Module 7
Reintegration Barriers
a. Putting Employment Reentry in Context
Practical experience and empirical research teach us that work and crime
interconnect in complex ways, but there are things we know for sure: People leaving
prison want to work. People leaving prison face significant barriers to work. Most
important, people with jobs commit fewer crimes than people without jobs, and the
sooner formerly incarcerated people start working, the better.
Employment Reentry and Public Safety: High unemployment rates, before
incarceration and before violation of conditions of probation and parole, strongly
suggest that unemployment contributes heavily to the cycle of incarceration
experienced by so many involved in the criminal justice system. This phenomenon
hurts not only former inmates but also their families and the communities to which
they belong, creating neighborhood-wide crises in large urban centers such as New
York City, areas where 30% of the adult male population may be incarcerated at any
given time. Not surprisingly, these are the neighborhoods where unemployment rates
are the highest. Finding employment can play a crucial role in breaking this cycle and
reducing recidivism, creating more stable individuals and communities.
Employment Reentry, Joblessness, and Poverty. National workforce
development strategy aims to help hard-to-employ people who are jobless and living
in poverty. According to Harlow (as cited in Solomon, 2004), there is widespread
unemployment among African American men, many of whom have criminal
convictions, and among young people with limited education. Here employment
reentry can play a vital role: More than 90% of prison inmates are male, 63% are
Black or Hispanic, more than half are between the ages of 18 and 34, and
approximately 40% have no GED or high school diploma according to Harlow (as
cited in Solomon, 2004). Finally, there is an increasingly limited number of low- and
middle-skill jobs that are open to people with criminal records, and employers are
reluctant to hire people with convictions.
Employment Reentry, Children, and Families: Focusing on Fathers. In some
significant ways, welfare-to-work policies and programs are evolving into prison-to-
work policies and programs (Travis, 2007). National policy efforts to improve the
lives of children and reduce reliance on government funding started by focusing on
helping mothers on welfare enter the labor market. Today, those efforts are focusing
on helping formerly incarcerated fathers do the same (Husock, 2008). Seven million
children in America currently have a father involved in the criminal justice system (in
prison or jail, on parole, or on probation) (Mumola, 2006); meeting these fathers’
employment needs also improves the well-being of their children.
What do we know about the relationship between work and the cycle of
crime? This much, at least: The absence of employment is a consistent factor in
recidivism and parole or probation violations, and having a criminal history limits
employment opportunities and depresses wages (Holzer, 1996). In New York State,
labor statistics show that 89% of formerly incarcerated people who violate the terms
of their probation or parole are unemployed at the time of violation (Mukamal, 2000).
Further research suggests that 1 year after release, up to 60% of former inmates are
not employed. Nationally, according to a study by Bushway and Reuter (as cited in
Solomon, 2004), one in three incarcerated people reported being unemployed before
entering state prison, and fewer than half had a job lined up before release.
A disproportionate share of inmates have health, mental health, and substance
abuse problems that greatly complicate their chances of employment. Approximately
21% of prisoners report having some condition that limits their ability to work,
compared with 11% of all people who report such a condition nationwide (Freeman,
2003). Employment rates among young men who had previously been incarcerated
are estimated to be approximately 20 to 25 percentage points lower than those of their
non–criminal justice involved counterparts (Freeman, 1992). After they enter the job
market, former prisoners often earn less than other workers with comparable
demographics (Western, 2002). Time spent in prison severs ties to employers, making
it more difficult to make connections to work upon release (Solomon, 2004). Time in
prison may strengthen ties to antisocial peer groups and thereby limit awareness of or
access to legitimate work opportunities (Solomon, 2004).
Although a number of compelling findings support the claim that employment
reduces recidivism, Petersilia (2004), one of the foremost experts in the field, cautions
that some evaluations are not as rigorous as others. Some evaluations are limited by
their focus on recidivism as the only outcome criterion (Petersilia, 2004) or are biased
by selectivity (Uggen, 2000). Without a broader focus on other impacts such as
employment (as measured by whether people are working, whether the work is full or
part time, and whether income derived is supporting families), research may not be as
relevant to practice as it could be (Petersilia, 2004).
A qualitative research study conducted by the CEO Learning Institute, the
research and evaluation arm of CEO, relies on in-depth qualitative interviews and
focus groups and quantitative analyses of program data to illustrate some of the most
pressing challenges facing formerly incarcerated people as they try to remain
employed. The study, using first-hand accounts of the reentry experience, finds
common ground with the existing quantitative literature and concludes that people
coming home from prison want to work and support their families but face significant
personal and structural barriers as they attempt a successful transition from prison to
the workplace. Bryan, Haldipur, and Williams (2008) observe that “formerly
incarcerated people want to work. They want to make a better life for their children
and families. However, they lack the networks, skills, experience, and ultimately
opportunities to do so—in part due to race, in part due to class, and in part due to their
criminal conviction”. Researchers have studied the attitudes of employers toward
people with criminal records. Bryan et al.’s interviews complement these findings by
revealing the attitude of the job seeker with a criminal record, noting that “one of the
most difficult and often overlooked struggles formerly incarcerated people face is
coming to terms with what they did in their past and understanding how much their
conviction could affect their ability to get a job and earn a decent living” and pointing
out that “nearly all of the participants who engaged in the study expressed a great deal
of anxiety over how they would discuss their criminal background on a job interview,
and who would hire them”. Finally, as Bloom and others note, Bryan et al.’s
interviews support the importance of the nonprofit community’s role in bridging gaps
and developing employment opportunities to help formerly incarcerated people
connect to the labor market.
In 2006, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg appointed a Commission for Economic
Opportunity to address poverty in New York City. The Commission’s report puts
poverty into a historical context, noting that New York City and other large urban
centers tend to have poverty rates above the national average but that New York and
other cities’ poverty levels are affected by the same macroeconomic factors that have
contributed to poverty throughout the country. The following is an example of how
joblessness and poverty intersect with employment reentry. Using New York City as
an example, it provides a clear picture as to how these issues are interrelated.
The Community Service Society (CSS), a nonprofit organization that engages
in advocacy, research, and direct service to improve conditions among low-income
New Yorkers, produces an annual report focusing on employment and job-holding
rates of New Yorkers. The CSS reports use two specific measurements: the commonly
used unemployment rate and another, arguably more accurate measurement, the
employment–population ratio. There is an important distinction between the two. The
unemployment rate captures only people who are jobless, seeking work, and unable to
find it; the employment– population ratio includes those looking for work and those
not looking. It provides a more accurate picture of who is jobless. In other words, the
employment–population ratio directly measures the share of the working-age
population that is actually holding a job.
