Prisoner Reentry at Work: Adding Business to the Mix 9781588269423

Citation preview

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Prisoner Reentry at Work Adding Business to the Mix Melvin Delgado

b o u l d e r l o n d o n

Published in the United States of America in 2012 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 1800 30th Street, Boulder, Colorado 80301 www.rienner.com and in the United Kingdom by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. 3 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London WC2E 8LU © 2012 by Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Delgado, Melvin. Prisoner reentry at work : adding business to the mix / Melvin Delgado. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-58826-818-1 (hc : alk. paper) 1. Ex-convicts—United States. 2. Ex-convicts—Employment— United States. 3. Criminals—Rehabilitation. I. Title. HV9304.D448 2012 364.8—dc23 2012000001 British Cataloguing in Publication Data A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

Printed and bound in the United States of America The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials Z39.48-1992. 5 4 3 2 1

To Denise, Laura, and Barbara

Contents

Preface

ix

1

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

1

2

Community Reentry

31

3

Employment Issues

89

4

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

117

5

The Delancey Street Foundation

145

6

Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice

167

7

Further Challenges

173 189 227 241

References Index About the Book

vii

Preface

Many books on prisoners call attention to prisoners’ plight; few actively seek to discover and highlight the possibility for optimism. The research for my book Health and Health Care in the Nation’s Prisons: Issues, Challenges, and Policies (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009) left me saddened about the health and well-being of prisoners in this country. Consequently, writing another book on the subject so soon after that one was the furthest thing from my mind. That changed, however, because of a newspaper article I came across—a New York Times piece by J. Flanigan (2008) headlined “A Budding Conglomerate Is Really a Home for Ex–Gang Members.” I had heard about Homeboy/Homegirl Industries of Los Angeles several years ago while researching youth-focused social enterprises (Delgado 2004). Homeboy/Homegirl Industries illustrates the potential, both social and economic, of social enterprises engaging in responsible community development. The New York Times article underscored the importance of bringing together the worlds of community development, small businesses, helping professions, and a marginalized group such as former prisoners reentering society (Flanigan 2008; Hidalgo 2006; Iwata 2005; Wood 2007). That article’s spark of optimism crystallized the nature and focus of Prisoner Reentry at Work. It encouraged me to write this book on the challenges ex-offenders face as they reenter their communities and the role that social enterprises can play.

ix

x

Preface

It is my sincere hope that the book serves as a vehicle to help those in the fields of criminal justice, health care, and social services find common ground to collaborate on a national issue that can only be successfully addressed through comprehensive partnerships with community institutions (Cnaan et al. 2008; Pycroft and Gough 2010). I believe that the written word has the power to transform people and circumstances. It is my hope that this book reaches those readers with the values, vision, and commitment to make a difference in the world and, in this case, a change that impacts ex-offenders, their loved ones, and the communities where they live. * * * I wish to acknowledge Lisa Gentry, Lisa LoFaso, Sara Schufreider, and Anna Soloway, research assistants at Boston University School of Social Work. In addition, I extend a special thank you to the two anonymous external reviewers of the book, whose insights proved invaluable in making this book a reality. —Melvin Delgado

1 Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

Does this nation have a prison problem? This book and countless other books and scholarly articles answer this question in the affirmative (Mauer 2006). Is this the kind of problem that is national rather than regional in scope? The answer again is yes. In some circles, only national defense can be considered a national problem. However, society attempts to address numerous problems that are national in scope as if they were local in character. How we address prisoners once they have paid their price to society upon their release is a major national issue, but it takes on even greater significance in certain geographical sectors of the nation, and cities bear a disproportionate price. It is generally agreed that the country spends too much taxpayer money on the criminal justice system and that this money can be reallocated to more “worthy” social causes or even returned to taxpayers in the form of tax cuts. However, there is certainly no consensus on how best to reform the prison system to make it more cost-efficient and humanitarian, with benefits to all parties. As a result, this lack of consensus has led to great debates about prison reform at all levels of government. Finding a consensus on this question has been complicated by a number of social and economic factors. The national economic recession has both spurred the call for prison reform in order to cut costs and has made it extremely challenging to fund new and highly innovative initiatives (Richards, Austin, and Jones 2004). It has also made it dif-

1

2

Prisoner Reentry at Work

ficult for ex-offenders to find employment upon their release at a time when “law-abiding” citizens without criminal justice experiences cannot find suitable employment. This effort at consensus is made more difficult by the fact that the majority of the newly released or soon-to-bereleased inmates are of color, with low formal educational attainment. Therefore, how does this nation successfully addresses the problem of the social causes, including racism, in addressing the issue of record numbers of inmates? The importance of finding equitable solutions to the projected mass deincarceration movement (the release of inmates in great numbers over a relatively short period of time) in the United States goes far beyond economics but also involves issues of fairness and equity—key elements in any thriving democracy. The finding of equitable solutions is almost akin to putting justice into criminal justice, particularly when viewing the subject of incarceration from a social justice perspective (Ross and Richards 2009). The issue of how best to release hundreds of thousands of former inmates into the community and society is one that is only now starting to get serious attention from the general public, academia, and government. Strategies for enhancing public safety, while accomplishing the goal of releasing ex-offenders, are very much on the minds of all sectors of society, including the police and the courts (Jones and Flynn 2008; La Vigne et al. 2006). The financial burden of prisons is considerable and has increased dramatically over the past twenty years as states have increasingly used prisons to punish criminal behavior, for example, rather than educate or rehabilitate inmates. It is estimated that corrections cost states approximately $47 billion in 2008 (Moore 2009c). On average, states spent $29,000 a year on prisoners and almost three times this amount in the case of older adult inmates—an ever increasing age group within prisons and one that is increasingly being considered for early prison release (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009). Prison costs, incidentally, do not take into account the financing interests on bonds issued to build prisons. By serving as a motivator for cutting costs, the national fiscal crisis has been credited for states across the country holding fewer prisoners (Archibold 2010; Schwartz 2010a). This crisis has also resulted in a greater reluctance on the part of states to sentence individuals without considering the financial costs associated with these sentences. In

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

3

2006, an estimated 713,000 inmates were released from state and federal prisons in the United States, or the equivalent of three times the size of the US Marine Corps and, some would argue, probably just as deadly (Colson 2004; Solomon 2008). As a result of state and local government fiscal crises, the number of returning ex-inmates will only increase in size in the immediate future, as is already occurring across this country, necessitating quick and effective responses to meet the projected need— for support services related to employment, living arrangements, and necessary assistance for ex-inmates—resulting from this mass exodus. States such as California, Kentucky, New York, and Virginia, for example, have instituted or plan to institute early prisoner release programs in response to overcrowded prisons and increases in financial costs. In California 15,000 inmates will be released early, in Kentucky 2,000 inmates, New York 1,600, and in Virginia 1000 inmates are scheduled to be released early. States are clearly struggling with the immense costs of their prison systems and attempting to balance budgets while maintaining public safety. Schmitt and Warner (2011) argue that reforms in prison sentencing are needed if society is to accommodate current and future exoffenders into the labor market. Current “get-tough on crime” policies are effectively dooming a generation of ex-offenders to life on the margins of society, with little prospect of becoming constructive members of their communities now and in the future (Mauer 2011a). The costs of incarceration to taxpayers have been a key motivator for Missouri, which in 2010, for example, was the only state in the country to provide judges with the financial costs of a prison sentence (Davey 2010): “The intent behind the cost estimates . . . is transparent: to pressure judges, in the face of big bills, into sending fewer people to prison” (pp. 1, 4). This program has caused a great deal of debate about the feasibility of reducing sentencing to a measure of dollars, and critics argue that certain social costs do not lend themselves to such measurement. Overall prison costs will only be expected to go up without a dramatic shift in vision, policies related to correctional justice, and investments in initiatives and programs that facilitate reentry and reduce recidivism (Pinard 2007). Colgan (2007) notes that the savings can be widespread and go beyond prisons: “The savings to taxpayers that could be achieved by . . . programming [initiatives that facilitate reen-

4

Prisoner Reentry at Work

try] are substantial. . . . What is less easy to calculate is the ripple effect these investments may have on poor and minority communities that are often hard-hit by the revolving door of crime” (p. 117). Travis (2007), like Pinard (2007) and Colgan (2007), sees hope of a new era in which reentry will be looked at through a different perspective by the criminal justice field: “Perhaps most important, the new reentry conversation is spurring important changes in the operations of the components of the criminal justice system most directly involved in influencing reentry outcomes. Conversations in the corrections field have embraced the challenge of rethinking their functions through a reentry lens” (p. 84). This new perspective has also carried over into presidential politics (Colgan 2007), other helping profession fields, and the communities these ex-offenders are returning to after an extended period of time of being away. The speed in which dialogue and funding has occurred is remarkable and a sign of a nation waking up to this immense issue at our doorsteps. The subject matter is quite complex and bound to elicit a wide range of responses from the political left and right. Crime and incarceration are sociopolitical matters that every society must address (Mauer 2011b). Consequently, controversy will follow when ex-inmates are released back into society. This event will touch upon key moral and ethical principles among average citizens and the elected officials representing them throughout all levels of government. The criminal justice field and society cannot view ex-offender reentry from a businessas-usual perspective, as we witnessed the mass incarceration movement of the 1980s and 1990s and early part of the twenty-first century (Clear 2007; Pager 2009). In the process, innovation is being called for in the field—and one that is increasingly participatory and empowering. Mauer (2011a) notes that the nation’s financial crisis provides an opportunity for positive change: “At a moment when the United States is experiencing a considerably reduced crime rate from the peak of the late 1980s, as well as serious fiscal constraints in public spending, it is opportune to consider how finite criminal justice resources could be used more strategically and effectively” (p. 76). Cheliotis (2009) comments on the importance of introducing innovation into reentry programs, such as temporary release, as a means of slowly reintegrating ex-offenders into community life. Leadbeater’s (2007) call for innovation is worth heeding for the field of criminal justice and its efforts at developing reentry initiatives:

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

5

“All innovation involves the application of new ideas—or the replication of old ideas in new ways—to devise better solutions to our needs. Innovation is invariably a cumulative, collaborative activity in which ideas are shared, tested, refined, and developed and applied. Social innovation applies this thinking to social issues, education and health, issues of inequality and inclusion” (p. 2). Any efforts short of this goal are destined to waste resources, undermine political will, and seriously compromise the lives of ex-offenders, their families, communities, and ultimately society at-large.

People of Color and Criminal Justice Thompson (2008) argues that any discussion of ex-inmate reentry is, de facto, a question about race because of the racial composition of this nation’s prisons. People of color (particularly African Americans and Latinos) have historically been overrepresented in the nation’s criminal justice system (Delgado 2001; Nixon et al. 2008; Patillo, Weiman, and Western 2004; Stone 1999). Their high rate of incarceration has been recognized by scholars (Pew Center on the States 2008a, 2009) and the United Nations (2008), and it has resulted in a lack of confidence in the judicial and criminal justice systems of the United States on the part of African American and Latino communities (Lopez and Livingston 2009). Further, it has also resulted in cynicism concerning any “real” efforts to help ex-offenders and their respective communities. Pager (2009) goes on to raise a critical question about this movement: At this point in history, it is impossible to tell whether the massive presence of incarceration in today’s stratification system is a unique anomaly of the late twentieth century, or part of a larger movement toward a system of stratification based on the official certification of individual character and competence. In many people’s eyes, the criminal justice system represents an effective tool for identifying and segregating the objectionable elements of society. Whether this process will continue to form the basis of emerging social cleavages remains to be seen. (p. 160)

The answer to this question will have profound implications for the nation’s cities and, more specifically, the communities that have been feeders into this criminal justice system, which has effectively served to depopulate these communities of their adult males and, increasingly, adult females, too.

6

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The relative youthfulness of African American and Latino communities, for example, highlights the importance of community-based interventions, such as the one advanced in this book (Ballou 2008). These two groups will be emphasized throughout this book, but other groups (Asian Americans and Native Americans) will be addressed as the situation warrants. Oh and Umemto (2005) observe that Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders, too, have experienced a tremendous increase in incarceration rates (250 percent between 1990 and 2000) and have generally been overlooked in serious discussions about in-carceration and communities of color. These ethnic and racial com- munities also are challenged in getting information to families and community-based organizations on how best to serve their returning ex-offenders. Corrections has historically been viewed from the devastating impact it has had on low-income urban communities of color. Nevertheless, an emerging view of community and corrections sees the deincarceration movement as a vehicle for community development (Meghan 2004). The incarceration movement has essentially played an important role in destabilizing inner cities across the country, by taking high percentages of adult males of color, and now more females, and incarcerating them, thereby disrupting the economic fiber and social relations of neighborhoods. The return of these individuals to their respective communities, in turn, has the potential of reintroducing them as potential civic contributors (Visher and Travis 2003). The bringing together of small businesses and social enterprises with a potential workforce represents what I consider to be a viable match, as addressed in this book. A shift in paradigms regarding ex-offenders is very much in order because previous paradigms at reducing recidivism have failed. These paradigms have been deficit oriented and thus fail to examine the strengths of exoffenders and the assets they bring to their communities (Delgado 2001; Vennard and Hedderman 2009).

