User:Mestratts20/Prisoner reentry

Article Draft

Lead:

Prisoner reentry is the process by which prisoners who have been released return to the community. Many types of programs have been implemented with the goal of reducing recidivism and have been found to be effective for this purpose. Consideration for the conditions of the communities formerly incarcerated individuals are re-entering, which are often disadvantaged, is a fundamental part of successful re-entry.

A 2006 study done by the Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation statistically evaluated the effectiveness of prisoner reentry programs on the criteria scale of working, not working, promising, and unknown. Findings classify employment-oriented programs as working, drug rehabilitation programs as working, educational programs as promising, and halfway house programs as working.

A 2015 article from The New York Times Magazine commented, "It wasn't until the mid-2000s that this looming 'prisoner re-entry crisis' became a fixation of sociologists and policy makers, generating a torrent of research, government programs, task forces, nonprofit initiatives and conferences now known as the 're-entry movement'." At the end of 2001, there were approximately 5.6 million U.S. adults who had been in the incarceration system. By the end of 2004, more than 3% of U.S. adults were incarcerated or on probation or parole. With prisons becoming overcrowded, there is more political focus on depopulating prisons. In 2016, approximately 600,000 individuals were released from prison and millions were in and out of county jail systems.

The abrupt re-entrance into society means formerly incarcerated individuals require support to reintegrate. The United States federal government allocates some funding for re-entry programs, but there is currently a lack of sufficient resources. Re-entry programs are now receiving more attention from public policy and criminal justice scholars.

Article body:

There are different types of re-entry programs. They can focus on assisting with employment, securing stable housing, or providing healthcare services. Some programs serve sub-sectors of the formerly incarcerated population such as women or juveniles.

Edit/ Replace^:

There are different types of re-entry programs that aim to help formerly incarcerated individuals transition back into society. These programs come in different forms to meet specific needs and challenges faced by returning citizens. Education and vocational training programs are important in equipping individuals with the necessary skills for reintegration. GED programs and college classes provide academic support, allowing participants to earn diplomas or pursue higher education. Similarly, vocational training programs offer practical skills in trades like carpentry, welding, and automotive repair, improving job opportunities after release. Re-entry programs also focus on securing stable housing, healthcare services, and some programs serve sub-sectors of the formerly incarcerated population such as women or juveniles. By addressing these challenges, re-entry programs aim to empower individuals and reduce recidivism rates, promoting successful community reintegration.

Edit:(Add before employment):

Education and Vocational Training Programs for Reentry:

Recently, there has been a growing recognition of the importance of education and vocational training for prisoners reintegrating into society. These programs, along with efforts to address employment, housing, and healthcare, are crucial in equipping incarcerated individuals with the skills and qualifications needed for successful community reintegration. Many correctional institutions now offer educational opportunities like GED programs and college classes, providing inmates with academic skills and qualifications necessary for further education or employment after release. Vocational training programs within prisons also offer practical skills and certifications, these programs not only provide inmates with valuable hands-on experience and industry-specific knowledge but also help reduce the likelihood of reoffending by fostering a sense of purpose and self-worth. Empowering incarcerated individuals with education and vocational skills not only improves their chances of a successful transition back into society but can also contributes to long-term public safety.

GED Programs and College Classes:

Prison education programs are gaining traction in research on reducing recidivism rates. On average, around $12 million is allocated to correctional education programs across all states.These programs have the potential to increase an inmate's structured time during incarceration and help them find employment or pursue higher education after release. These benefits should ultimately lead to a decrease in subsequent offending. Most prisons offer GED classes, vocational training, apprenticeships, and even college classes that can help inmates earn degrees after release. Studies have shown that these education programs have positive outcomes for inmates and cost taxpayers very little. In fact, investing $1,149 in education can save taxpayers over $5,800 in crime-prevention resources.

Studies indicate that participating in such programs reduces the likelihood of reoffending. Some states, like Ohio, mandate these programs to address inmates' educational needs and facilitate successful reentry at a low cost. Recent research has focused on the effectiveness of these programs, showing lower recidivism rates for participants. However, while postsecondary programs consistently show benefits, the effectiveness of GED programs varies.

Efforts to evaluate these programs are increasing, but further research on outcomes is necessary. Ohio's prison education programs, part of the reentry-focused initiative, offer incentives for participation and completion, potentially reducing sentence lengths. Overall, these programs play a crucial role in addressing the educational needs of incarcerated individuals and reducing recidivism rates.