When the economy slows down, Blacks are more susceptible to job loss and
have a greater difficulty finding employment. In 2003, the unemployment rate for
New York City was 8.3%, the highest rate since 1997 (New York State Department of
Labor, 2008). Examining gender and racial groups, about one half (51.8%) of New
York’s Black men were employed in 2003; by comparison, 57.1% of the city’s Black
women and 75.7% of New York’s White men were working in that year (Levitan,
2005). This is further indicated by the Black unemployment rate jump, by 5.3
percentage points to 12.9%, in 2003. The unemployment rate for Whites, by contrast,
rose 2.6 percentage points to 6.2%. The result of these changes was a widening of the
Black–White disparity from 3.9 percentage points in 2000 to 6.7 percentage points in
2003. The employment– population ratio for Black men was the lowest for all periods
ever studied by CSS, dating back to 1979.
Age and Education. To further investigate the relationship between
employment, age, and education, it is helpful to compare changes in employment
rates and ratios in two different years. In 2000, the unemployment rate in New York
City was 5.8%; in 2006 the rate was 5% (New York State Department of Labor,
2008). In a report, the CSS compares 2000 to 2006 and notes that the employment–
population ratio for young people, Black and Hispanic men, and less educated men
declined during the period. While there was a decrease in overall unemployment in
the city, there was a tremendous drop in the job-holding rate among young people
ages 16–24 (from 44.1% in 2000 to 34.6% in 2006), largely attributable to a 7.9
percentage point drop in the employment–population ratio among young people
disconnected from school (Levitan, 2007). Since 2006, teen unemployment rates have
continued a steady decline, nationally, at a rate of more than 3% per year (Sum,
McLaughlin, Khatiwada, & Palma, 2008). Unemployment rates for people with less
than a high school diploma were 6.5%, compared with the citywide unemployment
rate of 4.9% in 2006.
Industries. The CSS points out that industries traditionally dominated by men,
such as manufacturing, finance, and professional services, are particularly sensitive to
economic cycles (Levitan, 2004). All these sectors suffered large declines in
employment from 2000 to 2003 (Levitan, 2007). According to the New York State
Department of Labor, manufacturing, construction, trade, and utilities—all
traditionally male jobs—continued to experience some of the highest rates of job loss
in later years. Nationally, the construction and manufacturing trades experienced
steady declines in employment that remain today (U.S. Department of Labor, 2009).
Of the more than 6.6 million people in the United States under criminal justice
supervision, more than 2.8 million are fathers (Mumola, 2006). Since 1991, the
number of parents incarcerated in state or federal prisons has increased by 79%
(Mason & Williams-Mbengue, 2008). This accounts for 7 million children who have a
parent involved in the criminal justice system (Mumola, 2006). Children of
incarcerated parents face many obstacles, including financial hardship and social and
academic struggles (Mason & WilliamsMbengue, 2008). Possibly the most sobering
statistic is that children of incarcerated parents are six times more likely than other
youth to end up in prison at some point in their lives (Mumola, 2006). Helping parents
returning home from prison reconnect with their children and support their families
will help not only this generation of young people but generations to come.
New York City’s CEO (2006), appointed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg in
2006, noted in their report to the mayor, “Since welfare reform was mainly targeted to
help single mothers with children find employment, there has been a gap in programs
that target men in the same way” (p. 7). Similarly, Harry Holzer and Paul Offner
(2002) of Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute emphasize that there are
1.9 million men behind bars, and 70% of Black children are growing up with a single
parent. They further emphasize that the next big challenge for welfare reform is to try
to reach these men.
Prisoner reentry has much to learn from welfare-to-work, and the welfare
population has characteristics similar to the formerly incarcerated population that
make them hard to employ: low educational attainment, sporadic work histories, and
mental health and medical problems (Solomon, 2004). There is a similar debate about
work policies and the need to balance a quick connection to the labor market (a work-
first approach) with adequate training and preparation to enter the workforce.
Specific provisions for employment reentry in the Second Chance Act include
mentoring in the community and the workplace to address the challenges faced by
formerly incarcerated people. The Second Chance Act also calls for providing job
training and job placement services, including work readiness activities, job referrals,
basic skill remediation, educational services, occupational skill training, on-the-job
training, work experience, and postplacement support. The act will also provide
outreach, orientation, intake, assessments, counseling, case management, and other
transitional services, including prerelease outreach and orientation after release from
incarceration.
Employment Reentry and Fiscal Policy. Public safety is among the most
visceral topics in politics. Most people in positions of power are reluctant to seem soft
on crime or make decisions that reduce public safety spending, for fear that they will
be blamed on future election days if something goes wrong (Campbell, 2003). So
there was a boom in corrections spending throughout the country in the 1980s and
1990s as government and the public stood behind “tough-on-crime” policies.
However, as corrections spending grew, other important public needs went unmet. In
fact, between 1985 and 2000 the increase in state spending on corrections was nearly
twice the increase in spending on higher education ($20 billion vs. $10.7 billion), and
the total increase in spending on higher education by states was 24%, compared with
166% for corrections.
b. Barriers To Improving Employment Reentry Outcomes
Employment reentry is a significant policy issue that, if addressed, could have
far-reaching implications for people with criminal convictions, their families, and the
communities in which they live. So what is stopping us from tackling this issue on a
broad scale? Part of the answer lies in the significant barriers public policymakers and
practitioners face in their efforts to move formerly incarcerated people into the
workforce. These barriers can be looked at from the supply side (i.e., addressing the
limitations of the formerly incarcerated job seeker) and the demand side (i.e., meeting
the needs of the employer). This has looked at many of the supply-side barriers of
most people with criminal convictions: limited employment skills and work
experience, low educational attainment, high levels of health and substance abuse
problems, and child support and other family obligations.
The reluctance among employers to hire individuals with criminal records
represents a complex and multifaceted issue influenced by various factors, including
legal uncertainties, societal stigmas, and industry-specific regulations. Addressing this
reluctance requires a comprehensive approach that not only addresses the lack of
education and awareness among employers but also tackles systemic barriers to fair
chance hiring and promotes inclusive practices within the workforce.
One significant contributing factor to employer reluctance is a lack of
education and awareness about the laws and regulations governing the hiring of
individuals with criminal records. Many employers may be unaware of their rights
and responsibilities under federal, state, and local laws regarding fair chance hiring,
ban the box legislation, and anti-discrimination protections. As a result, they may err
on the side of caution, assuming that hiring individuals with criminal records poses
legal risks or liabilities for their businesses.
Furthermore, societal stigmas and misconceptions surrounding individuals
with criminal records play a significant role in shaping employer attitudes and
behaviors. Negative stereotypes and prejudices about the trustworthiness, reliability,
and competence of justice-involved individuals may lead employers to perceive them
as undesirable or risky hires, regardless of their qualifications or suitability for the
job. These stereotypes are often perpetuated by media portrayals, cultural narratives,
and personal biases, further exacerbating barriers to employment for individuals with
criminal records.