Reentry Language and Concepts Like any shift in paradigms, a new language and concepts get introduced in any discussion concerning ex-offender reentry. Language has played a critical role in shaping how this country has marched toward mass incarceration. Terms such as the War on Drugs and the War on Crime signify a sociopolitical stance signaling the nation’s stance on “law-

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

7

lessness” and the severe and lethal consequences for those who break the law and must pay for their transgressions: namely, declaring war on these citizens (Jackson 2008). Chesney-Lind (2002) looks at the War on Crime as the War on Women, because of the extreme consequences for this particular group. Some would go so far as to argue that, in effect, it is just another version of a War on the Poor, which best captures the intent of the criminalization movement in this country. Altheide and Coyle (2006) review how these terms have shaped public opinions and policies, and stress the need for a new facilitative language similar to ex-inmate reentry. As a means of introducing a new term to change the current dialogue about incarceration, they introduce the concept smart on crime, which looks at cost-effective and humane solutions to crime and incarceration. Like reentry, smart on crime brings a broader and more contextualized (social-ecological) meaning about the consequences of mass incarceration and seeks to lessen the demonizing of ex-offenders. In addition, it reaches out to new areas that must come into play in any successful reentry initiative or program. Weaver and McNeill (2007) specifically address the importance of language in relation to ex-offenders and the role it can play in either facilitating or hindering reentry: “If the language that we use in policy and practice causes both individuals and communities to give up on the possibilities of change and reformation, it confirms and cements the negative perceptions of people who have offended and their situations as risky, dangerous, feckless, hopeless or helpless, then it will frustrate desistance” (p. 1). Weaver and McNeill (2007) set the stage for how we label ex-offender reentry and whether we take a “blaming the victim” approach or an asset, social-ecological perspective. What and how we label a social phenomenon often engender a great amount of discourse in academia. The labeling or naming process, as a result, is not one to be taken lightly, and the concept of ex-offender reentry is certainly not an exception. Mobley (2003) notes: “Naming and grouping individuals into value-free aggregates is at the heart of our political economy” (p. 219). This grouping of “undesirable” individuals facilitates the administering of interventions that extract them from their community and society. This is an important and controversial point, and takes on added significance when racialized, as in the case of the disproportionate number of African Americans and Latinos in the nation’s penal system. Skinner (2010) raises the important consideration of when an exoffender stops being labeled as such and assumes the more positive and

8

Prisoner Reentry at Work

less stigmatizing label of client, patient, or even consumer. What we call the individual seeking services upon reentry becomes important in shaping the identity of those seeking assistance and those serving them. The premise “once an ex-con, always an ex-con” permanently spoils that individual’s identity with the negative social consequences that follow such labeling. The School of Convict Criminology, which is sometimes referred to as the insider perspective, will be addressed in several chapters of this book. This school of thought has represented an emerging and an increasingly important perspective on the subject (Ross and Richards 2003a). Those who are part of this school of thought are described as convict scholars (Ross and Richards 2003b): These men and women, who have worn both prison uniforms and academic regalia . . . are the primary architects of the movement. The convict scholars are able to do what most previous writers could not: merge their past with their present and provide a provocative approach to the academic study of criminology, criminal justice, and corrections. These authors, as a collective, are the future of a realistic paradigm that promises to challenge the conventional research findings of the past. (p. 6)

Those subscribing to the School of Convict Criminology pay close attention to language and avoid using terms such as inmate and offender, and instead advocate for the use of prisoner, convict, and former prisoner, as a means of highlighting the harshness of the experience encountered by these individuals. Labeling is a political act and should be recognized as such, and this school views using these labels as a means of empowerment. Ward and Maruna (2007) advocate that the term rehabilitation be reinvented to counter the scorn and negative connotation associated with the concept of prisoner reentry. They argue that the language and concepts used to describe the process of leaving prisons and reengaging in community life have been punitive and stigmatizing, necessitating a new way of viewing these phenomena. The life scripts of a noncriminal future require a language that reinforces hope and helps ex-offenders socially navigate harmful community environments (Maruna and Roy 2007). A number of terms will be used throughout this book, which seek to capture the experience of ex-inmate reentry into their communities

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

9

and society. As the reader will see, terms such as reintegration, postrelease, resettlement, reentry support, transitional care, aftercare, and reconnection have emerged to help broaden the phenomenon from one of just entering back into society to one attempting to describe and analyze a process or journey that entails a variety of steps or stages (Cheliotis 2009; Griffiths, Dandurand, and Murdoch 2007). Lynch (2006), for example, stresses the concept of reintegration as a means of shifting focus from an individual to an ecological one, highlighting the interplay of individual and community factors. Yet this process is extremely complex and influenced by a wide range of factors related to the individual ex-offender and the circumstances awaiting him in his community (Kenemore and Roldan 2006; Sung 2011). This attention to ex-inmate reentry has been spurred by the interplay of several considerations involving safety of communities, financial costs and considerations, legal concerns about ex-inmate constitutional rights being violated (disenfranchised), and humanitarian concerns. Implicit in the embrace of the concept of reentry is understanding the importance of rehabilitation (Ahn-Redding 2007). Reentry, in turn, captures a host of conditions and expectations that go far beyond “learning a lesson” about crime not paying and seeks to reconceptualize retribution by society and a profound change in attitudes and behaviors on the part of the offender (Eckholm 2006, 2008b; Howerton et al. 2009). Not surprisingly, there has been a call in the criminal justice field for development of a consensus definition of ex-offender reentry programs. Seiter and Seiter (2003), too, raise the issue and provide two definitions that help capture universal qualities usually associated with reentry programs: “1. Correctional programs (United States and Canada) that focus on the transition from prisons to community (prerelease, work release, halfway houses, or specific reentry programs) and 2. Programs that have initiated treatment (substance abuse, life skills, education, cognitive/behavioral, sex/violent offender) in a prison setting and have linked with a community program to provide continuity of care” (p. 368). These definitions encompass critical elements, such as setting, time, and a set of activities related to ex-inmates, and will be used for the purposes of this book because of the focus on the social ecology of the reentry experience. Individualizing the ex-offender represents a crucial step in better helping his or her reintegration back into the community.

10

Prisoner Reentry at Work

A Brief Historical Overview of the Reentry Movement Prisoner reentry has been called the most challenging dilemma in US criminal history (Travis 2005). The sheer number of individuals involved in all facets of this system—including inmates, families of inmates, guards, courts, probation/parole staff, community service providers— highlights the significance of criminal justice as an integral part of society and particularly urban life. The tracing of any major movement is bound to be fraught with different interpretations of who is responsible and when it originated. The movement toward ex-offender reentry, however, has arguably been traced back to 1999 and the Clinton administration and, more specifically, to Attorney General Janet Reno and National Institute of Justice director Jeremy Travis (Cose 2006). If we accept this conclusion, then the ex-offender reentry movement is more than one decade old. Piehl, LoBuglio, and Freeman (2003), however, place the concept of ex-inmate reentry into a broader and longer historical context: The absence of thoroughly thought out and implemented prisoner reentry systems is a timeless concern. From Sutherland in the 1920s, to Glaser and Morris in the second half of the twentieth century, criminologists have looked for a better way to manage the release of inmates. . . . And yet, the country is again taking up the issue of prisoner reentry after spending 30 years simultaneously disinvesting in the type of support needed and vastly increasing the numbers of individuals scheduled for reentry. (p. 27)

Whether we examine ex-offender reentry from a long- or short-term historical perspective, it clearly is in this nation’s consciousness and will only increase in significance in the next decade. Not surprisingly, a variety of social paradigms can be used to better understand and address ex-inmate reentry into communities. However, a community capacity-enhancement paradigm provides a conceptual foundation from which to address a myriad of community issues, such as the ones addressed in this book (Delgado 2000). This paradigm is predicated on a set of values that stress empowerment, participatory democracy, cultural competence, and social justice. These values can be found in most, if not all, helping professions. The ex-offender reentry movement, however, can benefit immensely by this paradigm. The two social enterprise case studies in Chapters 4 (Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries) and 5 (Delancey Street Foundation) present a

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

11

shift in paradigms away from deficits toward tapping the assets and strengths of ex-offenders to assist them in reentry.

Spatial Justice The fields of human service, criminal justice, education, and health have utilized a variety of concepts that help to grasp the significance of a disproportionate unfair social and economic burden on communities and groups with particular socioeconomic characteristics. Concepts such as equity, retributive justice, fairness, justice, territorial justice, and civic risk, for example, have emerged to capture the consequences of this burden (Fainstein 2010; Harvey 2009; Hay 1995). Those involved with food justice and environmental justice, for example, have also played an important role in shaping spatial justice (Delgado, in press; Holifield 2001). However, the construct of spatial justice has expanded to cover such topics as pollution and waste sites, lack of playgrounds and access to green space, poverty, illness and disease, and inaccessibility of fresh fruits and vegetables. Soja (2010) argues that spatial justice lends itself to being used as a theoretical concept, as a method for undertaking empirical analyses, and as a strategy for shaping social and political action. The versatility of this construct or perspective enhances its attractiveness for use in ex-offender reentry discourse. Brand (2007) places spatial justice within the confines of cities as a framework for better understanding the impact of social forces within this geographical entity: “While theories of justice often situate themselves directly within the space or time of the city, they do create a framework for understanding the production of injustice and conversely, the production of justice” (p. 8). Brand’s perspective fits well with the central thrust of this book because of the emphasis placed on urban social ecology. There is undoubtedly great promise, but equally tremendous peril, when developing new perspectives or constructs, as in the case of spatial justice, for application in criminal justice or any other field (Brown et al. 2007): The idea of “spatial justice” can be a useful way to reframe cultural and political work so that both analyses and tools become more precise. The important work of defining new terminology, however, always carries with it the related danger of endless classification,

12

Prisoner Reentry at Work

obscuring the fact that language itself does not solve problems and, indeed, that many people have been fighting for justice-in-space for a long time—especially indigenous peoples and people of color. (p. 7)

Consequently, a new perspective and language cannot be accepted without serious thought as to its merits. I believe, however, that spatial justice lends itself quite well to the nature of this book as we examine ex-inmates of color and their reentry into their communities. The construct of spatial justice provides an appropriate frame to help practitioners and academics examine and better understand the role of communities in facilitating or hindering ex-inmate reentry into society. William Julius Wilson’s classic book, The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass, and Public Policy (1987), focuses on the inverse relationship between residential and employment location of the workforce. Ex-offenders who originate in communities where employment is lacking are returned to these same communities upon release from prison, further exacerbating the employment possibilities. Most practitioners are aware of how the convergence of multiple social problems in one geographical area impedes development of social and economic initiatives and of the importance of developing comprehensive service-delivery strategies that take the perspective of the whole person, rather than a portion, based upon funding priorities. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the nation’s cities and, more specifically, inner-city communities. Communities such as Roxbury (Boston), South Central (Los Angeles), Harlem (New York), or Southside (Chicago), for example, all elicit images of economically and socially distressed areas. These images, incidentally, are shared by millions of people who have never stepped foot in these communities yet can describe in great detail numerous social problems manifested there. The media certainly has played a large and influential role in perpetuating these images. Yet the reality is that these communities do bear a disproportionate social and economic burden within their respective cities. Governments, which are the primary funders of social interventions, compartmentalize social problems and develop funding streams accordingly. Consequently, problems that generally cluster together get separated for the purposes of funding research and service delivery. Naturally, human beings experience problems in totality rather than separately. Unfortunately, funders do not share this perspective and rarely come together to develop initiatives that are holistically or comprehensively focused. Ex-offenders are certainly not an exception to this

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

13

viewpoint. Researchers, too, can be criticized for doing the same as governments. Defining and Grounding a Spatial Justice Construct The construct of spatial justice needs to be defined and grounded for it to have any significance in this or any other scholarly undertaking involved in better understanding how context influences outcomes in social interventions. Soja (2010) does not see spatial justice as a substitute or alternative form of justice. Instead, it is viewed as a particular emphasis and interpretative perspective. An unjust geography serves to highlight what on the surface may appear as unrelated circumstances or conditions, which, when placed under a geographical lens, highlights their interrelationship and lends itself for use in better understanding the social and economic consequences of ex-offender reentry. There is a general consensus that the solution to massive ex-inmate reentry is to develop partnerships between key stakeholders, including communities. However, it would be unfair to advocate this position without an in-depth understanding of communities and the current challenges they face. As a result, the status of urban communities is very much tied to how well particular subgroups and, more broadly, communities fare as the country experiences dramatic economic and demographic shifts, dislocation of workers, and large-scale disinvestment (Brisman 2003; Freudenberg et al. 2005; Goodman 2008). The nation’s problems, unfortunately, are not evenly distributed across all communities and geographical regions. Communities that are not able to respond to these challenges invariably will be host to countless numbers of ex-offenders of color upon their release from incarceration (Pryor 2010). Blakely and Bradshaw (2002) also note that these economic upheavals have had a disproportionate impact on certain urban neighborhoods: Inner-city neighborhoods in particular have suffered long-term decline for nearly three decades. . . . They have benefited little from the rising affluence of the nation, and economic restructuring has had little impact upon them. This made employment for inner-city groups more difficult to obtain and keep. . . . As inner-city neighborhoods lost their retail base, they also lost employment for residents. (pp. 11–12)

These communities have had more than their share of problems to contend with and now face prospects of even greater problems, as

14

Prisoner Reentry at Work

large numbers of inmates are released into their communities without adequate preparation and support. The status of what is often referred to as “low-wage” groups cannot be swept away because of their high concentration among certain urban neighborhoods and groups of color, such as those with histories of incarceration (coercive mobility) in the nation’s prisons (Barak, Flavin, and Leighton 2006; Visher, Palmer, and Roman 2007). Weiman (2007) cautions the corrections field about the consequences of weak labor markets and their implication for increasing recidivism risks (Bushway, Stoll, and Weinman 2007). Weiman, Stoll, and Bushway (2007) comment on this caution: “Empirically, we situate the problem of prisoner reentry into the labor market within the context of the harsher political realities facing those on the socioeconomic margins since the mid-1970s, especially young, less-educated, inner-city minority males” (p. 29). Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2006) found that a booming economy increased the likelihood of employers taking chances and hiring less desirable workers, such as exoffenders. Hannon and DeFina (2010) found that both property crime and violent crime, and ex-offender reentry challenges, were substantially reduced when strong economic conditions existed. High rates of unemployment increase competition for existing jobs, allowing employers to be highly selective about whom they hire, further pushing exoffenders down on the list of potential hires. Peck and Theodore (2006) advanced the notion that prisons are an urban labor market that has systematically created unemployment among African American males and their communities. Incarceration has created long-term erosion of the community, resulting in a growing ex-offender population group. Barkan and Cohn (2005) found that white non-Latinos, who were the most prejudiced against African Americans/blacks, were also more willing to support “get tough on crime” policies, raising important questions about the interrelationship between racism and incarceration in this country. It is important, however, to end this section on a positive note. Exoffenders who return and manage to engage in productive and prosocial behavior can be powerful role models for the community (Brooks, Visher, and Naser 2006): “One of the positive things about people returning is that they decided to commit their lives to making sure that the younger children don’t follow the same path, so they start volunteering in the community, and volunteering for different programs” (p. 14). Further, these individuals are in excellent positions to help advise

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

15

correctional systems how to establish reentry programs, and to have these ex-offenders play a more active role in these efforts and serve as role models should not be overlooked. Ex-offenders who can successfully navigate their way back socially into their families and communities increase the social capital of these communities and, in the process, further reinforce positive views of themselves. It is not unusual to have these individuals rise to leadership positions. The case example of Delancey Street Foundation (Chapter 5) illustrates how program participants fulfill important speaking engagements in their communities as a way of giving back to society but also alter public perceptions of ex-offenders. Thus, they successfully turn a negative experience into a positive one for themselves and their communities. In essence, it becomes a win-win situation for the ex-offenders, their communities, and society. As a result, ex-offender reentry can no longer be viewed as an individual experience but rather as a social-ecological event that actively shapes families, communities, and local government. Further, exoffender release must also be viewed within the context of other social challenges faced at the community level, rather than as an isolated event. Social issues and problems do not exist in isolation from each other (Weiman, Stoll, and Bushway, 2007): “The vast majority of prisoners return to their home communities and so face the same gloomy socioeconomic conditions as when they left, although the cumulative toll of mass incarceration may cause further socioeconomic disadvantage and disorganization” (p. 55). A spatial justice concept, as earlier noted, represents a viable lens through which ex-offender reentry can be viewed, thus helping the field to plan social initiatives that take spatial factors, such as community, into account. A spatial perspective, and, in the case of this book, one focused on urban communities of color, helps the field develop a greater understanding of the magnitude of the challenge because of the broad reach of the criminal justice field in select urban communities across the nation (Mauer 2011b).