Vocational Training:

The National Institute of Justice Crime Solutions website contains information from a study on Corrections-Based Vocational Training Programs. Vocational training programs in correctional facilities aim to help incarcerated individuals with job skills, reducing their chances of reoffending and improving their chances of employment after release. These programs cover various industries like carpentry, electrical work, cooking, and auto repair. By teaching valuable skills, vocational training not only prepares individuals for work but also keeps them busy with productive activities, which can help reduce behavioral issues in prison. However, despite the potential benefits, participation rates in these programs may be dropping due to reasons like lack of awareness, interest, or funding.

Several studies have shown that vocational training is effective in lowering recidivism rates and increasing employment opportunities. discovered that inmates who participated in vocational training were much less likely to reoffend compared to those who didn't, with a significant 12.6 percent decrease in recidivism rates among participants. Similarly, Davis and his team reported that vocational education programs significantly increased the chances of finding a job after release, with participants being twice as likely to secure employment compared to non-participants.

Different institutions may have different requirements for vocational training programs. These requirements can include factors like age, current offense, time until release, and educational background. Some facilities may even require individuals to have a high school diploma or GED before they can participate in vocational training. Overall, vocational training programs are important because they provide incarcerated individuals with the opportunity to gain employment skills and reintegrate into society successfully. This ultimately helps to reduce the likelihood of reoffending and improves public safety.

Integration into Existing Reentry Programs:

Integrating prison education programs in reentry initiatives is essential for meeting the educational needs of incarcerated individuals and lowering recidivism rates. These programs, like those in Ohio, offer incentives for participation and completion, potentially shortening sentences. By addressing criminogenic needs and offering structured education and training, these programs help inmates prepare for successful reentry into society. Research shows that education and employment play key roles in reducing reoffending. The positive outcomes linked to program participation highlight their significance in aiding the transition from incarceration to community life.Therefore, integrating prison education programs into reentry initiatives is a promising approach to breaking the cycle of recidivism and supporting successful rehabilitation and reintegration.

References:

Brazzell, Diana, Anna Crayton, Debbie A. Mukamal, Amy L. Solomon, and Nicole Lindahl. 2009. From the Classroom to the Community: Exploring the Role of Education During Incarceration and Reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute (NIJ).

Aos, Steve and Elizabeth Drake. 2013. Prison, Police, and Programs: Evidence-Based Options that Reduce Crime and Save Money (Doc. No. 13-11-1901). Olympia: Washington State Institute for Public Policy

Batiuk, Mary E., Karen F. Lahm, Matthew McKeever, Norma Wilcox, and Pamela C. Wilcox. 2005. Disentangling the effects of correctional education: Are current policies misguided? An event history analysis. Criminal Justice, 5: 55–74.

Harlow, Caroline W. 2003. Education and Correctional Populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Pompoco, A., Wooldredge, J., Lugo, M., Sullivan, C., & Latessa, E. J. (2017). Reducing Inmate Misconduct and Prison Returns with Facility Education Programs. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(2), 515–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12290

https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ratedpractices/24#8-0

WILSON, D. B., GALLAGHER, C. A., & MacKENZIE, D. L. (2000). A Meta-Analysis of Corrections-Based Education, Vocation, and Work Programs for Adult Offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37(4), 347-368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427800037004001

https://bjs.ojp.gov/

Aos, Steve, Polly Phipps, Robert Barnoksi, and Roxanne Lieb. 2001. The Comparative Costs and Benefits of Programs to Reduce Crime, Version 4.0. Olympia, Wash.: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. (This meta-analysis was reviewed but did not meet CrimeSolutions criteria for inclusion in the overall outcome rating.)

http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/costbenefit.pdf

Davis, Lois M., Jennifer L. Steele, Robert Bozick, Malcolm V. Williams, Susan Turner, Jeremy N. V. Miles, Jessica Saunders, and Paul S. Steinberg, How Effective Is Correctional Education, and Where Do We Go from Here? The Results of a Comprehensive Evaluation. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2014. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR564.html.

Lawrence, Sarah, Daniel P. Mears, Glenn Dubin, and Jeremy Travis. 2002. The Practice and Promise of Prison Programming. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute.

https://www.urban.org/research/publication/practice-and-promise-prison-programming