In addition to legal uncertainties and societal stigmas, occupational and
licensure bans in certain industries pose significant obstacles to fair chance hiring.
Many professions and occupations, particularly those requiring professional licensure
or certification, impose blanket bans or restrictions on individuals with criminal
records, regardless of the nature or relevance of their past offenses. These restrictions
not only limit job opportunities for justice-involved individuals but also perpetuate
cycles of poverty, unemployment, and recidivism.
Addressing the reluctance among employers to hire individuals with criminal
records requires targeted efforts to educate, inform, and empower employers to adopt
fair chance hiring practices and policies. This may involve providing training,
resources, and technical assistance to employers on the legal and practical aspects of
hiring individuals with criminal records, as well as dispelling myths and
misconceptions about their employability and contributions to the workforce.
Moreover, initiatives aimed at reducing occupational and licensure barriers for
justice-involved individuals are essential for promoting economic opportunity and
social inclusion. By advocating for reforms to occupational licensing laws, regulatory
agencies, and professional associations, policymakers and advocates can remove
unnecessary barriers to employment and create pathways for justice-involved
individuals to pursue meaningful and rewarding careers in a wide range of industries.
Furthermore, promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion within the workforce
is essential for challenging stereotypes, combatting discrimination, and creating a
more inclusive and supportive environment for individuals with criminal records.
Employers can play a crucial role in fostering a culture of acceptance, second
chances, and redemption by implementing fair chance hiring policies, providing
support and resources for employees with criminal records, and actively challenging
biases and prejudices within their organizations.
In conclusion, addressing the reluctance among employers to hire individuals
with criminal records requires a multi-faceted approach that addresses legal
uncertainties, societal stigmas, and occupational barriers to fair chance hiring. By
educating employers, advocating for policy reforms, and promoting inclusive
practices within the workforce, stakeholders can create more opportunities for justice-
involved individuals to rebuild their lives, contribute to the economy, and realize their
full potential.
In a recentsurvey in the New York City area, 441 people were asked
employmentspecific questions to indicate attitudes and beliefs about employment for
formerly incarcerated people. In response to the statement, “Convicted offenders
should not have the opportunity to compete with non-convicted members of the
community over jobs,” 31.1% said they would somewhat agree, agree, or strongly
agree. Approximately 48% of respondents disagreed. In a second question,
participants were given the statement, “If I am an employer I would not mind hiring a
released offender”; 34.1% somewhat agreed with this statement, and another 20.2%
agreed with it, suggesting people do not automatically object to hiring the formerly
incarcerated. However, it is important to note that although some state they are willing
to hire a person with a criminal conviction, it does not always happen.
Formerly incarcerated people, especially men of color, face widespread
discrimination in the workplace because of their past convictions. Background checks
have become a normal, established part of the hiring process; this is especially true for
low-skilled jobs (Western, 2008). Various studies and focus groups have revealed a
clear bias among employers against hiring people with criminal convictions. Some
employers believe a person with a criminal history is less trustworthy, is more likely
to cause trouble at the job, has a lower work ethic, and will be less productive than
someone without a criminal conviction (Freeman, 2008). A study asked employers in
four major cities whether they would accept an applicant with a criminal record. Just
12.5% of employers said that they would definitely accept such an application, and
25.9% said that they probably would. By contrast, employers had no problem
accepting applications from workers in disadvantaged groups (Holzer, Raphael, &
Stoll, 2003). Employer reluctance to hire those with criminal records might even
cause them to engage broadly in “statistical discrimination against less-educated black
males”
The Global Strategy Group focus sessions confirm what many in the
employment reentry field have long known. Employers are unfamiliar with, or do not
understand, the laws in their states that govern employment discrimination and
negligent hiring standards. Furthermore, there is a lack of awareness of employment
intermediaries that serve people with criminal records, the services they provide, and
the tax and other hiring incentives they can offer. This lack of knowledge is one of the
biggest barriers to employment for people with criminal convictions, strongly
suggesting the need for a communication and information sharing strategy to educate
employers.
Many workers, including daycare workers, nurses, and even manicurists, need
a professional license issued by the state. Employment opportunities are also limited
by occupational and licensure bans for people with convictions, as seen earlier in our
discussion of joblessness among Black men. Some of these bans are federally
promulgated. For example, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
regulates the banking and insurance industries and bars people with felony
convictions from any employment there. The Patriot Act, put in place after the events
of September 11, 2001, places restrictions on employment in airports and railroads
and any jobs involving transportation of hazardous materials. Other bans are set by
state governments and can vary from state to state. In New York, one of the more
progressive states with respect to these bans, there are 30 different occupations from
which the formerly incarcerated either are barred or may be rejected by licensing
authorities solely because of their conviction.
While certain restrictions on hiring individuals with criminal convictions are
undoubtedly necessary, particularly in roles where the nature of the offense directly
relates to the job duties, such as the examples provided of an embezzler working as a
bank teller or a drug dealer employed in a pharmacy, it's important to acknowledge
the complexities and potential drawbacks of overly restrictive hiring practices. While
such restrictions may be intended to protect employers, customers, and the public,
they can also inadvertently perpetuate cycles of unemployment, poverty, and
recidivism among individuals with criminal records.
One of the primary concerns surrounding overly restrictive hiring practices is
their impact on the reintegration and rehabilitation of justice-involved individuals. By
erecting barriers to employment based solely on past convictions, employers may
effectively deny individuals the opportunity to rebuild their lives, support themselves
and their families, and contribute positively to society. This lack of economic
opportunity can increase the likelihood of recidivism, as individuals may feel
compelled to return to illegal activities to meet their financial needs.
Moreover, overly restrictive hiring practices can perpetuate systemic
inequalities and exacerbate existing disparities in access to employment and economic
opportunity. Research has shown that individuals from marginalized communities,
including people of color and low-income individuals, are disproportionately
impacted by the criminal justice system and face greater barriers to employment as a
result. By perpetuating discrimination based on criminal history, employers may
inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of racial and socioeconomic disparities in
the labor market.
Furthermore, overly restrictive hiring practices can have negative
consequences for employers themselves, limiting their pool of qualified candidates
and potentially hindering their ability to attract and retain talent. In industries facing
labor shortages or skill gaps, excluding individuals with criminal records from
consideration may result in missed opportunities to tap into a diverse and untapped
talent pool. Additionally, research has shown that employees with criminal records
can be highly motivated, loyal, and productive workers, particularly when provided
with supportive environments and opportunities for advancement.
In response to these concerns, there has been growing momentum towards
implementing fair chance hiring policies and practices that provide individuals with
criminal records the opportunity to compete for employment based on their
qualifications, skills, and merits rather than their past mistakes. Fair chance hiring
initiatives, such as ban the box laws and second chance programs, aim to remove
barriers to employment for justice-involved individuals and promote their successful
reintegration into the workforce.