Putting Community in Ex-Offender Community Reentry Based on the South African experience, Van der Westhuizen and Lombard (2005) put forth a provocative proposition pertaining to commu-

16

Prisoner Reentry at Work

nity and ex-inmates, with implications for the United States: “Crime originated in the community and therefore the community should not only be an important role-player in reporting and preventing crime, but also, along with other role-players, in taking co-responsibility for the rehabilitation and reintegration of the offender into society” (p. 101). There is tremendous value in encouraging community participation in the reentry movement when proper venues and opportunities are sustained (Boyes-Watson 2006). It is ill advised to solely concentrate on preparing the ex-offender for reentry. Ex-offender motivation to succeed is closely tied to community factors that increase the likelihood of success in the reentry process (Wormith et al. 2007). Wilkinson (2005), too, notes that communities must be an essential ingredient of any offender reentry strategy. Mind you, definitions of community are boundless, with each definition having profound implications for service conceptualization and research (Coulton 2005). Nevertheless, the importance of community in discussions of ex-offender reentry necessitates that thorny conceptual issues be resolved in any community reentry initiative. As it will be addressed in Chapter 2 in much greater detail, 95 percent of all prisoners will eventually return to their respective communities and will do so with a wide range of needs. One expert (Jones 2007) noted: “They don’t parachute into prison from outer space. . . . They come from real communities and go back to real communities. . . . Most of what they need to succeed is really not a function of state policies so much as what’s available. . . . Is there a place for you to live? Is there someone willing to give you a job? Is there a faith-based group willing to talk to you when you get stressed?” (p. 5A). As a result, states and local nonprofit organizations have created a number of initiatives to help ex-inmates reenter society and avoid committing crimes and eventual return to prisons, in light of their high probability of being reincarcerated. According to the US Bureau of Justice, two-thirds of inmates released from prison are rearrested within three years of their initial release (O’Brien 2002; Richardson 2006). It is certainly ironic that the criminal justice field of ex-offender reentry has historically viewed community as a backdrop to the reentry process, with minimal attention to this setting as playing a particularly critical role in influencing ex-offender reentry policies and initiatives. Yet, community is where these individuals originated and where they will return upon release. Consequently, this book seeks to place community and social enterprises located there in a prominent position

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

17

related to ex-inmate reentry, and to do so in a manner that actively and meaningfully involves the community and its major formal and informal institutions (Blessing, Golden, and Ruiz-Quintanilla 2008): “There is a growing national recognition that no one entity can or should be solely responsible for ensuring successful community reentry for inmates. . . . Most crucial is the need to establish cross-agency and crosscommunity partnerships designed to facilitate the successful transition from incarceration as an inmate to making productive contributions as a community citizen” (p. 8). The field of criminal justice must discover or rediscover, as the case may be, community as a source of support for ex-offender reentry (McGarrell, Hipple, and Banks 2003). Community is a construct that often gets bandied about in discussions but rarely gets the attention and analysis it deserves, particularly in any serious discussion of ex-offender reentry. The emergence of a new way of viewing ex-inmates and the communities from which they originate and eventually return hold much promise for the field. The successful transition back to society will necessitate creative solutions that actively attempt to involve all sectors of a community (Mack and Osiris 2007). Anything less would prove of limited value and have dire consequences for the ex-inmate, his family, community, and, ultimately, society (Wilhite and Allen 2006). Efforts to address ex-offender reentry, as in the case of social enterprises, are best served when community capacity enhancement also transpires in the process. A number of scholars have advanced a new paradigm or vision concerning ex-offenders and communities. This new paradigm views exoffenders as possessing strengths or assets that can be tapped by society (Barton 2006; Burnett and Maruna 2006; Delgado 2001). An ability to survive incarceration is never to be minimized. Consequently, every effort needs to be made to identify these strengths and utilize them to help other ex-offenders and their respective communities. One former Wall Street investor (Catherine Rohr) founded the Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program when she and her spouse toured a prison and concluded that executives and inmates shared much in common (Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program 2009): “They know how to manage others to get things done. Even the most unsophisticated drug dealers inherently understand business concepts such as competition, profitability, risk management and proprietary sales challenges. For both executives and inmates, passion is instinctive.”

18

Prisoner Reentry at Work

One way of marshalling ex-offender strengths is through civic engagement, which can consist of many different versions but ultimately must view ex-offenders’ communities from an asset perspective and integral to any solution to the reentry challenges. These efforts, along with formal resources, can provide the right combination of forces to address the challenges ex-offenders face in transition to community and a life free of criminal activity. Social enterprises often provide opportunities for participants to engage in giving back to the community through service, as in the cases of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and the Delancey Street Foundation. The following are a few examples of projects that seek to view the community and ex-offender as assets that strengthen development of prosocial identities, as well as alter community images of ex-offenders, mobilize community capacity to provide informal support, and increase human and social capital (Bazemore and Stinchcomb 2004). This change in perspective is best conceptualized as a shift in paradigms or world view, with all of the rewards and challenges associated with a radical shift in perspectives. In England, to engage offenders within prison or after release into the community, ex-offenders have been recruited as health trainers or health promoters as a means of tapping their experiences and skills at developing trust with fellow inmates within and outside of prison (Centre for Clinical and Academic Workforce Innovation 2007). Pudup (2007) illustrates how ex-offenders can play important roles in cultivating community-based garden projects. Jucovy (2006) describes a mentoring program that also taps ex-offenders in helping other exoffenders in their reentry process. Minc, Butler, and Gahan (2009), in turn, describe an innovative Australian radio project targeting inmates and ex-inmates and run by ex-offenders. It may be highly unusual to find ex-inmates owning their own consulting firms, for example, as in the case of Dennis Gaddy, in Raleigh, North Carolina, where he advises inmates and organizations on prisoner reentry (Mazzella 2009). His unique perspective on the trials and tribulations of reentry provides him with expertise that academics do not possess and can be useful in facilitating the creation of ex-offender reentry programs and services. Ex-offenders who worked or owned small businesses before committing their crimes and ensuing incarceration are often in excellent positions to advise government and nonprofits on the creation of reentry initiatives.

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

19

The Case of Joseph Robinson Although the case of Joseph Robinson is, without question, highly unusual, the fact that it even exists is testimony to the potential of small businesses playing a key role in successfully helping ex-offenders return to society and highlights the possibility that inmates or ex-inmates can run their own businesses, not unlike the desire of countless millions of others in this society. Thus, some readers may view Joseph Robinson as an aberration, while others, as I do, view him as an inspiration of what is possible. Robinson’s (2008) book title, Thinking Outside the Cell: An Entrepreneur’s Guide for the Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated, captures both the spirit and intent of this book. A self-educated inmate in New York state (Elmira State Penitentiary) serving a twenty-five-to-life sentence for murder, Robinson decided to write a book to help other individuals with prison backgrounds start their own businesses (Johnson, 2008): “In prison, Robinson didn’t find too many knowledgeable friends, except for the many books he read voraciously. Study eventually led him to appreciate the appeal of business enterprise and, ultimately, self-employment. If released inmates, who are often hard put to find and hold down decent jobs, could furnish work for themselves, he reasoned, how much better it would be for all concerned.” Thus, he had an epiphany. “If I wanted to read a book on entrepreneurship written specifically for incarcerated persons, I would have to write it myself” (p. 1).

The Small Business in Social Enterprises Social enterprises are best understood and appreciated when grounded in the field of small businesses, as the reader will see in the discussion of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries (Chapter 4) and Delancey Street Foundation (Chapter5). These social enterprises do not appear small based on their budgets, the number of staff employed, and, certainly, their mission. The small-business aspect of social enterprises is closely tied to the human service aspects, representing a bridge between the for-profit worlds of business, small or corporate, and human service systems. The importance of profit goes beyond satisfying stockholders and enters the sphere of translating income into opportunities and services for a population group that would struggle in either sector.

20

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The term small business enjoys a tremendous amount of popularity within the general population and in political circles. Historically, the role and importance of entrepreneurship in the United States has occupied a special place in the country’s lore (Conte 2008) and particularly among the nation’s communities of color (Halter 1995; Puryear et al. 2008). The 2008 national presidential election illustrated the role of small businesses and the emergence of a symbol, “Joe the Plumber,” to help capture this sentiment. Small businesses represent the potential of ordinary individuals to harness the spirit of capitalism and succeed in this country. However, this term can cover a wide number of perspectives and definitions (Blackford 2003). Thus, it is important to provide a multifaceted perspective on what constitutes a small business. Blackford (2003) notes that one must not be quick about labeling a small enterprise: “[T]he question of just what constitutes a small firm must be approached with caution. It is important to recognize that neither large nor small firms constitute homogeneous groups and to realize that a ‘gray’ intermediate area exists between these two groups. There are many gradations of ‘smallness’” (p. 2). Utilizing a functional approach, small businesses can best be defined as commercial establishments with relatively simple management—usually the owner runs the business personally—and its clientele is typically bound by geographical factors, with the service or product catering to a particular clientele base. Puryear et al. (2008) advance the notion that small-business ownership is well recognized as fulfilling three important roles within a community and society: (1) engine of economic growth; (2) proving ground for innovation; and (3) identification and creation of fertile markets. Conte (2008), however, identified another role: the economic development aspect of small businesses enhances their importance in stabilizing communities that are unstable. Further, small businesses provide an opportunity for unemployed workers to start their own businesses as a means of surviving difficult economic times. Small-business concepts, when coupled with necessary social supports, can bring the world of business to the human service field, resulting in what is referred to as a social enterprise. These enterprises, in turn, benefit participants but also the communities in which they are situated, thereby enhancing community capacity when viewed from a social-ecological perspective. Social enterprises see the value of collaborative relationships with other community institutions

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

21

and thereby strengthen them in the process and create a situation where existing resources are enhanced.

Helping Professions and Social Enterprises Having helping professions venture into the economic arena to support small business development represents a testament to any profession’s willingness and opportunity to explore new horizons. In the process of doing so, the profession fulfills an important part of its mission to serve undervalued or marginalized groups and communities across the nation (Delgado 2011). Within marginalized communities, however, certain subgroups face even greater challenges in their quest for stability and social mobility. One such group is people of color with histories of involvement in the criminal justice system (Delgado 2001). To have social enterprises take a further step and engage ex-offenders with the assistance of helping professions takes on added significance. Roman (2006) specifically argues for innovative approaches to the ex-offender reentry social crisis because of the immensity of the challenges faced by ex-inmates, their communities, the penal system, and community-based organizations, as addressed throughout the following chapters. Marbley and Ferguson (2004, 2005), too, issue a challenge for collaboration to find specific solutions to the problems faced by ex-inmates of color in their reentry into their communities as they reclaim their lives. Chapters 4 and 5 will bring this reality to the forefront for the reader. The partnerships that will emerge among helping professions, small businesses, and ex-inmates will prove exciting but not without tensions and potential barriers.

Small Businesses and Social Issues Social enterprises that stress the use of business principles and exinmate reentry understand that the challenges confronting this population group go far beyond gainful employment. As will be noted in Chapter 2, ex-inmates fitting different profiles can be expected to benefit differently from involvement in social enterprises that specifically target them. The field of criminal justice cannot lump together all exinmates, regardless of their demographic profiles and sentencing his-

22

Prisoner Reentry at Work

tories. As a result, a typology must be developed to more successfully address the specific challenges of ex-inmate groups to better utilize existing resources during community reentry, such as in social enterprises. In essence, a systematic effort to match inmate characteristics, circumstances, interests, and abilities with appropriate services is in order. Exciting social and health programs have been developed that stress collaboration between small businesses and human services: for example, in the noncriminal justice arena, the use of Latino bakeries to disseminate information on diabetes and healthy eating habits; or the creation of a referral system between botanical shops and health centers for Latinos who are at high risk for HIV/AIDS to be tested (Delgado 2007; Delgado and Santiago 1998). Rodriguez and Sava (2006), in commenting on Latino-owned businesses in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, note the multifaceted role these institutions played in the community: “Historically, Latino-owned businesses also served as information centers and helped solidify the community’s cultural retention. Latino newcomers to Milwaukee could learn information about housing and employment by dropping in at a south side tavern or restaurants” (p. 31). These small businesses are not social enterprises but for-profit businesses that embrace social responsibility and have a need to give back to the community. However, ex-offenders are often not the primary target of the assistance provided by these small businesses. In the criminal justice arena, examples such as the Delancey Street Foundation (San Francisco) and Homeboy/Homegirl Industries (Los Angeles) typify how creative efforts at combining social enterprises actively involving ex-inmates and ex-gang members can address the goals of community economic development and assistance with reentry for those with criminal justice histories (Belluck 2008; Delgado 2001; Flanigan 2008; Russell 2008). Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation will each have chapters describing and analyzing their missions and programs with implications for organizations wishing to learn from their histories. There are numerous other examples of how this social intervention can be implemented to help ensure that racial and ethnic community needs are addressed in a manner that is culturally affirming and relevant, and target subgroups that face prodigious challenges in society. As a result, urban small businesses can function to match residents, including ex-inmates, with needed health and social services. Nevertheless, these successful efforts have largely flown under the radar screen for the most part and deserve being studied.

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

23

Also, many helping professions may feel ambivalent about getting involved with criminal justice issues. Delgado (2001) notes: “Any effort to seriously work with and study the correctionally supervised, regardless of gender and ethnicity, must take into account the barriers associated with clients who are labeled ‘convicts’ or ‘ex-cons’” (p. xv). Thus, ambivalence will unfold regarding helping professions working both with small businesses and, in the case of this book, returning exinmates. Greater attention to social enterprises opens up a vast new arena for community capacity-enhancement and development on the part of helping professions, with all fields benefiting, but more so fields that focus on the undervalued and highly stigmatized in this society, as in the case of ex-offenders and their reentry into communities (Delgado, in press). No resources, formal or informal, can be disregarded or ignored in the quest to meet the needs of one particular subgroup of exoffenders: those of color from low-income/low-wealth backgrounds. The subject of prisoner rehabilitation and community reentry is one that is starting to get increased national attention (Burk 2000; Butterfield 2004). One relatively recent public survey on the subject found that 87 percent of the voting public favor rehabilitation for inmates, and 70 percent favor services, both during incarceration and after release from prison (Krisberg and Marchionna 2006). Survey respondents identified job training (82 percent), medical care (86 percent), public housing (84 percent), and availability of student loans (83 percent) as significant factors in preventing ex-inmates from reentering prison. In addressing the reentry needs of people with criminal justice backgrounds, how social enterprises can be supported in a manner that is culturally competent opens numerous possibilities for collaboration between the communities of color and helping professions. However, the creation of health and social services targeting these communities face numerous challenges (Sung 2011). Examples are those related to creating effective outreach and community education campaigns, and locating and supporting local leadership for involvement on agency boards, advisory committees, and task forces. However, a different lens is needed for explaining the relevance of the respective helping professions in getting communities of color to establish social enterprises and in the partnering and collaborative process between practitioners and agencies in providing the necessary assistance (know-how and resources).

