essential consideration for people released from jail. They are at significant risk of becoming homeless or having unstable housing. This is consistent with the findings of Doyle et al. (2022), who discovered that those who were lost and treatment-resistant after being convicted of a crime reoffended more frequently than others. As a result, the risk of homelessness is lowered since housing support programs provide former prisoners with vouchers, a portion of their wages, and transition homes to help them find inexpensive and long-term housing after they are released.
A permanent residence provides excellent comfort and lessens uncertainty for many people undergoing a difficult reentry phase. It accomplishes this on two levels: first, by giving physical shelter and safety. Individuals can be better positioned to reintegrate into other areas, such as work, substance addiction treatment, and family reunification, once they have stable housing (Fahmy et al. 2022). Residents no longer have to fight with time and mental resources to find shelter or temporary housing. According to studies, former convicts who are granted housing aid spend less time engaged in negative behaviours such as substance misuse and more time in practical activities such as jobs than people experiencing homelessness (Collins 2021). Stable residences will also provide access to social services and monitoring. Individuals with permanent addresses can quickly contact healthcare professionals, reentry case managers, and parole officers. This ensures increased mutual involvement in rehabilitative services and community support. Lee et al.’s (Donato-Sandoval (2023) systematic review compared 15 controlled and quasi-experimental research on the effects of housing initiatives on recently released inmates. The study revealed that 12 of the 15 studies (80%) had a substantial impact on rearrest rates, re-commitment offences, or rearrests over one to three-year follow-up periods compared to control groups who did not get housing support (Goger et al. 2021).
On a larger scale, those who participate in any form of housing program are 8% less likely to be rearrested than those who do not. Nonetheless, the impact on the homeless population varied according to the type of shelter and the length of stay (Gibbs et al. 2023). Reintegration programs that provided permanent supportive housing, unrestricted rental assistance, and case management resulted in a 12% drop in recidivism rates. The 42% decrease was far more significant than the 5% drop observed with time-limited transitional housing services such as homeless shelters. Permanent housing prevents criminal recidivism and community alienation, providing more stable and constant support than other housing types (Doyle et al. 2022).
Effective combination strategies include permanent housing, individualized case management, and treatment programs. A randomized controlled trial (RCT) conducted in 2020 found that recidivism rates among ex-offenders were 15% lower after two years for those who received systematic housing support and targeted case management upon their release from prison compared to those who received standard reintegration services (Byrne 2020). It emphasizes the significance of an integrated system that considers accommodation demands in conjunction with employment, mental health care, and other essentials.
Discussion
After analyzing recent experimental and quasi-experimental studies, the authors concluded that housing support and in-prison employment interventions were effective in decreasing recidivism rates. While the study suggests that employment initiatives reduce the likelihood of recidivism by 9–15% within a year to three years, this may not hold because the impact of various program types on recidivism varies. The article discusses multiple inmate rehabilitation programs that have demonstrated efficacy in reducing the rate of recidivism (Byrne, 2020). Job readiness training, encompassing soft skills development and assistance with interview preparation and resume writing, addresses the primary challenges reintegrated offenders encounter (Goger et al., 2021). The primary goal of these programs is to teach job seekers the essentials of pursuing employment, which provides an opportunity to earn money while avoiding the temptations of crime. GED and adult education programs are similar in that they help participants obtain the most basic educational certifications employers require. This finding is consistent with existing research. Gibbs et al. (2023) assert that to offer a career and open doors to prestigious businesses, advanced education is viewed as a re-offending reduction tactic. Vocational trade certification programs in sectors such as construction, food service, and computer technology prepare participants for employment by providing specialized skills targeted to fill local labour market gaps. It gives life to sustainable roadways that offer consistent work, careers, and economic independence, which are significantly required. Applying previously obtained skills facilitates and expedites the transition to employment. The evidence reflects broader trends highlighting the value of educational and vocational programs to support incarcerated individuals’ rehabilitation and labour market prospects.
Individuals enrolled in assistance programs, such as subsidies, temporary supportive housing, or permanent housing, experienced a more substantial decline in recidivism, with rates ranging from 12 to 8 per cent, as opposed to the figure that accompanied their release from incarceration. The results of this study are consistent with reentry research concepts that emphasize the necessity for most inmates to have stable and secure lodging, in addition to other essential amenities that facilitate their reintegration into society (Schwartz et al. 2020). It is widely acknowledged that a correlation exists between a lack of substantial mobility and the likelihood of rearrest.
Additionally, housing insecurity can impede access to additional programs and services. This fundamental state of affairs establishes a conducive environment for an individual to participate in other significant Soviet concerns, including professional growth, treatment for substance abuse, and mental health provision. This “housing first” concept states that offering housing outside the system is the first important thing. This is because individuals experiencing hardships will not be able to heal until they can entirely reside in an adequate home.
In addition, it was observed that between 8 and 12 percent of those receiving housing aid were also involved in housing (Fahmy et al. 2022). It is clear from this that even temporary housing for a short period can give stability at a vulnerable period immediately following release. Nevertheless, the outcomes are more favourable when a longer-term, stable, supportive housing arrangement is utilized. The residents will likely be more stable when wraparound services are available, which is a possible explanation. This finding closely aligns with a research study by Collins (2021), who asserted that a permanent supportive housing arrangement alleviates the stress of not knowing where to live, which speeds up the process of transitioning to a living situation in which one is self-sufficient. Here, a convicted felon has the opportunity to receive the education, employment, medical care, and addiction treatment that they require to put an end to their criminal behaviour for good. It has been demonstrated by the findings of this research that housing offers a secure foundation for long-term readmission.