Moreover, employers are increasingly recognizing the business case for fair
chance hiring, understanding that tapping into this overlooked talent pool can yield
numerous benefits, including reduced turnover, increased diversity, improved
community relations, and enhanced corporate social responsibility. By embracing
inclusive hiring practices, employers can not only contribute to the rehabilitation and
reintegration of justice-involved individuals but also strengthen their organizations
and communities in the process.
In conclusion, while certain restrictions on hiring individuals with criminal
convictions may be warranted in specific circumstances, overly restrictive practices
can have negative consequences for both individuals with criminal records and
employers. By adopting fair chance hiring policies and practices, employers can
create opportunities for justice-involved individuals to rebuild their lives, contribute
to the workforce, and realize their full potential, while also benefiting from a more
diverse, loyal, and motivated workforce.
c. Individual and Neighborhood Characteristics
An initial barrier for all returning prisoners is the label “convicted felon.”
Those who were convicted of a felony in Florida were more likely to recidivate than
those who were sentenced to probation with a “withholding adjudication” of guilt
finding. The “convicted” label itself shapes recidivism, especially for those who are
otherwise less likely to recidivate, and perhaps they have more to lose by the label.
Those who are most likely to recidivate (men, racial and ethnic minorities, and those
with a more extensive criminal record) are less influenced by conviction.
Beyond the label “ex-prisoner” or “ex-offender,” individual characteristics can
shape one’s likelihood of incarceration and experience after incarceration. Prisoners
are disproportionately male, African American, and from disadvantaged backgrounds.
Black men are the largest percentage (35.4%) of inmates, followed by White men
(32.9%) and Latino men (17.9%) (Sabol & Couture, 2008).
The staggering disparity in incarceration rates between Black and White men,
particularly highlighted in the statistic from 2007 showing that Black male
incarceration was six times higher than that of White men, underscores deep-rooted
systemic issues within the criminal justice system. Moreover, the fact that Black men
aged 30–34 experience the highest rate of incarceration among all race, age, or gender
groups is a stark illustration of the disproportionate impact of mass incarceration on
Black communities, particularly Black men.
This disparity can be attributed to a complex interplay of historical, social,
economic, and institutional factors that have contributed to the overrepresentation of
Black individuals in the criminal justice system. Historical legacies of slavery,
segregation, and systemic racism have created enduring disparities in access to
education, employment, housing, healthcare, and other resources, placing Black
communities at a distinct disadvantage and increasing their likelihood of involvement
in the criminal justice system.
Moreover, discriminatory policing practices, such as racial profiling,
aggressive enforcement of drug laws, and disproportionate targeting of Black
neighborhoods, contribute to the overrepresentation of Black individuals in the
criminal justice system. Studies have shown that Black individuals are more likely to
be stopped, searched, arrested, charged, and sentenced harshly compared to their
White counterparts, even for similar offenses.
Furthermore, socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, unemployment, lack of
educational opportunities, and limited access to social services, exacerbate the risk of
involvement in criminal activity and increase the likelihood of incarceration among
Black men. Structural inequalities in the labor market, housing market, and healthcare
system further marginalize Black communities and perpetuate cycles of poverty,
crime, and incarceration.
The impact of mass incarceration extends far beyond individuals directly
involved in the criminal justice system, affecting families, communities, and society
as a whole. The incarceration of Black men disrupts family structures, undermines
economic stability, and perpetuates intergenerational cycles of disadvantage,
contributing to the perpetuation of racial disparities and social inequality.
Addressing the racial disparities in incarceration rates requires a
comprehensive and multifaceted approach that addresses the root causes of systemic
inequality and discrimination. This includes reforming sentencing policies,
decriminalizing low-level offenses, investing in community-based alternatives to
incarceration, promoting economic opportunity and social mobility, and addressing
the social determinants of crime.
Moreover, efforts to promote racial justice and equity within the criminal
justice system must be accompanied by broader societal efforts to dismantle systemic
racism and promote inclusion, diversity, and belonging in all aspects of society. This
includes confronting implicit bias, challenging stereotypes, promoting cultural
competence, and fostering dialogue and understanding across racial and ethnic lines.
In conclusion, the stark disparities in incarceration rates between Black and
White men highlight deep-seated issues of systemic racism, inequality, and injustice
within the criminal justice system. Addressing these disparities requires a concerted
effort to reform policies and practices, challenge discriminatory attitudes and
practices, and promote equity and justice for all individuals, regardless of race or
ethnicity.
This disproportionality is most extreme among men with lower education
levels. Just over 40% of young Black men, ages 22–30, with less than a high school
diploma were incarcerated on an average day in 1999, and more than half of Black
high school dropouts in their early 30s had been incarcerated at some point in their
lives (Western et al., 2002). Although a majority of male prisoners are employed at the
time of their incarceration, they experience higher than average unemployment before
incarceration.
The observation that prisoners tend to have lower levels of income and
educational attainment in the months leading up to their incarceration underscores the
complex interplay between socioeconomic factors and involvement in the criminal
justice system. This pattern is indicative of the profound impact of poverty, inequality,
and social disadvantage on individuals' pathways into the criminal justice system, as
well as the cyclical nature of incarceration and socioeconomic marginalization.
The correlation between lower income levels and incarceration reflects
broader structural inequalities within society, where individuals from economically
disadvantaged backgrounds face greater barriers to educational attainment,
employment opportunities, and social mobility. Economic insecurity, lack of access to
stable employment, and limited opportunities for upward mobility can increase
individuals' susceptibility to involvement in criminal activity, as they may turn to
illicit means of generating income or struggle to meet their basic needs through
legitimate means.
Moreover, the relationship between educational attainment and incarceration
highlights the critical role of education as a protective factor against involvement in
the criminal justice system. Individuals with lower levels of education may face
limited economic opportunities, reduced access to social support networks, and
increased exposure to risk factors associated with criminal behavior, such as
substance abuse, gang involvement, and delinquency. Investing in education,
vocational training, and skill-building programs can help mitigate these risk factors
and empower individuals to pursue alternative pathways to success.
The disparities in income, employment, and welfare assistance receipt
between male and female inmates further underscore the intersectional nature of
disadvantage and inequality within the criminal justice system. Female inmates, who
are disproportionately represented among the economically marginalized and socially
vulnerable populations, face unique challenges and barriers to reintegration and
rehabilitation, including childcare responsibilities, domestic violence, and trauma
histories. Addressing the specific needs and experiences of female inmates requires a
gender-responsive approach that acknowledges and addresses the intersecting factors
that contribute to their involvement in the criminal justice system.