24

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The Goals of the Book Based upon the magnitude of the number of African Americans and Latinos in prison, these two groups will be the focus of attention in this book, although Asian Americans and Native Americans will be also addressed. This book will focus on six goals: 1. Explore the potential role of social enterprises for providing a range of social, health, and economic support for ex-inmates reentering their community. 2. Illustrate how social enterprises aid ex-inmate reentry, using two case studies. 3. Examine incarceration and release trends and their implications for community development, along with how incarceration trends are evolving in urban centers. 4. Review the major challenges that ex-inmates face in reentry into the community, with particular focus on those of color. 5. Examine best practice models on community reentry, with a special focus on those that are urban, racial, and ethnic specific. 6. Provide an asset (capacity-enhancement) analytical framework from which to plan a variety of community reentry services for ex-inmates. One final note: with my writing style I seek to reach both practitioners and academics, clearly different audiences, but with a common interest in the subject matter. This approach reflects my belief that practitioners and academics need to partner with communities, which can only be accomplished through common and accessible language. Thus, sections of this book may appeal more to one audience than the other because of how information is presented.

Overview of Case Studies I always had a fondness for case studies as a result of my many years of practice in the field and trying to reconcile theory with practice. Case studies provide authors with a reader-friendly introduction to theory and new ways of thinking about practice challenges. The case of ex-offender reentry is no exception. Case studies are an excellent mechanism for bringing the academic world of research and scholarship together with the world of practice.

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

25

Two case studies have been selected for highlighting, and it is no accident that both are based in California, the state with the largest prison population and facing huge budget crises, necessitating the rapid release of inmates back into the community as a means of dealing with budget shortfalls. California is often thought of as leading the nation in a variety of ways. Proposition 13, a taxpayer ballot initiative to cut California real estate taxes, had national implications for property taxes and local budgets. Three-strike criminal policies, too, have set the stage for the nation, and countless states are following California in the early release of inmates. Thus, it only stands to reason that California (specifically, Los Angeles and San Francisco) will provide models of social enterprises to facilitate ex-offender reentry into the community. Small businesses, which historically have played important roles within urban communities in the United States, introduced the concept of corporate responsibility from a small business perspective regarding ex-offenders returning to their respective communities (Delgado 2011). Although small businesses have been around since the founding of this nation and have evolved to accommodate the new groups entering this country, these establishments have generally been viewed from a narrow business, or for-profit, viewpoint. Academics have thus failed to create an understanding of their potential for broadening their reach for services to the community. Consequently, a vast potential arena of resources and community political will could address exoffender reentry but has not been used. The two cases, which follow in Chapters 4 and 5, fall under what Ferguson (2007) refers to as social enterprises or social ventures: As one type of social development strategy, social enterprises can refer to a nonprofit organization, a socially minded business, or a revenuegenerating venture established to create positive social impact in the context of a financial bottom line. . . . Common social enterprises used with vulnerable populations include vocational and social cooperatives, microenterprise assistance programs, peer lending, and technical training programs. (p. 105)

Social ventures attempt to interject social and economic spheres in an effort to create opportunities for population groups that are marginalized for a variety of reasons. As a result, social enterprises have opened up a new avenue to address a wide range of social issues, such as exoffender reentry, with a potential to transform how society addresses the needs of this and other marginalized groups (Moss et al. 2011).

26

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The inspiration for the development of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries can be traced to one individual and his capacity to utilize an assets perspective and tap into a community’s desires for a better life, if given an opportunity. It was under the leadership of Father Greg Boyle, who devoted his ministry to working with gangs in East Los Angeles, that Homeboy/Homegirl Industries emerged in 1988 (Fremon 2004). This case study will also serve as the basis for examining the use of a community capacity–enhancement analytical paradigm in addressing the needs of ex-offenders involving small businesses. The Delancey Street Foundation, in turn, was established in 1971, and it, too, owes its birth thirty years ago to the foresight and vision of one individual, John Maher. It was predicated on ex-offenders helping other ex-offenders (self-help), providing a wide range of products and services, including housing, handcrafted furniture, pottery, art objects, moving and transportation, decorating and catering, and a restaurant (Delgado 2001). The concept of social enterprises is not limited to adults; youth, too, can benefit from engagement with these establishments. However, for the purposes of providing in-depth case studies, one related to youth will not be included in this book. Each of these case studies will highlight several key features related to the business and the ex-offenders who are involved in their operations. Each consists of the following eight sections: (1) historical origins, (2) community description, (3) mission statement/operating principles, (4) funding streams, (5) profile of participants, (6) activities and services, (7) evaluation of outcomes, and (8) lessons learned. It is my sincere hope that this case outline provides readers with sufficient information to make an informed decision as to what aspects of these cases have direct applicability to ex-offender reentry in their communities and which ones will need minor or significant modifications to meet local needs. Those who wish greater detail on these cases can go to the appropriate Web pages or contact the organizations directly.

Contributions to the Field I often decide to write a book when the particular subject matter inspires me, and I come to the conclusion that there are no other books on the subject. There is absolutely no other book like this from a business, crim-

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

27

inal justice, sociological-anthropological, social work, or other helping professions perspective. The topic of community reentry of ex-inmates, however, has enjoyed a certain degree of popularity. In the past few years, a number of excellent books stand out for their importance, such as: In the Shadow of Prison: Families, Imprisonment and Criminal Justice (Codd 2008); After Crime and Punishment: Pathways to Offender Reintegration (Maruna and Immarigeon 2004); When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry (Petersilia 2003); Releasing Prisoners, Redeeming Communities: Reentry, Race and Politics (Thompson 2008); Behind Bars: Rejoining Society (Ross and Richards 2009); But They All Come Back! Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Travis 2005); and Prison Reentry and Crime in America (Travis and Visher 2005). A 2001 book by Shadd Maruna, Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives, represents an important effort at reshifting the paradigm on how to view ex-inmates by learning from those who succeeded. This book or any of the previously mentioned books take a particular focus on ex-inmates of color and the potential role of social enterprises as community resources in aiding their reentry. Mind you, as noted in the preface, social enterprises cannot be viewed as a panacea for all of the challenges facing ex-offender reentry. Social enterprises, however, can provide a venue for a portion of these newly released individuals. The reader may, of course, have a viewpoint on the role of social enterprises in the field. That is to be expected due to the complex nature of the subject and the highly emotional charge it creates in most people within and outside of the criminal justice system. However, there is a need to keep an open mind on ex-offender reentry because a constructive dialogue helps increase the likelihood that new initiatives can better match the needs, aspirations, and circumstances surrounding the newest members of a free society. What better way than to take essential elements of small businesses, an institution that has enjoyed such prominence and romanticism in our nation’s history and in the communities where many of these ex-offenders reside, to help craft a comprehensive solution? Social enterprises have many of the attractive qualities of small businesses and interject a variety of social supports to enhance these enterprises to meet the particular challenges of addressing a population

28

Prisoner Reentry at Work

group with multiple needs, while seeking to generate the income to support these activities.

Conclusion The nation will have to invest considerable amount of funds and draw upon political will in order to successfully address the challenges associated with ex-offender reentry into the community and society. There will be an outcry from the public and their elected officials on the immense fiscal investment costs that reentry programs will require. The costs of these reentry initiatives may well approximate or surpass the costs associated with the actual incarceration. As the reader will see in the next chapter, those costs can be astronomical. If viewed from a social investment perspective, the costs may well be tolerated. Ahn-Redding’s (2007) hugely popular book, The “Million Dollar Inmate”: The Financial and Social Burden of Nonviolent Offenders, highlights these multifaceted costs to inmates, their families, and society. This investment must be viewed within the context of the billions of dollars that states and the federal government have spent and are spending in incarcerating large numbers of men and women who could have benefited from alternatives to prison (Brooks, Visher, and Naser 2006): The nation has invested billions of dollars into locking up offenders. The policies around reentry have become increasingly an avoidance of risks. The result, we have created a reentry door of offenders who will be committed to prison time and again as they fail in the community. This is not only a failure of the inmate, it is a failure of our release and reentry policies. . . . [W]ith billions focused on imprisonment, it is only fitting that a few million more be focused on prisoners’ return to the community. (p. 381)

The following two chapters will contextualize and ground for the reader the magnitude of ex-offender reentry in this country. No state will escape its consequences, and few urban communities will not see dramatic shifts in their population composition, as more adult males and increasingly adult females enter their ranks after many years of being absent. The challenges are not only fiscal but social in character. Yet,

Returning Ex-Offenders to Society

29

there is hope that the field of ex-offender reentry is on the cusp of a new era with all of the excitement and commitment associated with a new beginning. Social enterprises will undoubtedly be part of the solution to the reentry challenge for ex-offenders. They, however, will not be the total solution.

2 Community Reentry

The ex-offender reentry process has started to receive national attention from policymakers, academics, and even the general public through various media (print and visual) efforts (Bierens and Carvalho 2010; O’Brien 2002; New York Times 2007; Petersilia 2003, 2004; Travis 2005; Solomon et al. 2004). This attention, however, has largely been fueled by states’ concerns about the costs of maintaining correctional systems in an age of declining revenues, and taxpayer opposition to increasing taxes, rather than humanitarian grounds and social justice concerns. Critics of current reentry efforts question the sincerity of program goals because officials are unwilling to acknowledge that the conditions under which ex-offenders are being released almost guarantee failure (Kelly 2010). Ducksworth (2010) raises a series of provocative questions pertaining to the reentry issue: “When does the reentry phase end? When does society allow the ex-offender to move on with their lives? Even when secure employment has been maintained, when other areas of the individuals’ life functioning ‘at least like everyone else in society,’ when does the reentry stop and the ex-offender allowed to enter into mainline society?” (p. 557). The national fiscal crisis has served as a powerful impetus for states to examine their correctional system costs, which are second only to those of Medicaid (Katel 2009). In 1999, only a handful of state prisons had specific programs or divisions devoted to ex-offender reentry.

31

32

Prisoner Reentry at Work

However, in a period of approximately ten years, it is estimated that every state corrections department in the country had a program or even a division devoted to this activity. In 2008, the federal government funded $28 million in grants to reentry programs in an effort to spur much needed innovation (Katel 2009). The scale of reentry programs and efforts differs considerably across states. At one end, states like Texas instituted a $241 million reentry program (Justice Reinvestment Initiative), while at the opposite end California resisted such efforts, initiating reentry efforts only after a federal court order (Katel 2009). Texas’s road to recovery, so to speak, is remarkable considering the state’s reputation for incarceration. Between 1965 and 2000, the prison population increased by 1,200 percent, or twice that of the national rate (Bergner 2010; Perkinson 2010). In 2011, the US Supreme Court (Brown v. Plata, No. 09-1233) found California’s prison system to be engaging in cruel and unusual treatment of inmates due to excessive overcrowding (Liptak 2011; New York Times 2011). California has the highest overcrowding rate of any state system in the country, and all of its state prisons are overcrowded, ranging from 125 percent to more than 180 percent (Medina 2011). The Supreme Court affirmed a lower order by a three-judge federal court to require the state to reduce its prison population by 30,000 inmates—to 110,000 inmates—by 2013. Although there is general agreement on what services are needed to facilitate reentry, there still is a lack of agreement and considerable debate on what programs or policies are most effective in keeping exoffenders out of a life of crime (Anderson-Facile 2009). Reentry, as noted in Chapter 1, is best conceptualized as a transient state between freedom and recommitment for many inmates, particularly those of color who came from low-income and low-wealth communities (Blumstein and Beck 2005). These individuals historically have filled prisons and are more likely to return to prison. Although the reentry stage can be viewed as episodic, it is best thought of as a continuance of a long journey from community to imprisonment and back to community. As a result, reentry can be both an event and a process (Maruna, Immarigeon, and LaBel 2004): “More broadly, reentry is also a long process, one that actually starts prior to release and continues well afterwards. It is fashionable . . . to suggest that the reentry process should begin as soon as the individual is taken into custody. That is, everything that is done to a convicted person should be serving the cause of preparing the individual for success after release” (p. 5).

Community Reentry

33

Expanding the arena usually associated with reentry brings the importance of rehabilitation to the forefront, while the inmate is paying his debt to society. It also highlights the importance of having a comprehensive understanding of the strengths and needs of the inmate, particularly if he or she is to be successful beyond employment in the transition back into society. These factors, in turn, need to be weighed against a backdrop of the community costs of incarceration, particularly the lack of connectivity (social capital) and fear engendered by the returning ex-offender (Ahn-Redding 2007). The communities these ex-offenders are returning to also are receiving attention, as are calls for greater community education on the issues of ex-inmate reentry and the importance of actively engaging the community in finding solutions (Brazzell 2007). Consequently, to state that the reentry process is both arduous and complex would be an understatement (Piehl, LoBuglio, and Freeman 2003). Lynch and Sabol (2001) argue that the debates about prisoner reentry can be summed up in two critical questions: “First, can the disruption attendant to the removal and return of inmates to society be reduced without increasing the risk of criminal victimization for communities? Second, if the response to the first question is yes, then how can we best reduce the removal and return from correctional institutions?” (p. 20). Answers to these two questions necessitate creative thinking on the part of the criminal justice field and close collaboration between communities and the criminal justice system (Clear, Rose, and Ryder 2001). Unfortunately, the track record on these types of collaborations is not long. Solutions will also necessitate comprehensive planning and funding from government, foundations, and volunteer efforts at the local community level (Henderson and Hanley 2006). Further, these efforts will necessitate ex-offenders’ views of their needs be placed more prominently at the center of reentry programs (Morani et al. 2011). In essence, ex-offenders must play an active and meaningful role in shaping programs that target them. These solutions also will necessitate the development of trust and a willingness on all sides to engage in a partnership where one never existed. In short, such an effort translates into an ex-offender reentry temporary assistance recovery program to counteract historical oversights and the projected massive increases in returning ex-offenders. This must be viewed against a historical backdrop. War veterans, too, received little attention and assistance in helping them reenter their families and communities upon their return.

34

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The average profile of a prisoner in this nation’s prisons and jails leads to an ex-inmate reentering society in the next decade, only older and probably in poorer health than their counterparts in their respective communities. It certainly is a picture of a population that did not fare well before incarceration and, as a result of their prison/jail experience, is expected to fare even worse once they return to their families and communities. Nevertheless, this returning population is still relatively young and, with some exceptions, seeks to be a constructive part of their communities and society. The demographic picture of the nation’s prisoners, even for those fortunate enough to return to their respective communities, is stark. The probabilities of “doing time” are greatly increased if one is lowincome/low-wealth African American or Latino. Doing time has an undisputedly negative impact on ex-inmates, their family, neighbors, and community. Further, the increasing financial burden on local, state, and federal government is also certain (Bonhomme, Stephens, and Braithwaite 2006). Nevertheless, the reality facing communities and state and local governments in the early part of this millennium is cause for reexamination of how society will address crime and punishment. We need to consider—now and in the foreseeable future—what to do with those who have paid their debt to society and now find themselves in a precarious state of being. The disproportionate impact of these release trends on certain communities further highlights the importance of local government planning for the unintended consequences associated with ex-prisoner reentry. The health profile of an ex-inmate, as addressed in greater detail later in this chapter, is one of an individual who is unhealthy, with multiple health challenges ahead, and facing a host of other social and economic challenges that further complicate an already complicated journey back into society (Rand Research Brief 2003). Kulkami and colleagues (2010) concluded that ex-offenders experience significant health disparities compared with the nonprison population: “While persons with an incarceration history were similar to their peers with regard to health and insurance status, their access to medical and dental care was worse. Incarceration history was independently associated with disparities in access to care” (p. 268). These health challenges, unfortunately, extend far beyond the newly released inmate and can carry over to their families and communities in the case of ex-offenders with communicable diseases. The trends are rather obvious when examining specific subgroups. The

Community Reentry

35

impact of older adult inmates, male and female (fifty years and older) for example, will only grow in significance related to their needs and, numerically, as the inmate population grows older and pressures on government to reduce costs by releasing them early increase. This group has the highest health costs of any group within the prison system, thereby becoming a high-profile group that state governments want to move out of prisons and into communities. Finally, this chapter attempts to avoid the trap of grouping together all ex-inmates into a statistical category that ignores the influence of key sociodemographic factors on their ability to reintegrate into their respective communities. Although a brief statistical portrait will be provided, every effort will be made to draw implications for reentry for those individuals sharing similar profiles. Further, it is important for the reader to realize that the following factors do not exist in isolation from each other. A constellation of factors come together to paint a portrait of the ex-offender who must succeed against incredible odds. With the proper supports and circumstances, some do so.