Conclusion
In summary, this last line demonstrates that investing in work experience, housing, and integrated support networks offers a ray of hope for breaking the intergenerational cycle of recidivism. By effectively implementing initiatives that provide housing and employment opportunities, they would improve the living conditions of millions of individuals, families, and communities impacted by the justice system across the nation.
Providing secure lodging and gainful employment provides ex-offenders with the fundamental material, psychological, and social necessities required for a successful reintegration process after being confined in an institution. Sustained jobs and a stable living environment provide individuals with the means to engage in recovery, cultivate a prosocial inclination, and forge healthy interpersonal connections. Therefore, this is the enabler of sustained abstinence from criminal activities.
Families possess the benefit of reducing the likelihood of recidivism, thereby disrupting intergenerational cycles of involvement in the criminal justice system that is detrimental to the community. It enables individuals to faithfully carry out the responsibilities of being a parent, companion, spouse, or husband or wife. Additionally, stable employment contributes to the development of one’s financial situation, which is crucial for the health and growth of one’s offspring.
Redirecting recidivism at the community level alleviates prison expenses’ human and financial strain. Nevertheless, the most dangerous types of offenders continue to be isolated from society; anyway, the circumstances may be altered to allow for the rehabilitation and potential healing of a substantial portion of them. Improving the average number of community members entering and exiting correctional facilities leads to a corresponding augmentation of social capital.
Recommendations
Corrections departments should collaborate with adult education providers, community colleges, and local employers to offer in-demand certifications, GED/high school diploma programs, job readiness and skills training, extend access to vocational training, and address educational barriers. Policymakers can allocate funds for workforce development to target individuals involved in the justice system, specifically via coordinated reentry initiatives (Sulmeisters and Pasko 2021). Enhancing employability-oriented evidence-based training must be expanded immediately.
Federal, state, and local policymakers ought to allocate substantially more funds towards transitional housing support and permanent supportive housing to foster stability throughout the reentry process. Housing aid mitigates poverty’s dangers and provides the foundation to concentrate on rehabilitation (Donato-Sandoval, 2023). Funding should support programs that provide wraparound services tailored to the reentry population’s requirements.
Instead of implementing isolated interventions, service providers should implement coordinated strategies integrating housing, healthcare, counselling, case management, peer support, and other programming. This integrated model is expected to tackle interrelated obstacles to reentry effectively and ensure the sustained provision of care required to achieve long-term resistance (Goger et al. 2021). Establishing a collaborative, multifaceted approach as the norm is imperative.
Reference List
Byrne, J.M., 2020. The effectiveness of prison programming: A review of the research literature examining the impact of federal, state, and local inmate programming on post-release recidivism. Fed. Probation, 84, p.3.
Collins, H., 2021. Increasing Educational Prison Programs to Help Reduce Recidivism.
Donato-Sandoval, L.A., 2023. Effectiveness of Prison Interventions for Inmate Reintegration After Release From the Perspective of Former Offenders (Doctoral dissertation, Alliant International University).
Doyle, C., Yates, S., Bartels, L., Hopkins, A. and Taylor, H., 2022. “People say you’re going home, but I don’t have a home”: Housing After Prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, p.0306624X221132226.
Fahmy, C., Gricius, M., Chamberlain, A.W. and Wallace, D., 2022. Prison visitation and the likelihood of post-release employment. Crime & Delinquency, 68(12), pp.2200-2224.
Fowler, D., 2020. A Reentry System Designed to Fail: What’s Needed is a New Theology—American Baptist Seminary of the West.
Gibbs, D., Stockings, E., Larney, S., Bromberg, D.J., Shakeshaft, A. and Farnbach, S., 2023. The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic literature review. Harm Reduction Journal, 20(1), p.91.
Gibbs, D., Stockings, E., Larney, S., Bromberg, D.J., Shakeshaft, A. and Farnbach, S., 2023. The impact of supported accommodation on health and criminal justice outcomes of people released from prison: a systematic.
Goger, A., Harding, D.J. and Henderson, H., 2021. Rethinking prisoner reentry. Contexts, 20(4), pp.46-51.
Lebbie, K.H., 2021. An Examination of the Relationship between Rehabilitation and Recidivism.
Maruna, S., 2020. Can the Rehabilitative Ideal Survive the Age of Trump? Beyond Recidivism: New Approaches to Research on Prisoner Reentry and Reintegration, p.315.
Newman, M. and Gough, D., 2020. Systematic reviews in educational research: Methodology, perspectives and application. Systematic reviews in academic research: Methodology, perspectives and application, pp.3-22.
Pandey, P. and Pandey, M.M., 2021. Research methodology tools and techniques. Bridge Center.
Phillips, S.P., 2021. Incarceration, Education, Transformation: The Importance of Higher Education and Reentry Inside Prison Walls (Doctoral dissertation, Azusa Pacific University).
Schwartz, M., Russell, S., Baldry, E., Brown, D., Cunneen, C. and Stubbs, J., 2020. Obstacles to practical support of people released from prison.
Sulmeisters, M.L. and Pasko, L.J., 2021. Recidivism: A Case Study of Reentry Resources and their Impact on Successful Reentry Post-Incarceration. DU Undergraduate Research Journal Archive, 2(1), p.1.
write