Furthermore, the observation that female inmates have lower levels of income
and employment than male inmates highlights the gendered nature of economic
disadvantage and inequality within society. Women, particularly those from
marginalized communities, often face systemic barriers to economic participation and
advancement, including wage discrimination, occupational segregation, and limited
access to affordable childcare and healthcare. These structural barriers can increase
women's vulnerability to involvement in criminal activity and exacerbate their risk of
incarceration.
In light of these disparities, efforts to promote successful reentry and
rehabilitation for justice-involved individuals must address the underlying
socioeconomic factors that contribute to their involvement in the criminal justice
system. This includes providing access to education, job training, and employment
opportunities, as well as addressing systemic barriers to economic opportunity and
social inclusion. Moreover, interventions targeted at female inmates must be tailored
to address their unique needs and experiences, including trauma-informed care,
gender-responsive programming, and support services that address the root causes of
their involvement in the criminal justice system.
In conclusion, the disparities in income, education, and employment among
prisoners underscore the complex interplay between socioeconomic factors and
involvement in the criminal justice system. Addressing these disparities requires a
multifaceted approach that addresses the structural inequalities and systemic barriers
that perpetuate cycles of poverty, inequality, and incarceration. By investing in
education, economic opportunity, and gender-responsive programming, policymakers
and practitioners can promote pathways to success, reduce recidivism, and create
more just and equitable communities for all individuals.
Incarceration, particularly at a young age, can lead to an accumulation of
disadvantages over the life course, with future opportunities severely restricted.
Because incarceration is so prevalent among Black men with low education levels, the
impact on their individual wages also increases wage inequality on an aggregate level
(Western, 2002). In addition, differential incarceration rates contribute to a stereotype
of a young, Black male offender; this stereotype has negative consequences not only
for offenders and ex-offenders but also for others who fit part of that stereotype.
Although women are much less likely to be incarcerated, rates of female
incarceration have been increasing much faster than rates of male incarceration.
Women are approximately 24% of those on probation, 12% of those on parole, and
7% of those in prison. Female inmates may be seen as “double deviants,” who have
violated both gender and legal norms. Women who have been incarcerated often are
seen as less feminine precisely because they were incarcerated. This may be
especially pronounced among women of color.
The quote highlights a crucial aspect of the reintegration process for African
American women who have been involved with the criminal justice system. Beyond
the challenges of reentering society post-incarceration, these women face additional
layers of marginalization and disenfranchisement within their own communities.
Expanding on this, it's evident that the intersectionality of race, gender, and
socioeconomic status exacerbates the barriers to successful reintegration faced by
African American women.
The sense of marginalization experienced by African American women within
disenfranchised communities stems from systemic inequalities and historical
injustices that have disproportionately affected communities of color. These women
often confront a myriad of challenges upon reentry, including limited access to
affordable housing, employment opportunities, healthcare, and social support
networks. Moreover, the stigma and discrimination associated with criminal records
can further isolate and marginalize them within their communities, exacerbating
feelings of shame, guilt, and social exclusion.
Furthermore, the impact of being marginalized within disenfranchised
communities extends beyond the individual level to affect the collective well-being
and resilience of these communities as a whole. When African American women
struggle to reintegrate successfully, it not only hinders their own prospects for
rehabilitation and reintegration but also perpetuates cycles of poverty, crime, and
social disintegration within their communities. Addressing the systemic factors that
contribute to marginalization and disenfranchisement is essential for promoting the
overall health and vitality of these communities.
Moreover, the intersectionality of race and gender compounds the challenges
faced by African American women post-incarceration. Women of color experience
unique forms of discrimination and oppression that intersect with their experiences of
incarceration and reentry. For example, African American women are more likely to
be the primary caregivers for their families, and their incarceration can have
devastating consequences for their children and families, further exacerbating their
vulnerability and marginalization.
In addition to structural barriers, African American women also contend with
internalized stigma and self-perceptions that can undermine their confidence, self-
esteem, and sense of agency. The internalization of negative stereotypes and societal
judgments can create psychological barriers to reintegration, leading women to
internalize feelings of unworthiness, hopelessness, and resignation. Addressing these
internalized barriers requires not only structural interventions but also culturally
competent and trauma-informed support services that affirm the dignity, worth, and
resilience of African American women.
In conclusion, the quote underscores the profound impact of marginalization
and disenfranchisement on the ability of African American women to successfully
reintegrate into their communities post-incarceration. Addressing the intersectional
challenges faced by these women requires a holistic approach that recognizes the
structural inequalities, historical injustices, and systemic barriers that perpetuate
cycles of marginalization and incarceration. By promoting equity, justice, and
inclusion, policymakers, practitioners, and communities can create pathways to
success and empowerment for African American women and contribute to the
creation of more just and equitable societies for all.
Prison inmates are drawn from and return to a small number of
neighborhoods. This concentration has increased in recent years, particularly in core
urban counties (i.e., those that contain the central city of a metropolitan area). In
1996, for example, more than two thirds of prison inmates nationwide were released
to core counties; often they are further concentrated in a small number of
neighborhoods (Lynch & Sabol, 2001). These neighborhoods typically are
characterized by high rates of poverty and other social disadvantages and are
predominantly African American.
d. Structural Barriers
In addition to individual and social contextual factors shaping the experience
of reentry, criminal records and incarceration lead to certain formal restrictions that
limit the options available to returning prisoners. Two of the most commonly
mentioned barriers to successful reentry are securing employment and housing. In
addition, some types of offenses, particularly drug offenses and sex offenses, lead to
additional restrictions. In this section, some of these barriers are detailed.
One of the most frequently cited precursors to successful reentry and criminal
desistance is employment. Employment provides a stake in conformity, new routines,
prosocial ties, and legal income. For these reasons, employment, particularly high-
quality employment, is often cited as a primary cause of decreased recidivism. High-
quality employment can be conceptualized both in terms of stability and economic
compensation and in extra-economic terms of gaining a sense of meaning from one’s
work. In one test of high-quality employment, Uggen (1999) found an overall
negative relationship between job quality (estimated using mean overall job
satisfaction scores) and recidivism, controlling for prior criminality, drug use, and
economic indicators. Maruna (2001) expands this idea somewhat by including “a
variety of productive pursuits” through which ex-offenders translate their criminal
history into wisdom “as a drug counselor, youth worker, community volunteer, or
mutual-help group participant”. In the latter case, the emphasis is on the meaning that
the ex-offenders gain from their work, whether it is paid employment or volunteer
work
Despite the value of employment for reducing recidivism, ex-offenders face
several barriers to securing employment. Those with felony convictions are legally
barred from some occupations. Occupations with state or regulatory restrictions
include those that work with vulnerable populations, such as childcare, home health
care, or nursing, and private sector jobs such as barber, beautician, pharmacist,
embalmer, optometrist, plumber, and real estate professional. Some of these restricted
occupations, such as barber, are the same jobs in which prisoners are trained while
incarcerated (Petersilia, 2003).