Inmate Profile, Release, and Resettling Patterns In 2008, the US prison population increased at the slowest rate (0.8 percent) since 2000, with a total of 1,610,446 inmates by the end of the year, considerably lower than the average growth of 1.8 percent and the 6.5 percent per year average during the explosive 1990s (Cooper, Sabol, and West 2009). By year-end 2009, this growth percentage had declined to 0.2 percent (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). Community reentry necessitates that the field of criminal justice develop a demographic profile of the returning ex-inmate, the circumstances that led him to engage in criminal act(s), and the circumstances surrounding his incarceration sentence. A comprehensive view of the inmate provides needed information on what it will take to help him lead a life free of crime. How quickly ex-offenders are released and where they reenter their communities play an influential role in how services are structured to help them readjust and be successful upon release. This section provides a brief overview on the subject matter and places heavy emphasis on providing the latest data on African American, Latino, and Asian American demographic profiles and projected trends. Members of the helping professions rarely pay sufficient atten-

36

Prisoner Reentry at Work

tion to these types of data, which are interrelated. As a result, this section sets the stage for subsequent chapters examining how small businesses and social enterprises can play a role in addressing the needs of ex-inmates reentering their communities and also benefit from engaging in socially responsible behavior in this arena. Profile of Inmates Readers interested in highly detailed and in-depth profiles will not have any difficulty finding countless numbers of official government and foundation reports and scholarly books highlighting this aspect of incarceration (Pew Center on the States 2008a). Putting faces and stories to these statistics humanizes inmates and ex-inmates. As noted in the previous section, there is certainly no absence of statistics about who is incarcerated or involved with the criminal justice system, although there are certain limitations to these data. The subject of criminal justice involvement can get operationalized for inmates serving sentences in local jails and state and federal prisons. Meghan’s (2004) comments on the tendency to group ex-inmates raises an alarm about how social policy and practice are shaped: “The blithe categorization of ex-offenders en bloc further confounds the whole range of policy development, programming, research, legislation, and social justice in general” (p. xiv). Not every ex-inmate will experience a similar reality upon reentering his community, just like not every inmate experiences incarceration in the same manner. However, those with certain characteristics and circumstances will face even greater challenges in seeking to normalize their lives and desist from engaging in crimes (LeBet et al. 2008; McNeill 2006; Smith and Jones 2008). Their profile, unfortunately, raises serious concerns about who is incarcerated in this country and why they are disproportionately represented in the nation’s prison system and more likely to be reincarcerated. A demographic profile of ex-inmates provides a broad perspective on criminal justice and the propensity of certain ethnic and racial and groups to be overrepresented in this system. Arditti and Parkman (2011), for example, comment on young ex-offenders reentering the community and searching for jobs when they have a limited employment history to begin with, because of their age, in addition to the stigma of being an ex-offender.

Community Reentry

37

As a result, effective social program development, including engagement of social enterprises and small businesses in ex-offender reentry, cannot transpire without a proper grounding within demographics, regardless of the population group being targeted. This type of information is invaluable in the creation of a target profile for services. For example, a report issued by the Sentencing Project (Washington, D.C.) showed a trend of declining rates of blacks incarcerated for drug-related crimes but increasing for white non-Latinos (Moore 2009d). The racial and ethnic breakdown of incarceration rates shows that African American/black males were incarcerated at a rate more than six times (4,749 per 100,000 US residents) that of white non-Latinos (708 per 100,000) and 2.6 (1,822 per 100,000) times higher than that of Latinos (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). Latino males were incarcerated at almost four times that of white non-Latino males. African American/ black females were incarcerated at rate 3.6 times (333 per 100,000) greater than their white non-Latina counterparts (91 per 100,000). Latinas were almost 3.5 times more likely to be imprisoned than their white non-Latina counterparts (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). NonUS citizens accounted for 4.1 percent (94,498) of state and federal inmates, and it is fair to assume that a high percentage of these prisoners are of color, particularly Latino. The Correctional Association of New York (2000) provided a broad profile of the typical prisoner in a US prison, which highlights the challenges these ex-inmates face upon reentry into the community: He is a male of color in his early 30’s, born and raised in poverty, unmarried, with children, and lacking a high school diploma. His educational deficiencies have likely resulted in low-paying or menial jobs. His history of substance abuse, parental neglect and high-risk behavior has compromised his physical and mental health as well as his ability to find and keep a job. Chances are strong that he supported his drug dependence by entering the neighborhood drug trade, which further exposed him to a life of violence and instability and prompted his decline into homelessness, joblessness and addiction. (p. 23)

This profile clearly is one of an individual who is at risk for reincarceration and must be taken into account in the design of any reentry program.

38

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Latino ex-inmates, however, provide extraordinary challenges in preventing their reincarceration (Marin 2008; Martin 2008) because of racial discrimination and linguistic, cultural, and immigration status (National Council of La Raza 2005; Reentry Coalition 2004; Walker et al. 2007). These challenges, however, can be neutralized if the community is involved in helping Latinos reintegrate and efforts are made to target them. Provision of employment within the community further increases the likelihood of Latino inmates’ success, although employment itself is insufficient to ensure success. The age of a former inmate upon release influences external perceptions at the community and broader society levels. One study of employment services for ex-inmates in three cities, for example, found that participation in a support program reduced the risk of recidivism only for ex-inmates over the age of twenty-seven in Chicago and San Diego and over the age of thirty-six in Boston (Bierens and Carvalho 2010). As a result, younger ex-offenders either posed too great a threat to employers or simply viewed the life that they had prior to incarceration as too attractive or difficult to leave. The educational level of ex-offenders, too, is considered an important factor to consider in reentry programs, with the higher the level of formal educational attainment the greater the likelihood of ex-offender success in reentering society. Inmates with a GED (General Educational Development) or post–high school education have increased options within a limited employment market. However, those without a high school level diploma are increasingly relegated to the margins of the employment market, making it arduous to earn a living and stay out of a life of crime. English language proficiency (reading, writing, and comprehension) is generally closely associated with a formal level of educational attainment. This factor takes on added importance when discussing the exoffender who is monolingual in a language other than English. The high levels of Latinos in the criminal justice system and their lack of English language proficiency have generally been overlooked in the literature on ex-offender reentry. Finally, the nature of the crime committed and the length of time served interact powerfully with the sociodemographic factors outlined earlier in this section, particularly in cases where ex-inmates have entered the correctional system at a young age and spent a considerable portion of their adult lives behind bars. As a result, reentry into the com-

Community Reentry

39

munity and society necessitates considerable adjustments on the part of ex-offenders and considerable support. Overview of Prison Release Trends The thrust toward mass incarceration has been well documented in the scholarly and government literature over the past two decades (Weiman, Stoll, and Bushway 2007). We are now, however, starting to pay appropriate attention to deincarceration or release trends that local, state, and federal governments are reporting or projecting. The portrait of the exinmate is similar to the portrait of the inmate (General Accountability Office 2001). As noted in Chapter 1, release statistics and projections take on added significance because of where these ex-offenders are being released. Cities and, more specifically, certain communities within cities are the primary and often final destination of returning exinmates. With notable exceptions, these individuals return to their respective communities with minimal employment and educational skills to help them, their families, and communities during this transition period (Wang, Mears, and Bales 2010). Although the nation went through a period of getting tough on crime, with prison sentences reflecting this philosophy, eventually most prisoners can be expected to be released. The past approximately twenty years have witnessed a massive buildup of the correctional system and prisons. These increases have been largely the result of four distinct but highly related trends: (1) increased use of mandatory minimum sentences; (2) increased parole violations; (3) increased length of sentences; and (4) rise in arrests primarily due to drug-related crimes. One estimate has at least 95 percent of state prison inmates eventually leaving their institutions (Jones 2007). If early releases continue, approximately 650,000 inmates a year (1,600 a day) are released from prisons, and this number is often compared with the total population of Washington, D.C., as a means of illustrating its magnitude. California alone accounts for approximately 120,000 former prison inmates being released every year (Lee 2010) and, as already noted, has been under federal court order to reduce its prison population. The Penal Harm Movement has sought to show the devastating consequences of this nation’s get tough on crime policies on the communities where these inmates originate (Webster and Doob 2008). African

40

Prisoner Reentry at Work

American/black male ex-offenders, for example, face a double jeopardy of being of color and ex-convicts (Pager 2007; Wells 2008). The communities where ex-offenders reside after their incarceration also face multiple challenges or stigmas (Wang, Mears, and Bales 2010). As discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of spatial justice has emerged to capture a dynamic state of affairs in which the most marginalized (low income/low wealth, single-headed households, of color, and low formal educational attainment) are subject to being disproportionately stigmatized and victimized by high rates of incarceration and by the high numbers of under- or unsupervised ex-inmates in their communities (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009; La Vigne and Cowan 2005; Rengert 1989; Reisig et al. 2007; Rose and Clear 1998; Western 2003). There is little question that a dramatic movement is evident in society regarding incarceration and ex-offender release, as shown by the upsurge in print and visual media coverage of the topic. For example, the New York Times, in a 2009 article, declared that the de“prisonalization” movement was taking hold across the United States (Steinhauer 2009). For many of us who remember the mental health deinstitutionalization movement of the late 1960s and 1970s, it brings back vivid images of thousands of formerly institutionalized mental patients roaming the streets of major urban areas and memories of the consequences resulting from the lack of planning for this mass exodus of individuals with special needs and circumstances. The New York Times article described the closing of prison institutions, creation of alternatives to incarceration, and efforts to shorten prison time of inmates willing to engage in activities that would facilitate their reentry into society. New York state, for example, is about to dismantle one of the oldest and toughest laws in the nation—doing away with mandatory minimum sentences for lower-level drug felons and increasing judge discretion in sentencing first-time offenders to drug treatment programs (Peters 2009). Fiscal concerns have been a primary motivator behind this shift in policies away from incarceration. State efforts to reduce prison populations as the preferred strategy for reducing fiscal costs are not restricted to states such as New York. In 2009, California, Colorado, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, and Oregon, to list but a few of the more prominent examples, introduced efforts to reduce prison populations as cost-cutting measures (Riccardi 2009). During 2009, twenty-four states reported decreases in

Community Reentry

41

their prison populations, with six reporting declines exceeding 1,000 inmates: Michigan (3,260), California (2,395), New York (1,660), Mississippi (1,272), Texas (1,257), and Maryland (1,069) (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2010). However, the same study reported that five states had increases of over 1,000 inmates: Pennsylvania (2,214), Florida (1,527), Louisiana (1,399), Alabama (1,282), and Arizona (1,038). With one of the nation’s largest prison systems, California is widely referred to as the US poster child of dysfunctionality in criminal justice (Weisberg 2010). In 2009, a federal court panel ordered the early release of over 55,000 inmates due to concerns about overcrowding and health conditions, a decision affirmed by the US Supreme Court in 2011(Liptak 2011; Moore 2009a, 2009b). This move is expected to save the state anywhere from $803 million to $906 million a year in correctional costs. In mid-2009, a panel of federal judges ordered California to reduce its inmate population by approximately 27 percent (150,000 down by 40,000) within two years (Moore 2009e), which was unsuccessfully appealed to the US Supreme Court. This reduction in inmate population represents yet another attempt to address poor health care within the prison system. This federal court effort is considered the largest state prison reduction ever ordered by the courts over the objection of state officials. This movement has been fostered by some elected officials understanding how these financial resources can be deployed into other areas of society. Although the financial cost is probably the most common measurement, the incarceration costs cannot be quantified by dollars alone. The social and political costs, too, as noted earlier, need to be weighed. Even though not easily monetized, they still are quite costly in terms of relationships and dashed dreams, with long-term negative consequences for prisoners, their families, and communities. These ex-offender releases are occurring at a fast pace, and this is both exciting and anxiety-provoking. They are exciting because they signal long-due recognition that incarceration cannot proceed on a business as usual pace. This recognition, in turn, signifies the increased allocation of funding for new initiatives targeting ex-offenders and efforts to divert individuals from prisons. Nevertheless, there has been insufficient time to adequately plan for the return of these men and women to their communities and society. The parallels with the mental health deinstitutionalization movement are quite striking and cause for concern. The increasing percent-

42

Prisoner Reentry at Work

age of inmates with severe and persistent mental illness makes prisons de facto mental health hospitals of the twenty-first century. The economic depression of 2008 caught the nation by surprise, necessitating drastic steps in balancing state and local tax income with expenditures, resulting in a renewed or, some critics would say, a new focus on reducing prison populations. Ex-inmate community reentry is not unique to urban centers of the country; challenges can also be found in rural sectors. “The exclusion of rural perspectives on prisoner reentry might be considered trivial if there were nothing about rural communities or the experiences offenders face when returning to rural areas that differentiate them from urban settings” (Wodahl 2006, p. 33). All of the same challenges that ex-offenders face upon returning to urban communities can be found in rural communities, with an even greater paucity of resources and attention. However, cities arguably face a disproportionate challenge because of the magnitude of the numbers and the interplay of race and socioeconomic class. Low-income communities of color in cities such as Atlanta, Baltimore, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Philadelphia, for example, supply a disproportionate number of inmates in their states’ penal system and, as a result, bear a disproportionate brunt of the social consequences of ex-inmates returning to their communities (Delgado 2001; Gaiter, Potter, and O’Leary 2006; Massoglia and Schnitter 2009; Stone 1999; Western and Pettit 2002). The social and economic impact of mass incarceration on African American families, for example, has been well documented in the literature (Western and Wildeman 2009). A New York Times (2008, March 10) editorial entitled “Prison Nation” notes that the nation is finally waking up to the fiscal and moral costs of overcrowded prisons and slowly embracing a shift in policies away from incarceration at any cost. Acknowledgment of these problems represents an important initial step in addressing them. Solutions, however, will present an even greater challenge. The concept of surrogate prison (community as a substitute prison) has emerged to capture this condition, as evidenced in the following case illustrations. In 2001, Illinois had six out 102 counties accounting for 75 percent of all released inmates, with 53 percent of inmates returning to Chicago (La Vigne et al. 2003). More specifically, six of seventy-seven communities accounted for 34 percent of all released inmates, and all had high rates of poverty (Muwakkil 2003).

