Recidivism Reduction and Improvement of Offender Reintegration in the Society
Once prisoners are released, they often face a challenging environment that actively deters them to become productive in society. Their reintegration into the society is mostly ineffective. For example, they may not be offered jobs owing to their past criminal record. In most instances, this forces them to re-offend, and consequently, they are rearrested. Recidivism and poor reintegration are aspects that should be corrected in the criminal justice system using policy reforms and in-jail and community-based support systems because this guarantees that they will become meaningful and productive members of the society while minimize reoffending rates. To expound on the thesis statement, three sources were analyzed, including Yamatani and Spjeldnes’ (2011) peer-reviewed article, Warren’s (2007) law review article, and (c) Love and Schlussel’s (2019) policy source. The paper covers policy reforms that would cut recidivism and promote reintegration, as well as explains why community and in-jail rehabilitation and community services are essential in eliminating recidivism. The paper first analyses how in-jail, community, and social services are essential in mitigating recidivism by providing an analysis of Yamatani and Spjel’s (2011) peer-reviewed article. Next, the paper highlights vital policy reforms to combat recidivism and promote inmate reintegration in society. Finally, the paper specifies how released prisoners can be given a fair chance and how barriers of offender reintegration can be eliminated.
In-jail and community-based support systems are critical in offenders’ recidivism reduction and promotion of effective reintegration into the community. Yamatani and Spjel (2011) conducted a three-year study, investigating collaboration-based inmate services along with the accompanying postrelease transitional services delivered by the Allegheny County Jail Collaborative. Since it is a peer-reviewed scholarly article, the content was of high quality and the primary data was expansive enough to draw accurate conclusions. Qualified experts approved the data. The authors argued that postrelease community and social services, as well as in-jail services, were effective in lowering the recidivism rate among the inmates who participated in their study and promoted successful reintegration into the community. These services were beneficial to released inmates. For instance, 12 months after release, the inmates who participated in the study had a “50% lower recidivism rate” compared to those in the “comparison group, who were unexposed to the intervention” (Yamatani & Spjel, 2011, p. 53). Benefits accrued could potentially save the county $5.3 million yearly and help develop community-based support factors for released offenders, including legal employment, stable housing, and positive social support. The implication for the study was that the provision of these community support systems is essential in enhancing their life via job training programs, stressing the need for community support systems.
Sentencing policies focused on the reduction of recidivism and promotion of reintegration should also be reviewed and necessary reforms implemented. Warren (2007) wrote a lengthy law review paper in which evaluated the evidence-based practices from 20 sources for reforming sentencing policy to curb recidivism. This helped triangulate vital points worth consideration in the formulation of sentencing policy. Warren (2007) called for the adoption of effective sentencing policies to promote lower recidivism rates and advocated for the elimination of long-time incarceration for offenders who do not pose a substantial danger to their communities. The author also highlighted state policies that would significantly reduce recidivism cases. For example, Warren (2007) stressed the inclusion of recidivism reduction and risk reduction as key objectives for formulating sentencing policy. Additionally, the researcher called for the use of actuarial risk assessment when sentencing, such as determining suitable conditions of probation and offender’s eligibility for diversion. The author also recommended the creation of offender-based data and support systems in sentencing to provide actuarially sound assessments to determine the likelihood of re-offending under a variety of sentencing scenarios (Warren, 2007). Furthermore, Warren (2007) called for the adoption of policies that promote the development of community-based correction programs and rehabilitation services, for example, drug abuse treatment centers to address the criminogenic needs of offenders. The article implied that recidivism can only be controlled using both policy revisions and collaboration of community-based services, local criminal justice entities, and social support systems which is crucial in improving incarceration and sentencing policies.
Giving released prisoners a fair chance and removal of barriers of offender reintegration into the community can promote recidivism reduction and can easily help them become meaningful societal members. Love and Schlussel’s (2019) policy document was initiated by the Collateral Consequences Resource Center, a not-for-profit organization that promotes public engagement in issues of arrest, and how to obtain relief from collateral impacts in different law jurisdictions. The document is relevant for this paper since the authors analyzed relevant laws, bills, and state criminal reform policies geared towards the reduction of recidivism across the US. The researchers also considered peer-reviewed and law review articles. Love and Schlussel (2019) highlight the need to give a fair chance to offenders once released to promote reintegration and rehabilitation, which reduces the barriers of integration. They pointed out some policy reforms that improved state criminal justice systems, such as extending offense categories, reducing the waiting periods, and simplifying procedures. Other positive state policy adoptions include banning public employers inquiring about criminal records in the early hiring stages in Washington, Michigan, and Kansas, as well as the establishment of clemency board that recommends to the President Pardon applications in the District of Columbia. For successful reintegration, the authors argue that occupational licensing for those with a criminal record is essential by limiting records that need to be considered and establishing criteria for making administrative decisions, which can significantly improve offender reintegration in the society. Furthermore, the restoration of rights is necessary so that offenders can perform their duties in the community. Hence, the policy document shows that states should implement the policy reforms to significantly reduce recidivism and promote offender reintegration in the community and provide offenders a fair chance once they are released.
The authors of all scholarly works contributed to writing this paper and revealed the adoption of in-jail and community services, as well as reforming policies to promote proper sentencing and reintegration is critical in reducing recidivism. The scholarly and law review articles by Yamatani and Spjeldnes (2011) and Warrens’ (2007) respectively had a structured data analysis approach and helped draw accurate conclusions since other experts reviewed the articles to ensure that data was accurate and reliable. The only disadvantage is that they usually take long before approval and they are not up-to-date as compared to the policy document by Love and Schlussel’s (2019). This source was essential for the paper since research reviewed the policies across all states and highlighted the current trends in the field. The combined contribution of the resources is justification for that policy reforms and collaborative social services are necessary for reducing recidivism rates and promoting offender reintegration in society. States that have implemented policies inclined to these views have already registered positive outcomes as offenders can obtain jobs and be productive. Accordingly, they are less likely to engage in drug and substance abuse, reducing the likelihood of recidivism. Without being revised, state policies can cause systemic legal and societal barriers for ex-offenders, which call for reforms and reintegrating them via community and in-jail support services.
In conclusion, community-based support systems for released offenders positively impact reintegration into society for released offenders, including legal employment, stable housing, and positive social support. Policy reforms also play a significant role in controlling recidivism. Use of actuarial risk assessment when sentencing, accurate data and information, and judicial education will lead to better informed decisions when sentencing. In addition, state criminal justice systems should adopt policy reforms based on best practices available, such as extending offense categories, reducing the waiting periods, and simplifying procedures. Therefore, reduction in recidivism rates and improvement of the reintegration of offenders in society can be achieved via policy reforms and adoption of collaborative social services.
References
Love, M. & Schlussel, D. (2019, March). Reducing barriers to reintegration: Fair chance and expungement reforms in 2018 2019. Collateral Consequences Resource Center. Retrieved 1 March, 2020 from http://ccresourcecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Fair-chance-and-expungement-reforms-in-2018-CCRC-Jan-2019.pdf
Warren, R. K. (2007). Evidence-based practices and state sentencing policy: Ten policy initiatives to reduce recidivism. Indiana Law Journal, 82(5), 1307-1318.
Yamatani, H., & Spjeldnes, S. (2011). Saving our criminal justice system: The efficacy of a collaborative social service. Social Work, 56(1), 53-61. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/56.1.53