A study of Los Angeles employers found that businesses that perform
background checks are less likely to hire those with a criminal record. However, when
firms are not statutorily required to do background checks but do them anyway, there
is no difference in hiring from firms that do not perform background checks (Stoll &
Bushway, 2008). Stoll and Bushway conclude that the effect of performing
background checks on hiring is driven almost entirely by statutes requiring such
checks and restricting employment. They suggest that those who perform unrequired
background checks may be concerned with the possibility of negligent hiring lawsuits
but may use the information to make “risk-assessed” hiring decisions (Stoll &
Bushway, 2008). Lucken and Ponte make a similar argument in suggesting a “bona
fide occupational qualification” standard to employment restrictions, wherein
licensing agencies may restrict employment but must justify such a restriction in
terms of how a certain conviction may negatively affect job tasks or the nature of the
business.
In many states, employers are allowed to deny jobs to those with a criminal
record and sometimes merely an arrest record. Many employers are resistant to hiring
ex-offenders because of perceptions of trustworthiness and dependability and
concerns about legal liability if they reoffend at work (Holzer, Raphael, & Stoll, 2001;
Lucken & Ponte, 2008; Petersilia, 2003). In one series of surveys, more than 60% of
employers would probably not or definitely not hire those with a criminal record
(Holzer et al., 2001). In contrast, most would consider hiring a former or current
welfare recipient (92%), workers with a GED instead of a high school diploma (96%),
or workers with a spotty employment history (59%) (Holzer et al., 2001). Pager
(2005) found that a higher percentage (approximately 62%) said they were willing to
hire those with a drug conviction, but a much smaller percentage actually invited
those with a drug conviction to interview.
There is evidence that the stigma of a criminal record and stereotypes about
who is likely to have a criminal record play an important role in hiring decisions.
Pager (2003, 2007) conducted an experimental audit in which pairs of White and
Black young men applied for entry-level jobs, with one in each pair claiming to have
a felony drug conviction and time served in prison. Pager constructed similar résumés,
carefully selected testers, and trained them how to interact with potential employers
(Pager, 2007). In doing so, she controlled for other common explanations of the lack
of employment success among exoffenders, such as a lack of social capital, a lack of
education and work experience, and poor self-presentation. She found that both race
and criminal history played a role in employer responses, with Blacks with a criminal
record the least likely (5%) to receive a callback, followed by Blacks without a
criminal record (14%), Whites with a criminal record (17%), and Whites without a
criminal record (34%) (Pager, 2003, 2007).
Former inmates who do find work after their release usually find it through
friends or family. Although programs assisting ex-offenders with employment have
demonstrated some success, these programs are limited in capacity and geographic
reach (Solomon et al., 2004). Among those who find work, there also is an issue of
retention. Among a threestate sample of former inmates, for example, 65% had been
employed at some point 8 months after release, but only 45% were working at the end
of that time period (Visher, Debus, & Yahner, 2008). In addition to the difficulty of
finding and keeping a job, the kinds of jobs for which ex-prisoners are most likely to
be hired (e.g., manufacturing) are decreasing in number, and many of the types of jobs
available to ex-prisoners are unlikely to be stable, well-paid, meaningful jobs that
contribute to desistance.
Arguably even more important to former prisoners than stable employment is
secure housing. Many newly released former prisoners live with family members. In
one Urban Institute study, approximately three quarters of Chicago releasees planned
to live with family, and an even higher percentage (88%) were living with family 4–8
months later (La Vigne et al., 2004). This is not always an easy or possible choice, as
family members may have victimized or been victimized or otherwise hurt by the
returning person previously. Female offenders experience high rates of abuse and
victimization, often at the hands of family members, in both childhood and adulthood.
One study of female releasees in Chicago found that 30% reported physical or sexual
abuse by family members while growing up, and nearly half were first exposed to
drug and alcohol use by family members (Leverentz, 2006a). Twelve percent of male
Chicago releasees report being physically abused or threatened by a family or
household member in the months before incarceration; more than half report drug or
alcohol use by family members (La Vigne et al., 2004). In addition to fraught
relationships, those who have relatives who are involved with criminal activity may
be prohibited from living with them as conditions of their parole or supervised
release.
Ex-prisoners face numerous barriers in locating housing: They may be denied
tenancy on the basis of their criminal history, and they may be unable to afford market
rent or provide references, a security deposit, or an employment history (Travis,
2005). Public housing authorities in most states make individualized determinations
of eligibility; in many states, these determinations may be based on arrest records and
conviction records (Legal Action Center, 2004). Housing authorities have the power
to deny residency and to evict tenants on the basis of criminal or drug activity on the
part of the tenant, a household member, or anyone “under the tenant’s control”.
Those convicted of sex offenses face additional restrictions in securing
housing. Forty-seven states and the federal government have some type of “Megan’s
Law” requiring those convicted of sex offenses to register. This registration, among
other restrictions, makes offenders ineligible for public housing (Travis, 2005). In
addition, 31 states have some version of “Jessica’s Law,” which imposes further
residency rules on convicted sex offenders (such as not living within a certain distance
of a school or park). These laws have so severely limited housing options in some
jurisdictions that there are almost no legal options, contributing to an increase in the
number of homeless offenders.
Although employment and housing are the most frequently mentioned hurdles
to successful reentry, those with felony drug convictions face additional legal
restrictions. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity and Reconciliation
Act of 1996 imposes a lifetime ban for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
(TANF) and food stamps on those convicted of a felony drug charge (Rubinstein &
Mukamal, 2002). This ban is implemented differently across states, with some states
opting out altogether and others narrowing the scope. Although the ban applies to the
offender only, not children or other family members, it reduces the overall household
income (Rubinstein & Mukamal, 2002). Because female prisoners are more likely to
be receiving public assistance before their incarceration and are more likely to be
custodial parents at the time of their incarceration, the ban disproportionately affects
women (Petersilia, 2003). Approximately a third of female inmates are serving drug
sentences, and they are the fastest-growing segment of the prison population.