Community Reentry

43

The majority (85 percent) of Pennsylvania’s newly released inmates during the period 2002–2003 settled in Philadelphia and, more specifically, six neighborhoods. Three of these communities (Hartranft, Hunting Park, and West Kensington) have low economic measures (Mayor’s Office for the Reentry of Ex-Offenders 2006). One recent study, for example, found that 49 percent of former inmates who recidivated resided in 30 out of 376 of Philadelphia’s zip codes (Heroux 2009). In Maryland, approximately 60 percent of ex-inmates return to Baltimore, and over one-third return to six of fifty-five Baltimore communities (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). In 2002, 31 percent of all inmates released in New Jersey returned to two counties (Essex and Camden) and were further concentrated within these counties. Thirteen percent of all returning ex-inmates settled in Newark, the state’s largest city, and 10 percent returned to the city of Camden. Newark’s central and southern wards accounted for 55.3 percent of the city’s prison admissions, and seven out of twenty-one of Camden’s neighborhoods accounted for 52.4 percent of that city’s prison admissions (Travis et al. 2004). In 2001, Ohio’s Cuyahoga County (encompassing Cleveland) had the highest percentage of Ohio’s returning ex-offenders: 22 percent. However, five of Cleveland’s thirty-six communities received 28 percent of the returning inmates, and these communities were characterized by high levels of economic and social distress (Brooks, Visher, and Naser 2006; La Vigne and Thomson 2003). Watson et al. (2004) studied inmate release statistics in Texas and found that, in 2001, 58 percent of the ex-offenders returned to five of the state’s 254 counties, with high poverty and crime characterizing most of the neighborhoods where exinmates settled. In Virginia, a similar story unfolds with Richmond and Norfolk having the highest number of returning inmates, and the most economically distressed communities being the primary point of return (Keegan and Solomon 2004). Travis, Solomon, and Waul (2001) examine prisoner reentry in Brooklyn, New York, and take the analysis to a block level: The six police precincts with the highest number of residents on parole account for only 25 percent of the total population of Brooklyn but the same six precincts are home to 55 percent of all the parolees in Brooklyn. Looking at the block-group level (small areas within census tracts), one finds that 11 percent of the block groups account for 20 percent of the population in Brooklyn, yet are home to 50 percent of all parolees. (p. 41)

44

Prisoner Reentry at Work

These statistics, however, do not take into account ex-inmates who were released without parole. One 2006 estimate of the correctional costs to New York City and New York state systems from one Brooklyn (Brownsville) neighborhood alone was $35 million a year (Louis 2006). Fagan, West, and Holland (2003) found similar findings when studying New York City’s poorest neighborhoods and police precincts. They concluded that the impact of returning ex-inmates on their communities had three direct consequences: (1) declining economic fortunes; (2) resources and relationship strains on the families of former inmates; and (3) voter disenfranchisement that effectively weakens the political economy of the neighborhoods. Kubrin and Stewart (2006) found that the neighborhood context that ex-inmates return to plays a critical role in increasing or decreasing the likelihood of recidivism, with high poverty–level communities increasing the likelihood of a continued criminal career. Lack of training and preparation for life outside of prison, for example, undermines the chances of ex-offenders succeeding. High recidivism rates in these communities further exacerbate a precarious situation for both communities and ex-inmates (Taxman, Byrne, and Pattavina 2005): “Paradoxically, the current policies and practices of the criminal justice system may weaken both the formal and the informal social control mechanisms affecting both individuals and communities, particularly those areas that are plagued with disadvantages such as persistently high concentrations of poverty. Rather than deter criminal behavior, current policies and practices may actually promote it” (p. 58). Ex-inmates of color face the additional challenges of racism in their quest for a new life. Dumas (1994) identified the unique needs and challenges that African American inmates faced in their reentry and issued a call to action to the community and faith institutions to meet these challenges. Since then, the needs have not changed and, in fact, may have gotten more challenging. Delgado (2001) identified a number of assets that ex-offenders of color have upon their return to society, but these assets or strengths are generally ignored in efforts to aid exinmates in the reentry process. As addressed later in this book, partnerships can be developed between ex-offenders and community institutions, which can be enhanced through civic engagement projects of various kinds (Jones and Flynn 2008; Travis and Petersilia 2001). Communities have tremendous power in dictating the outcomes of mass de-prisonalization in this

Community Reentry

45

country and, as a result, must be consulted and actively engaged in the decisionmaking process involving reentry initiatives.

Challenges and Dilemmas The discussion of challenges and dilemmas that follows will be limited to several specific topics related to ex-offender disenfranchisement (voting), housing, the mind-set of ex-offenders, and dimensions of ex-offender reentry. These challenges and the dilemmas they present do not exist in isolation from each other. Nevertheless, for the purposes of facilitating discussion, they will be treated as separate entities. Oliver (2010), an ex-offender, wrote an article titled “My Sentence Is Over but Will My Punishment Ever End?” and does an eloquent job of bringing these challenges to life and explaining why society’s punishment does not end once an inmate is out of prison. Disenfranchisement Disenfranchisement can be viewed from a variety of perspectives that highlight challenges to successful reentry into the community and accordingly place varying degrees of responsibility on inmates and society (Nixon et al. 2008; Thompson 2004). My position is that enfranchisement of ex-offenders is critical to their ultimate success in society and therefore worthy of particular attention in this chapter and book. Disenfranchisement undermines the journey of reentry and the ability to function as a contributing adult to a democratic society. Mauer and Chesney-Lind (2002) coined the term collateral consequences of conviction to capture the myriad penalties that ex-offenders face upon their reentry into society. Travis (2002) argues that exoffenders face two forms of punishment: visible and invisible. The former refers to the incarceration experience, while the latter refers to the disenfranchisement of the right and privileges that citizens typically enjoy. These, however, are not as obvious as imprisonment. Disenfranchisement is a key theme found in the literature regarding the multiple challenges facing ex-inmates returning to their community (Pinard and Thompson 2005). It is manifested in many areas: formally (legally) and informally (illegally), making reintegration challenges (housing, employment, voting, health care, and social relationships) even greater. As the reader will see, no single helping profession

46

Prisoner Reentry at Work

can possibly address all of these challenges, and no one geographical locale can be expected to completely address the issue of disenfranchisement (Cnaan et al. 2008; King and Mauer 2004). Taxman, Young, and Byrne (2003) identified six significant restrictions that severely limit ex-inmates’ likelihood of avoiding recidivism: (1) electoral voting disenfranchisement; (2) restrictions on public housing for ex-inmates with felony convictions; (3) restrictions on employment in certain areas; (4) child support payments in the case of those who had children prior to incarceration; (5) stigma associated with the notification of their prison background upon their reentry; and (6) public access to their criminal histories through a variety of media such as the Internet. A number of scholars have identified a range of legal and extralegal factors, including the stigma associated with being an ex-inmate, influencing the reentry experience (Harding 2003; Harrison and Schehr 2004; Kethinenim and Falcone 2007; Pinard 2007; Shivy et al. 2007; Smyth 2007; Winnick and Bodkin 2008). Roy and McAdam (2006) stress the need for ex-offenders to view their reentry as a second chance to make amends and to see the transformative aspects of this concept and belief. However, the stigma that goes with being an “ex-con” limits efforts at making amends. Stigma can be a broader concept that goes beyond being an ex-offender and may also be contingent, for example, upon psychiatric symptoms in cases where ex-offenders have severe and persistent mental illness (Lynch and Skinner 2004; Tschopp et al. 2007). Brooks, Visher, and Nasar (2006) make an important observation, based on focus group responses, that some returning ex-inmates may not view their imprisonment from a stigmatizing point of view. Instead, it may be a badge of honor (Brooks, Visher, and Nasar 2006): “When they came home a long time ago, they were ashamed. They had shamed their families. They tried to do good to show people that they were sorry for what they did. They don’t have that in them now. It’s not like that anymore” (p. 19). Ex-offenders who are of color, have psychiatric symptoms, and have limited formal education, for example, have multiple challenges, making their adjustments back into their communities that much more difficult when compared to an ex-inmate who is white, has no obvious psychiatric problems, and has a high school diploma. Consequently, painting all ex-cons with the same brush stroke would do an injustice to any serious discussion of stigma and corresponding adjustment back

Community Reentry

47

into society. As a result, the process necessitates that social programs understand and address ex-offenders from an individual perspective in order to better increase their probability of succeeding in the community and encourage their participation in programs. The popularity of urban clothing styles that have pants hanging low and expose underpants, for example, is reflective of the prison experience where belts are not allowed. Consequently, the community environment will dictate if stigma, or pride, is the prevailing view of the prison experience. Female ex-inmates face a different set of challenges concerning stigma from serving prison sentences, particularly in cases where the ex-offenders are mothers hoping to be reunited with their children (O’Brien and Young 2006). Long-term studies of children of inmates, particularly those who are African American, show struggles in adjusting to an incarcerated parent, including a higher probability of homelessness, violent behavior, and mental illness (Eckholm 2009). Henderson (2005) observes that ex-inmate reentry challenges have generally focused on housing, employment, and recidivism. However, Henderson draws attention to collateral consequences that impede exinmate access to credit and financial resources. Stiber (2005), in turn, argues that disenfranchisement is the twenty-first century version of the “Separate but Equal” doctrine, with a loss of rights that are typically taken for granted in this society. Legal advocates note that the formidable legal barriers ex-offenders face—such as loss of voting rights, lack of access to public housing, and restrictions on employment—require establishment of collaborative partnerships to close the legal service gaps in the reentry process. Voter Initiatives Voting may appear on the surface as an activity that seems to be a waste of time and resources, yet many prisoner advocates would disagree, and so do I (Moore 2008; Reiman 2005). Mauer (2002), one of this nation’s leading experts on ex-offender disenfranchisement traces its history to the Middle Ages: “The exclusion of felons from the body politic derived from the concept of ‘civil death’ that had its origins in medieval Europe. Such a designation meant that a lawbreaker had no legal status, and imposed dishonor and incapacity on one’s descendents” (pp. 50–51). Travis (2002), however, traces ex-offender disenfranchisement to early Roman history and the use of “outlawry,” whereby they lost their possessions, rights, and families.

48

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Because voter disenfranchisement touches ex-inmates but also their communities, it’s worth focusing on this topic. Many advocates against disenfranchisement argue that the right to vote is a fundamental principle of democracy (Dhami 2005). Furthermore, politically disempowering an entire population group threatens the legitimacy of democracy and serves as a form of social exclusion (Dhami 2005; Young and Hill 2009). The sociopolitical-economic implications of a large sector of a community not being able to vote can be devastating. Mauer (2002) estimated that, in 2000, 2 percent of the nation’s adult population and 13 percent of African American male adults were disenfranchised from voting in national elections. There is widespread recognition that increasing ex-inmate participation in positive actions and behaviors, upon their release into the community, translates into increasing the likelihood of their remaining out of prison. Acquisition of a citizen role is considered a fundamental step on the road to recovery for ex-offenders (Taxman 2005). Thus, restoring ex-inmate rights to vote has been identified as a viable and visible way of increasing their connectedness to society and contributing to the political economy of their community in the process (Chin 2002; Kurlychek and Kempinen 2006; Sengupta 2000). In addition, voting takes on added significance when viewed against the backdrop of slavery in this country and how blacks’ disenfranchisement in this country has shaped African American history (Blackmon 2008; Brown-Dean 2007; Campbell 2007). The high number of people of color who are disenfranchised is not a new phenomenon, with its roots tracing back to the 1860s and 1870s during the years directly following the Civil War. Southern states began barring convicts from voting as a way of excluding a large number of African Americans, while still adhering to the Fifteenth Amendment, which banned voting restrictions based on race (Wacquant 2005). In addition to this restriction, other states added further ones, such as poll taxes and literacy requirements, because “Negros were believed to be naturally shiftless and improvident” (Wacquant 2005, p. 133). As a result of this discrimination, combined with intimidation and violence, the number of African American voters shrank from 87,000 in 1868 to a mere 9,000 in 1892 (Wacquant 2005). Additionally, in 1962, the number of voters at 28,000 was far below where it had been almost 100 years earlier (Wacquant 2005). Unfortunately, these racist policies are still prevalent in our current criminal justice system, although current efforts are under way to rectify this situation.

Community Reentry

49

A number of scholars and advocacy organizations have examined the political and social impact of ex-offenders of color being politically disenfranchised from the voting system in this country and raised serious concerns about its implications for democracy (Demeo and Ochoa 2003; Thomas 2002). Mondesire (2001), for example, goes so far as to compare felon disenfranchisement to a modern day poll tax and highlights its historical origins and racial dimensions. Greiger (2006) considers ex-inmates one of the most marginalized population groups in this country and takes the position that they should be considered as a “suspect class” to help protect their constitutional rights: “Equal protection doctrine fails to protect ex-offenders largely because they are not considered a suspect class for equal protection purposes and therefore do not receive heightened judicial attention when subject to government discrimination” (p. 1191). Alexander (2010), in turn, argues that this disenfranchisement represents a modern-day version of Jim Crow. Archer and Williams (2005) contend that ex-offenders essentially carry a lifetime sentence, regardless of the crime they committed and paid for, because of mandatory exclusions from key social programs and employment opportunities. Uggen and Manza (2005) note that exinmates have been disenfranchised, hampering their successful reintegration into the community and society. Bazemore and Karp (2005) acknowledge the consequences of voting disenfranchisement and advocate for the creation of opportunities for ex-inmates to earn “redemption” and the trust of their community. Crutchfield (2007) specifically argues that felon disenfranchisement systematically undermines African American communities, serves no public benefit, and is “antithetical” to the ideals of democracy. Further, voting disenfranchisement undermines the political capital of the communities the ex-inmates reside in, further marginalizing them from social and economic resources that are subject to political decisions. In states with higher nonwhite populations, there is a greater likelihood that the state adopted strict felon disenfranchisement policies, raising serious questions about social control and communities of color (Wacquant, 2005; Dhami, 2005). Also, as mentioned earlier, African Americans have higher incarceration rates than their white and nonwhite counterparts. The trend of people of color being incarcerated at high rates is also seen in Australia with the Aborigine population, which has a rate twelve times higher than their white counterparts (Pearlman 2007). Finally, in the 2000 US presidential election, voting errors were much higher among African Americans, who tended to be living in

50

Prisoner Reentry at Work

poverty and had lower levels of formal education, than among their white counterparts (Young and Hill 2009). According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics, the number of prisoners released since 2000 has increased 16 percent (Leinwand 2007). Ex-offender disenfranchisement of voting rights is significant from a numerical and racial point of view. For example, the Sentencing Project (Washington, D.C.) estimated that, in 2008, 5.3 million US ex-inmates were denied the right to vote because of felony convictions. In a 1998 report by Human Rights Watch and the Sentencing Project, Losing the Right to Vote: The Impact of Felony Disenfranchisement Laws in the United States, it is estimated that 3.9 million, or 1 in 50, people lost their right to vote due to convictions (Allard and Mauer 2000). Furthermore, only two years later, in 2000, those numbers increased to 4.7 million (Wacquant 2005). Of those who had lost their voting rights—either temporarily or permanently—African Americans were disenfranchised at a rate seven times higher than their white counterparts (Allard and Mauer 2000). Efforts are under way across the country to re-enfranchise exoffenders’ voting rights (Manza and Uggen 2006): “From the founding of the United States to the waning years of the twentieth century, the practice of disqualifying criminals from voting was rarely questioned. In the past few years, however, a political debate has sprung up” (p. 11). Between 1997 and 2008, nineteen states had amended state laws that abolished or lessened restrictions on voting rights for ex-inmates (King 2008). These changes have resulted in 760,000 ex-offenders having their right to vote reinstated. In 2008, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court ruled that there was “no rational basis” for voting restrictions on released ex-inmates (Gregory 2008). A Time to Change, a nonprofit organization started and run by ex-inmates, visits halfway houses, prisons, and reentry centers, and it teaches about voter rights and attempts to register ex-inmates to vote. As addressed earlier in this chapter, ex-inmates who are African American or Latino will face the added burden of racism that their white non-Latino counterparts do not (Nixon et al. 2008; Patillo, Weiman, and Western 2004; Reisig et al. 2007). While racism is well-documented and can be seen in other countries, the actual laws and policies regarding disenfranchisement are not. Consequently, ex-offenders of color bring this added dimension to any discussion of the laws about disenfranchisement that technically should be “color-blind” but in fact are not.

Community Reentry

51

From an international perspective, disenfranchisement varies considerably. Internationally, policies fall on a continuum, with some countries, such as Canada, Iran, South Africa, and the Ukraine, granting prisoners the right to vote, while others, such as the United States, do not (Dhami 2005). However, even in countries where prisoners are allowed to vote, enfranchisement is not without controversy. Disenfranchisement, it should be noted, is not restricted to the United States. In 2002, in the case Sauvé v. Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada turned down an attempt to ban prisoners from voting by a 5–4 margin (Dhami 2005). The majority wrote that doing so would mean a loss to democratic values and that a loss of liberty should not equal a loss of fundamental rights (Dhami 2005). However, the court did leave room for judges to bar prisoners who committed certain crimes (Dhami 2005). The tendency to disenfranchise depending on status is prevalent in the United States as well. According to Dhami (2005), disenfranchisement in the United States resulted in the following: 80 percent of ex-felons, 68 percent of probationers, 60 percent of parolees, and 31 percent of prisoners were not allowed to vote. Other literature notes different types of restrictions placed on exoffenders; the laws vary by state. Crimes that can result in disenfranchisement include shoplifting, possession of a small amount of marijuana, and other white-collar crimes (Dhami 2005). In addition to losing voting rights, someone convicted of marijuana possession can also receive sanctions ranging from restrictions on professional licensure, ineligibility for many jobs, loss of financial aid for education, restrictions on public housing and food stamps, and suspension of a driver’s license, all of which can be for life (Leinwand 2007). Restrictions on a driver’s license, for example, effectively limits the geographical distance ex-offenders can travel to seek employment. Having to rely on public transportation also limits the hours of day they can work. While many view these restrictions as fair punishments, others view these sanctions as unjust, especially because policies regarding this exclusion are determined on a state-by-state basis, without any real consistency (Dhami 2005). In the 2000 presidential election, the state of Florida denied the right to vote to a number of innocent people who had names similar to those on the national database of felons (Boston Globe 2008). Even when re-enfranchisement is an option, the process of regaining rights after being released from prison is difficult and confusing. In Alabama, a person convicted of a felony must provide a DNA

52

Prisoner Reentry at Work

sample as a condition of receiving parole (Allard and Mauer 2000). Furthermore, in Nevada, ex-prisoners must wait five years before regaining the right to vote but are told in a letter explaining this that they must wait seven (Allard and Mauer 2000). Finally, there seems to be a correlation between voting rates and incarceration: 5 percent of voters were ever arrested or incarcerated. However, among nonvoters, 16 percent had been arrested and 12 percent were incarcerated (Dhami 2005). Roots’s (2004) recommendations are a fitting way to end this section: While empirical evidence suggests the existence of a relationship between past and future criminology among the ranks of convicted persons, the precise dimensions of the relationship remains difficult to discern. Predicting future criminality remains an inherently dubious pursuit, and policy makers might do well to dismantle barriers against ex-convicts in order to maximize their productive potentials in the coming century. (p. 24)

Housing and Ex-Prisoner Rights As the reader will see in this chapter, finding housing for ex-offenders in their communities is a monumental challenge. This challenge has only increased in magnitude as the result of the housing bubble, particularly in low-income/low-wealth urban areas of the country that have been disproportionately impacted by this crisis. Ex-offenders cannot afford housing, and the crisis has resulted in banks taking over property, displacing current members of the community. Having housing is an important predictor of whether or not exprisoners will stay out of prisons, with studies showing that exprisoners who are homeless are more likely than their housed counterparts to reenter prison (Social Exclusion Unit 2002). Morenoff, Harding, and Cooper (2009), however, go so far as to argue that almost no empirical research is focused on developing a greater understanding of how ex-offenders secure stable living arrangements and thus experience upward mobility. Homelessness among ex-offenders is the result of the interplay of three factors: (1) the same socioeconomic environmental forces that result in homelessness among the general population; (2) bias due to their criminal histories; and (3) lack of an organization or a governmental office that is a stakeholder in helping them secure housing

Community Reentry

53

(Rodriguez and Brown 2003). Living arrangements prior to incarceration generally reflect a strong association between nonnuclear living arrangements, including living alone, and higher levels of incarceration. Thus, highly social integrative living arrangements may be absent in the lives of ex-offenders (London and Parker 2009). Studies in the United Kingdom have shown that recidivism is reduced by 20 percent for those individuals who are provided with housing following their time in prison (Social Exclusion Unit 2002). In a study based in Norway, Dyb (2009) found homelessness prevalent among ex-offenders: While this study and those of others find that approximately one-third of inmates are homeless or live in a precarious housing situation prior to imprisonment, the survey also found that two-thirds were homeless on release. Although the literature on and studies of homelessness and imprisonment are sparse, studies from other countries support this close link between imprisonment and homelessness. (p. 809)

Nevertheless, despite the fact that the lack or provision of housing helps predict whether an ex-prisoner will reenter the system, little is being done to help ex-prisoners gain housing upon their release. Rodriguez and Brown (2003) address homelessness of former prisoners and note the emergence of a national crisis: At any given time in Los Angeles and San Francisco, 30 to 50 percent of all people under parole supervision are homeless. In New York City, up to 20 percent of people released from city jails each year are homeless or their housing arrangements are unstable. One study found that at least 11 percent of people released from New York State prisons to New York City from 1995 to 1998 entered a homeless shelter within two years—more than half of these in the first month after release. (p. 2)

The Urban Institute (2006) launched a longitudinal study, Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, to better understand this problem. One part of the study, which focused on exprisoners from the area surrounding Cleveland, Ohio, found that only 37 percent of prerelease prisoners discussed housing issues in their prerelease programs. However, an overwhelming 84 percent of prereleased prisoners acknowledged that housing was an important factor in keeping them out of jail (Urban Institute 2006). Also, while 70 percent of prerelease prisoners said they had a place to stay following their

54

Prisoner Reentry at Work

release, of those who were unsure, 80 percent said that they needed some to a lot of help finding housing. Finally, even for those with housing, almost all ex-offenders acknowledged that their living situations would be temporary, usually no more than a few months. The Urban Institute Study (2006) identified the barriers that exprisoners face when looking for housing, which generally fall into two categories: (1) loss of housing while imprisoned; and (2) denial of housing due to prison record. Due to a variety of reasons, many ex-prisoners lose their housing while they are incarcerated. In the United Kingdom, for example, one-third of prisoners lose their housing as a result of imprisonment (Social Exclusion Unit 2002). This is primarily the result of lack of proper communication with their landlords, either due to lack of skill in doing so or because, upon arrest, housing after they are released is not one of their primary concerns (Social Exclusion Unit 2002). As a result, many ex-offenders are evicted, which causes them to be homeless. A prison record can also exclude them from a number of publicly funded housing options. Furthermore, many lose important documents, such as birth certificates, when a landlord seizes their belongings. Without documents such as these, it becomes extremely difficult to reestablish oneself upon release. Also, from a purely financial point of view, regaining housing is extremely difficult. After being in prison, many ex-offenders cannot afford the steep deposits required to rent a unit, and, even if they could provide a deposit, affordable housing is still difficult to find. In 1999, a study of seventy metropolitan areas in the United States showed that a minimum wage worker would need to work a total of 100 hours per week to afford a fair rent apartment (Hirsh et al. 2002). In addition to these barriers, ex-offenders are routinely denied both public and private housing due to their criminal records. Rubinstein and Muhammad (2002), for example, analyze the detrimental impact of denial of public assistance and housing benefits to drug offenders. As a result of increased accessibility to criminal background checks, private landlords can deny ex-offenders housing based on these checks (Hirsch et al. 2002). Furthermore, many ex-prisoners are denied access to the majority of publicly funded housing. In fact, despite supportive housing being aimed to help repeat offenders with mental illness and substance abuse problems, almost all supportive units are not accessible to this population (Anderson 2008). This happens because most of these units are either run through the Department of Housing and

Community Reentry

55

Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 voucher program or through the McKinney Act’s Shelter Plus Care Program (Anderson 2008). Neither of these programs considers someone in jail for a month or more to be homeless. Consequently, to qualify and get priority for this housing, an individual needs to spend a night in a homeless shelter (Anderson 2008). However, qualifying for public housing may not even be a possibility for someone who has a criminal record due to HUD’s “one strike and you’re out” eviction policy (Hirsh et al. 2002). In 1988, Congress passed the Housing Act, which permitted evictions from publicly funded housing units due to alleged criminal activity (Hirsh et al. 2002). Since its original passage, it has been amended several times, each time creating stricter rules. Through this act, people can lose their housing due to misdemeanors, such as car theft, disorderly conduct, and harassment (Hirsh et al. 2002). Although people can dispute the eviction, public housing authorities tend to default to the stricter rules. One of the most striking consequences of this act is that innocent family members can lose their housing if their family member commits a criminal act, even if the charges are dismissed (Hirsh et al. 2002). This “guilty by association” law was debated in the Supreme Court case, HUD v. Rucker (Dale 2002). It involved four families who were evicted from housing due to family members’ criminal actions that were committed off their property. Prior to this case, courts were divided on how to proceed. However, the Supreme Court ruled by a unanimous vote that if someone was allowed on the premises, they were “under the tenants’ control,” and therefore, the tenant could be held at fault for any criminal activity (Dale 2002). Also, the Supreme Court cited that no-fault evictions are common under landlord-tenant law.

The Mind-Set of Ex-Offenders This book places a great deal of emphasis on the role providers must play in bringing about success for ex-offenders and how to involve communities in a meaningful manner. However, it would be unfair to focus just on the mind-set and skill-set of professionals without also commenting on the mind-set of ex-offenders. There are three parts to the reentry equation: (1) providers; (2) communities; and (3) ex-offenders themselves. Any discussion of ex-offenders must take into account their mind-set upon returning home. Their hopes and fears about reentry do not start

56

Prisoner Reentry at Work

the moment they are released from prison but, some would say, the moment they are incarcerated. Piehl (2009) specifically addresses the importance of preparing inmates for employment while still in prison, particularly in the case of inmates/ex-offenders who have limited histories of “legal” employment. The mind-set or way of thinking these individuals possess—where they have little experience with accepting responsibility or worrying about time—seriously compromises their abilities to seek and maintain employment upon release. Piehl (2009) cites a prisoner-release program in Montgomery County, Maryland (Pre-Release Center), which permits “small stuff” while still in prison, such as later curfews, access to telephone cards, increased visits from family members, providing participants with an opportunity to delay instant gratification and transfer this new way of thinking and feeling to the community upon release. This program stresses the need to sacrifice in the present in order to gain future benefits. The term prisonization seeks to capture the phenomenon of an inmate being socialized into the culture and lifestyle of prison life, and this facet cannot be ignored in any effort at facilitating the community reentry process (Newbold 2003): “Consciously or unconsciously . . . some released prisoners who may struggle with the harsh anonymity of life at liberty are drawn back to the prison’s protective womb” (p. 161). This mind-set and the corresponding survival skills inherent in this way of thinking can help ex-inmates successfully socially navigate their world within prisons but can be detrimental to making their way back into society (Decker 2007; Ross and Richards 2002). Rotter et al. (2005) point out that behaviors adopted by confinement in prisons need to be unlearned for adaptation to life in the community. Chen and Shapiro (2006) found that harsher prison conditions, however, can lead to higher postrelease criminal behavior and recidivism. Any reentry program must be able to address this perspective and provide ex-offenders with the necessary social navigational skills to be successful in relationships—employment as well as personal (Vaughn 2006). This process has been labeled as resocialization (Arrigo and Takahashi 2007). The goal associated with resocialization takes on particular significance because incarceration tends to strengthen criminal social networks for those offenders with limited employment options after release (White 2004). Thus, their community social networks will have a high percentage of ex-offenders, which can result in

Community Reentry

57

peer pressure to reengage in criminal activity. Countering these social networks with ones that are positive takes on even greater importance when discussing ex-offender reentry programs (Smith and Hattery 2011).

Dimensions of Ex-Offender Reentry Although this nation has a long history of dealing with ex-offenders, the current situation presents a unique set of challenges and dilemmas, which are compounded by the sheer magnitude in the number of returning exoffenders (Petersilia 2004): Research confirms that returning prisoners need more help than in the past, yet resources have diminished. Returning prisoners will have served longer prison sentences than in the past, be more disconnected from family and friends, have a higher prevalence of untreated substance abuse and mental illness, and be less educated and employable than their predecessors. Legal practice barriers facing ex-offenders have also increased, affecting their employment, housing, and welfare eligibility. Without help, many released inmates quickly return to crime. (p. 4)

Successful ex-inmate reentry must consist of a multifaceted perspective, encompassing critical areas that are highly interrelated and, as a result, go far beyond a sociodemographic profile and employment focus (Harrison and Schehr 2004; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002; Kennedy and Garcia 2006; Uggen, Thompson, and Manza 2000; Visher, Debus, and Yahner 2008; Western 2008). The importance of daily living needs (Gates and Kendig 2003; Hals 2003; Visher and Farrell 2005; Visher, Palmer, and Roman 2007) and physical health/mental health (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009; Golembeski and Fullilove 2005; Hartwell 2005; Kurlychek and Kempinen 2006) stand out in importance. Each of the two critical areas, in turn, consists of many different factors, creating an interaction with potentially disastrous consequences for the ex-offender. Further, each of these factors interacts with each other to further highlight the complex challenges facing exinmate reentry into society. Needless to say, these factors often cluster together and necessitate a comprehensive approach toward facilitating ex-inmate reentry (Clear et al. 2003; Kennedy and Garcia 2006; Welsh 2006).