Prison programming can improve outcomes and decrease recidivism among
prisoners. Unfortunately, although the prison population has grown dramatically in
recent years, funding for programming has not, meaning fewer inmates have access to
these programs (Lawrence, Mears, Dubin, & Travis, 2002). In addition, prisoners are
often given some prerelease guidance before they are released, but this programming
often does not translate into receipt of community services. Although 87% of
respondents in an Urban Institute study of Chicago prisoners participated in prerelease
programming, only 22% of them contacted a community program or accessed
services through a referral when they were released (La Vigne et al., 2004). Similarly,
ex-prisoners complain of the lack of relevance of their formal prerelease
programming and information. One former prisoner from Chicago said of his reentry
programming experience, “It’s usually a package of papers that say go to this place or
that place for what you need. I went there thinking they could help me, but they
weren’t there. It’s frustrating” (Scott, Dewey, & Leverentz, 2006, p. 14). In part, this
may reflect the difficulty of keeping information up to date and useful. It also may
reflect capacity limitations of programs serving this population (Solomon et al.,
2004). Similar problems emerge in reentry guides, which are often written at a level
far above the abilities of a majority of former prisoners and include outdated or
limited information.
e. Personal and Interpersonal Dynamics
Although the emphasis is often on structural barriers to reentry and the
logistical needs involved in exiting prison, ex-prisoners also face more informal
barriers to successful reentry. When leaving prison, many people hope to transition
into a law-abiding lifestyle and to avoid future incarceration. Even those who
participated in treatment and programming while incarcerated realize that the
demands placed on them outside are quite different from those they experience in
prison, and they must learn to negotiate new demands and new relationships. This
section addresses the individual and interpersonal transitions involved with reentry.
Much of our thinking on the life course transitions of offenders has been
influenced by the work of Robert Sampson and John Laub. They analyzed
extraordinarily rich data originally collected by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck,
beginning in 1939 and continuing into the 1960s (Sampson & Laub, 1993). Laub and
Sampson then collected criminal history information on all the surviving men from
the original sample and interviewed a subsample of 52 men (Laub & Sampson, 2003).
Among these men, experiencing transitions such as marrying a prosocial spouse,
gaining employment, and joining the military led to desistance from offending.
Findings based on more contemporary samples are mixed, however. For
example, Giordano et al.’s (2002) follow-up of a group of adolescent offenders who
came of age in the 1980s found very low rates of the “complete package” of marriage
and employment. Although average or above-average happiness in marriage and an
above-poverty wage job did reduce the likelihood of adult offending, it added only a
small amount to the explained variance. In addition, only 8% of the sample fell into
this group, ranging from no African American men to 12% of White men. Although
these bonds did seem to play some role in desistance, there was much variability that
was not explained. Similarly, employment was not a prominent theme in the
respondents’ narratives of change, although marital partners and children were
commonly mentioned. One possible explanation is that rewarding employment was
less likely to lead to change among Giordano’s sample because unemployment and
unstable employment are much more widespread now than in the post–World War II
era of the Glueck men.
Researchers also are emphasizing the importance of how offenders view
themselves and their life chances and how cognitive transformations of ex-prisoners
may shape their desistance. In other words, ex-prisoners may reframe how they think
about their offending and what they want for their future. Maruna (2001, p. 7) argues
that “ex-offenders need to develop a coherent, prosocial identity for themselves” in
which they make sense of their criminal pasts in a way that allows a “reformed”
future. Those who adopt such a narrative are more likely to desist from offending,
whereas those who adopt a “condemnation script” are much more likely to continue to
offend. Those who continue to offend view their lives as unchangeable and
themselves as lacking any personal efficacy to change (Maruna, 2001). Similarly,
Giordano et al. (2002) expand beyond “hooks for change,” such as employment and
marriage, and emphasize the need for openness to change, the ability to reflect and
envision an appealing conventional self, and, finally, a change in the way the person
views a deviant lifestyle. They argue that being open to change is insufficient, but it is
a minimal starting point, and a “solid replacement self” may be the most important
piece in long-term behavior change. Laub and Sampson (2003) also emphasize the
role of human agency and routine activities and the importance of looking at both
structure and choice in desistance or continued offending.
Evidence suggests that there is a “good marriage” effect for men in part
because male offenders are more likely to “marry up” with women who are not
involved in criminal activity (Laub et al., 1998; Laub & Sampson, 2003). The effect
of marriage on offending is gradual and cumulative, reflecting the importance of a
high-quality bond that develops over time (Horney et al., 1995; Laub et al., 1998). In
addition, there seems to be a large selection effect; the effect of marriage on offending
is reduced when the likelihood of selecting into good relationships is taken into
account (King et al., 2007). Although there is a consistent positive effect of marriage
for men, incarceration reduces the likelihood of marriage, particularly among White
men (Huebner, 2007). For White men, incarceration reduces the likelihood of
marriage by 58%, compared with 32% for Blacks and 34% for Latinos (Huebner,
2007).
The effect of marriage on female offenders is less well understood, although
evidence suggests that the effect is smaller or nonexistent for many women (King et
al., 2007). Giordano and colleagues (2002) found marriage to be relevant to both men
and women, though in different and gendered ways. Given the proportion of male and
female prisoners and offenders, it is much less likely that a female offender will enter
into a relationship with a male partner with no history of offending or drug use.
However, women can enter into or continue relationships with men who are also
desisting from offending and drug use, and these relationships may support
conventional behavior in similar ways to purely prosocial relationships (Leverentz,
2006b). In addition, relationships may be conventionalizing, even while low in
attachment (Giordano et al., 2002). Samesex relationships also may have similar
dynamics between partners but may face additional social stigma.
The relationships prisoners have before and during periods of incarceration
often continue and may influence future recidivism or desistance. Long-standing
relationships, even when one or both partners have a history of offending, may evolve
into mutually supportive and noncriminal relationships (Leverentz, 2006b). However,
these relationships face many challenges. Just as rates of recidivism are high, the
chances of rearrest and reincarceration are high. This potential may cause strain and
distrust. Continuing relationship partners need to adjust to changing expectations,
lifestyles, and power dynamics (Oliver & Hairston, 2008). Men returning from prison
may resent a newfound independence and self-sufficiency in their partners. In
combination with their own perception of a lack of efficacy and other stressors related
to reentry, this may increase the likelihood of domestic violence (Oliver & Hairston,
2008). The strains involved in incarceration or the lifestyle changes (or lack thereof)
after incarceration break up many marriages and romantic partnerships.
The gender imbalance in some neighborhoods with high incarceration rates
also shapes men’s and women’s approaches to romantic relationships. Women often
feel the need to have low standards for behavior, and men feel they can take
advantage of the dearth of men by dating multiple women or ending relationships
(Braman, 2004). An additional path that is often important for female offenders is to
avoid romantic relationships and to instead focus on their own independence and their
own children’s needs (Giordano et al., 2002; Leverentz, 2006b). For these women, the
absence of this type of social tie contributes to their desistance. Because men are often
implicated in female offending, some women feel the need to distance themselves
from previous, or all, romantic partners as they adjust to life after prison.
Just over half of the prisoners in U.S. state and federal prisons have minor
children; two thirds of women and half of men in prison are parents (Glaze &
Maruschak, 2008). The current caregiver of the children of incarcerated fathers is
usually the child’s mother (88%). In contrast, only 37% of those with incarcerated
mothers live with their fathers; these children are most likely to live with a
grandparent (45%) or other relatives (23%) (Glaze & Maruschak, 2008). Both men
and women often hope to reestablish relationships with their children once they are
released from prison. The relationships between incarcerated men, their children, and
the mothers of their children are often strained, not only because of incarceration but
also because of the criminal activity and drug use that preceded it. Some men,
particularly older fathers, use the experience of incarceration to try to reestablish ties
with their children (Edin, Nelson, & Paranal, 2001). Although many men work to
retain or improve bonds with their children, children tend to be more key to women’s
self-conception, and their children are often a more central theme in their narratives of
change (Giordano et al., 2002). Having children usually does not lead to desistance,
but in many cases they play an important role in mothers’ narratives of desistance.
Understanding peer networks and the likelihood of returning to criminogenic
social networks, particularly among male offenders, is a focus of much desistance
research (Scott, 2004; Warr, 1998). Those who resume pre-incarceration patterns of
behavior, including spending time with old friends, looking for easy money, or
engaging in side relationships or one-night stands, were more likely to be
reincarcerated than those who socially isolated themselves or those who engaged in
more prosocial behavior and relationship patterns (Seal, Eldrige, Kacanek, Binson, &
Macgowan, 2007). Yet for some, rejoining criminal networks may seem like one of
few options available to ex-prisoners, even when they know this may be self-
defeating.
Many former prisoners lose or break ties with friends or acquaintances. Nearly
half of the Chicago Urban Institute sample reports no close friends 8 months after
release (La Vigne et al., 2004). Some may choose to distance themselves from co-
offending peers, whereas others lose a sense of commonality if they are desisting from
offending and drug use. Some may create new networks, and others socially isolate
themselves. Both of these approaches may be an attempt to create a lifestyle that is
more conducive to desistance.
Desisting former prisoners often choose to distance themselves from
stilloffending acquaintances, but many are embedded in networks of offending family
members, the bonds to which are much more difficult to break (Braman, 2004;
Leverentz, 2006a). Although all ex-prisoners experience a “hangover identity” from
their previous status as offender, this residual role may be especially pronounced in
long-term relationships (Ebaugh, 1988; Goffman, 1963). As mentioned earlier, these
relationships often are fraught with tension and history related to offending and drug
use, yet they also may provide beneficial support and continuity. In one study of
Florida inmates, prisoners were most likely to be visited, and visited more often, by
parents (Bales & Mears, 2008). They also found that visits, and more frequent visits,
were related to reduced recidivism. Male inmates reporting positive family
relationships before their incarceration had lower recidivism rates than those reporting
negative family relationships.
A majority of male prisoners in a Chicago study relied on female relatives
(including mother, sisters, and wives or girlfriends) for financial and material support
after their release (Scott et al., 2006). In contrast, a sample of women, also being
released in Chicago, were much more likely to be financially independent or to rely
on social service support (Leverentz, 2006a). Part of the difference between these two
groups may reflect the recruitment strategies of the two studies: The men were
randomly selected from among releasees, whereas the women were recruited through
their participation in a halfway house program (both samples were largely African
American). However, it also seems to reflect, at least in part, racial and gender
differences in sources of support and expectations of support. Both the women’s real
and expected financial independence and the importance of family in their lives are
consistent with research on African American women’s roles and African American
families.
Although strong familial bonds may encourage desistance, family ties also
may serve as a barrier to successful reentry. The return of a prisoner creates tension in
family life and often an added financial burden (Braman, 2004; Oliver & Hairston,
2008). For some former prisoners, returning to family means returning to victims or
victimizers. Parents seeking to regain custody of their children also may create
tension with caregivers or face an additional time demand as they balance many
competing requirements and expectations. Women, in particular, may feel compelled
to return to family caregiver roles (Leverentz, 2006a). For custodial parents,
negotiating childcare needs while trying to secure employment, participate in drug
treatment, meet the conditions of parole, and other reentry demands is an additional
challenge.
As stated earlier, prisoners are not evenly distributed across the population.
This concentration of ex-prisoners suggests a need to look at the neighborhood
context into which they are being released and how community members receive
them. Although much of the research on public attitudes toward crime focuses on
individual attitudes, there is emerging evidence that neighborhood characteristics and
context may affect community members’ response to returning ex-offenders. Bottoms
and Wilson tested the idea of neighborhood variation in attitudes toward crime in the
United Kingdom. They found that punitiveness varied substantially, even in similarly
high-crime areas. Punitiveness was positively correlated with negative attitudes
toward multiculturalism, perceived threats to the social order, perceived social and
physical disorder, and a lack of informal social control.
Thus, there was a neighborhood effect on attitudes, but not one that was
shaped entirely by crime itself. This is consistent with other work that concludes that
public attitudes about punishment may not reflect concerns about crime or risk of
victimization but rather concerns over social conditions (Tyler & Boeckmann, 1997).
In addition, there is emerging evidence that the local culture of how crime is framed
may shape attitudes of punitiveness (Leverentz, 2008). Communities that frame the
crime problem as a general and amorphous issue may be less tolerant of returning
prisoners than those who have a more nuanced and individual-level understanding of
offenders and former prisoners. For example, residents of and workers in one high-
crime area made a distinction between “good kids,” who nonetheless may have been
involved in crime, and the small number of people who caused significant problems in
the community. Overall, residents in this community were less punitive than those in
another high-crime community that displayed a much more abstract and general
understanding of the crime problem (Leverentz, 2008). Other studies similarly have
found a level of acceptance of offenders in some neighborhoods, even as they
condemned criminal activity.
Residents in neighborhoods with high numbers of returning ex-prisoners may
be more exposed to the situational explanations of crime, and they may be more likely
to know people who have spent time in prison, which may lead to lower levels of
punitiveness and greater levels of acceptance. Thus, despite recidivism studies
demonstrating that offenders in neighborhoods of higher inequality have a greater
likelihood of reoffending, some evidence suggests that ex-prisoners may face less
resistance reentering some high-crime communities. Returning to communities with a
more nuanced understanding of incarceration and offenders might allow desisting ex-
prisoners to redefine themselves as role models in the neighborhood. This ties back to
ideas of cognitive transformations and the redemptive script that desisters adopt.
The reduced stigma of being a former prisoner in a high-crime neighborhood
with a concentration of ex-prisoners may be limited to life in that neighborhood,
however. This benefit is unlikely to carry outside the neighborhood, and indeed the
stigma may be magnified outside the neighborhood (Travis, 2005). In other words,
although aspects of daily life, and perhaps housing and other neighborhood-based
needs, may be easier to access, the stigma of being an ex-prisoner (particularly an
African American man) coming from a highcrime neighborhood is likely to be
greater.