58

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The lack of permanent housing, for example, prevents an ex-inmate from providing employers with a stable address and telephone number (Hals 2003). Potential employers are reluctant to hire someone who lives in a shelter (Kennedy and Garcia 2006). Living in a shelter or on the streets further creates isolation or marginalization within the community and reduces the likelihood of success. Ex-inmates’ need to develop positive community social attachments—through activities such as attending religious services, engaging in volunteer activities, and participating in civic activities and organizations—facilitates the reentry process. Making these attachments is highly dependent on having a permanent shelter (Illinois Criminal Justice Authority 2007). Daily Living Needs Basic human needs are just that: necessary for all individuals regardless of their criminal justice experiences, cultural values, and backgrounds (Gates and Kendig 2003; Hals 2003; Visher and Farrell 2005; Visher, Palmer, and Roman 2007). Daily living needs and skills generally are those activities that allow adults to function independently and often include self-care, homemaking, use of leisure time, stress and anger management, budgeting, negotiating transportation, and spirituality. In a matter of hours, ex-inmates go from an environment where their basic needs are minimally met by institutional staff to one where no one system or person has responsibility for meeting these needs. To say that reentry may be experienced as a shock to the system is an understatement. This section on daily living skills will focus on the four most important types: (1) housing; (2) finances; (3) family and social support; and (4) spiritual and religious needs. Each will be treated as if it existed in isolation from the others, and this, of course, is simplistic in any comprehensive understanding of ex-offender reentry. However, each is of sufficient importance to warrant individual attention. Housing. The role of public housing as the last resort for this country’s most vulnerable residents has shifted over the past several decades, with significant pockets of individuals, such as ex-offenders, left with this form of housing as the only option for them (Popkin, Cunningham, and Burt 2005; Schneider 2010). Accessing public housing has become more difficult as less public funding supports it. The role of housing, as already mentioned, takes on particular significance in the lives of those

Community Reentry

59

for whom housing has not been a stable aspect of their lives. Former inmates who are poor and of color certainly fall into that category (Cain 2003; Roman, Kane, and Giridharadas 2006). Even when housing is found, there is a high likelihood that it will be located in high-crime areas of a city, making it harder to resist criminal involvement (Gunnison and Helfgott 2011). While individuals returning from prison face many barriers to successful reentry, among the most serious are the challenges they face in securing housing. Housing has long been recognized as a prerequisite for stable employment, access to social services, and other aspects of individual and family functioning. The formerly incarcerated face several administrative and de facto restrictions on their housing options; however, little is known about the unique instabilities that they face. . . . We find that men recently incarcerated face greater housing insecurity, including both serious hardships such as homelessness, and precursors to homelessness such as residential turnover and relying on others for housing expenses. Their increased risk is tied both to diminished annual earnings and other factors, including, potentially, evictions from public housing supported by Federal “one-strike” policies. (Geller and Curtis 2011, p. 1196)

Geller and Curtis (2011) touch upon one of the most challenging barriers facing ex-offenders and their successful reentry back into society. The housing crisis facing this nation, as record numbers of inmates are being released, presents both a challenge and an opportunity for innovative thinking about how houses lost or abandoned to foreclosure can be converted into housing for ex-offenders. Needless to say, such a venture will undoubtedly encounter significant resistance from residents and local governments, which will see their tax base further eroded. Ex-offender reentry also serves to destabilize the local housing market. Rhine (2009), based on a study in Baltimore, Maryland, identified the insidious cycle of ex-offenders losing stable housing as a result of their incarceration and then, upon release, further destabilizing the housing market in communities where they are entering in large numbers over a sustained period of time. A review of the existing literature on ex-offender reentry will often uncover reference to the importance of housing in the reentry process and the difficulties of finding shelter (Wodahl 2006). Nevertheless, the subject of ex-inmate housing has clearly not been a prominent part of the existing research and literature (Lowen-

60

Prisoner Reentry at Work

kamp and Latessa 2005). When addressed, housing is generally dealt with in terms of how its absence impedes the employment search, because employers often frown upon having employees who only have temporary shelter, as already noted. Nevertheless, the role and importance of housing necessitate that careful attention be paid to this aspect of daily living and its potential to be an anchor for other service delivery. Families may often not be the first viable housing choice for exinmates returning to their communities (Braman 2002). These families often live in communities with high rates of crime, poverty, and exoffenders. Further, they may lack adequate space to accommodate an additional resident. However, most ex-offenders will end up living with families within a few months of their release due to limited housing options (Roman, Kane, and Giridaradas 2006). This living situation is not the most conducive for facilitating reentry—not to minimize the importance of kinship networks in the lives of ex-offenders. The lack of permanent housing is the result of the interplay of various factors, with lack of affordability and availability being but two important factors. Housing discrimination because of criminal history, as already noted, is not uncommon. Harding and Harding (2006), for example, found that landlords are often reluctant to rent to ex-inmates because of fears about safety. Legal restrictions, too, as noted earlier in this chapter, severely limit ex-offender options. Yet, ex-offenders must have one of their basic human needs met. The lack of adequate housing further stresses individuals who may have a great deal of trouble handling stress, making them even more prone to engage in behavior that can result in rearrest and reincarceration. If the ex-offender has multiple forms of disability, the disabilities may further make finding adequate housing that much more difficult (Hals 2003). The interplay of housing and health, for example, takes on particular meaning when discussing homeless ex-inmates. Kushel et al. (2005) found that, among high levels of poor health conditions found in the homeless, homeless ex-inmates had even higher rates of disease and illness. In response to restrictive public housing rules and the overall barriers that ex-prisoners face when trying to find housing, President George W. Bush signed the Second Chance Act in 2008, which required states to systematically review barriers to ex-prisoners seeking adequate housing (Stier 2009). Also, while housing prospects seem bleak, there have been a number of attempts to make housing more accessible to ex-inmates. Ex-

Community Reentry

61

offender advocates in Seattle and Vancouver, Washington, for example, are pushing for public housing authorities to differentiate between nuisance crimes and more serious crimes when they consider banning exinmates from housing (Anderson 2008). A pilot program in Tacoma, Washington, is replacing a recently cut housing voucher program. Citizens for Responsible Justice is one of four agencies developing a transitional living program that offers ex-prisoners oversight and mentoring, using a supportive housing model (Turner 2007). However, critics argue that it is too expensive and that restoring a voucher program would help a greater number of returning ex-inmates (Turner 2007). New York City has a residence referred to as “The Castle,” which provides shelter to ex-prisoners. The Castle is considered the first of its kind in the nation by providing housing with no strings attached—the only requirement being a willingness to change for the better (Feuer 2002). It offers fifty-nine beds, hot plates, private showers, mini fridges, and river views (Feuer 2002). New York City’s Fortune Society, a nonprofit corporation, in response to the housing needs of ex-offenders, developed a housing project (costing $44 million) for housing exinmates and the ex-homeless in Harlem, New York (Finn 2011). Half of the building’s units (114) are reserved for these two population groups. A number of states, such as Hawaii, Massachusetts, and Tennessee, have initiated special programs mandating housing as part of comprehensive services provided to newly released inmates (Rodriguez and Brown 2003). Local efforts at addressing the housing needs generally fall into three strategies: (1) ensure ex-offenders have housing when leaving incarceration, (2) conceptualize housing as part of the services ex-offenders require, and (3) provide transitional housing as part of the service provision (Rodriguez and Brown 2003). Finances. The ability to economically navigate their way through society postrelease is often considered the greatest challenge for ex-inmates. Heller (2006) considers poverty the most challenging condition exinmates encounter upon their release from prison. Shinkfield and Graffam’s (2009) Australian study of ex-inmate reentry found that financial difficulties remained a critical concern for these individuals throughout the study. Similar findings were uncovered in a Great Britain study (Hartfree, Dearden, and Pound 2008). A New York Times editorial (2007) described cases of ex-inmates being $25,000 in debt immediately after stepping foot outside of prison.

62

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Debts related to missed child-support payments, in the case of those with children, and to prison fines, fees, and surcharges are not unusual. The impact on a community’s financial health of having high numbers of adult residents being imprisoned can also be quite dramatic (Thompson 2004). The source and amount of financial resources at the disposal of ex-offenders can be quite limited and may well consist mainly of illgotten means (Wodahl 2006). Family and social support. Connectedness and social support are critical needs for all human beings, including ex-offenders (Bahr et al. 2005; Hairston 2008). The importance of family in this society goes far beyond meeting the basic human needs of individuals (Jones and Brewster 2005). Visher and Kachnowski (2007) advocate for the systematic gathering of information on the circumstances (individual, family, and community) confronting the to-be-released inmate through extensive review of records and in-depth interviews prior to and after release. Hochstetter, DeLisi, and Pratt (2008) identify the availability of social support as key in helping ex-offenders cope with feelings of hostility, even after their return to the community. Tromanhauser (2003), after reviewing the key needs of a newly released inmate (housing and employment), notes: “The third need that those released have is for someone who believes in him or her and will provide support, emotionally, psychologically, and, if necessary, limited financial support or shelter. By far, the greatest need is emotional and psychological support. Parolees need a ‘significant other,’ a believer, or counselor—someone to turn to when things seem hopeless” (p. 93). That is clearly not someone who is paid to do this work. Families are a vital part of this support system. Nevertheless, the role of family in helping ex-offenders is not well researched, even though its support has the potential to be a source of valuable assistance (Martinez 2006). Not surprisingly, the lack of sustained research over an extended period of time has resulted in an unclear picture of the role of families in supporting ex-inmate reentry and the best ways of maximizing this source of social capital. The reconceptualization of the “client system” beyond that of the ex-offender—to include the immediate family—represents an emerging and important perspective on preventing future reincarceration by taking an ecological view of reentry (Hairston 2008; Western 2007). Walker (2010) found that male ex-offenders who were fathers must

Community Reentry

63

count on an extensive social support system to help them resume their parental roles upon their release. Helping the receiving family, along with the ex-offender, represents an acknowledgement that the potential frailty of family systems can become further compromised when an ex-offender reenters. As a result, investment of time, resources, and effort expands the safety net. It is only a question of time, however, before this reconceptualization goes even further and also encompasses the neighborhood. As noted earlier, neighborhoods are home to countless numbers of ex-offenders and worthy of extra-attention and assistance, because a social-ecological perspective also encompasses community. Wolff and Draine (2004) identified four dimensions related to social capital: (1) strength of connections, (2) ability to mobilize them, (3) endowment of resources within these relationships, and (4) their social context. There is general agreement, however, that imprisonment has the potential to disrupt relationships, causing emotional withdrawal and disengagement on both sides of the equation, so to speak (Harman, Smith, and Egan 2007; Lengyel 2006; Mills and Codd 2008). However, imprisonment can also result in maturing and a desire to correct a life that lacked direction and purpose. Gibson, Robertson, and Daniel (2009) report on a rather unique study focused specifically on the willingness of African American women to reconnect romantically with partners (husbands and boyfriends) upon their partners’ release. They found that women were more likely to reestablish relationships if they were married to the exinmates, depending upon the inmate’s past offenses, and whether there were signs of successful rehabilitation. These women had a high degree of investment in the relationship to begin with and, therefore, more to benefit if the ex-offender had matured and was committed to the relationship. Naser and La Vigne (2006) stress the influence of families and the importance of the support (instrumental and expressive) that families can provide for their recently released family member, as the exoffender socially navigates back into society. They can help ex-inmates in their job search, as well as meet key instrumental needs (Griswold and Pearson 2005). Shapiro (2007), in turn, places families in a central part of any web of support. Families fulfill a variety of roles as social broker and supporter of newly released inmates (Brooker 2005). Other scholars advocate for families participating in the prerelease process and programs as a

64

Prisoner Reentry at Work

means of facilitating familial transitions (La Vigne, Wolf, and Jametta 2004). Bates and Mears (2008), for example, advance the concept of inmate visitation as a way of facilitating reentry and as a means of delaying or reducing recidivism. Leverentz (2006), however, cautions about female ex-offender romantic relationships with former partners upon their release from prisons, particularly when their partners are also exoffenders or ex-substance abusers. Destructive social bonds can complicate an already complex reentry process for female ex-inmates. Christian, Mellow, and Thomas (2006) note that families adapt to having key members in prison, and their return can create tensions related to constant negotiations of competing interests. As a result, family reintegration programs are popular with inmates as a way of minimizing the disruptions caused by their return (Griswold and Pearson 2005). These types of programs, however, are labor intensive and require the necessary financial supports to make them successful. Further, as expressed in focus groups on ex-offender reentry, families can also hinder and complicate the reentry process (Brooks, Visher, and Naser 2006): While many of the community residents in the focus groups felt that family was the most important resource for returning prisoners, many also felt that family could have a negative influence. Participants described behavior that could be harmful in two ways. First, several observed that former prisoners return to households where intergenerational patterns of crime, domestic violence, and substance abuse within the family create an unhealthy environment. (p. 10)

This finding should not surprise anyone in the field, and it raises the need for reentry programs to have a better understanding of family dynamics. Spiritual and religious needs. The subject of spiritual or religious aspects of life is certainly not without controversy, and the topic is one that will engender tensions and debates regarding ex-offenders and particularly faith-based initiatives. However, faith-based initiatives within and outside of prisons are a fact of life, so to speak. Spiritual and religious beliefs and practices have often served to help inmates survive prison life and can be considered a support system that can facilitate transition back into society, particularly in the case of relationships developed with religious institutions located in ex-inmates’ home communities, where they return.

Community Reentry

65

Watson and colleagues (2008), based on a study in Oakland, California, found faith-based organizations have a prominent role in helping ex-offenders, their families, and communities with the reentry process. Houses of worship are geographically located within communities, have resources (financial, social, and spiritual) that can be marshaled to help ex-offenders, and enjoy considerable prestige and influence within their congregations and external communities. Miller (2009), for example, described the success of a faith-based organization in Southern California that targeted women ex-offenders and the important role of congregational members in facilitating the reentry process. Collins (2009), in turn, describes a collaborative program between Cayuga Correctional Facility (Moravia, New York) and St. Margaret’s Church (Homer, New York) to help parishioners welcome ex-offenders. The importance of faith-based programs in preventing recidivism, however, has come into question because of concerns related to construct validity and reliability (Sumter 2006) and methodological limitations (Mears 2007). For example, evaluating the effectiveness of faith-based programs necessitates finding comparable secular programs. Findings, in addition, cannot be generalized to the general exoffender population groups, and the effectiveness of faith-based participation may be restricted to a select group of former inmates and for a prescribed period of time, such as two to three years postrelease (Johnson 2004). These limitations take on greater prominence because of current trends toward increased accountability and an emphasis on the utilization of evidence-based practice. However, due to the nature of the challenge, we do not have the luxury of writing off sectors because of limited evidence of effectiveness (Campbell 2006). Even with limited expressive and instrumental benefits, this social support system cannot be ignored, because effective reentry programs must reach out to all sectors of a community, and that includes the faith community, where applicable and possible (Houston 2008). Religious organizations also can serve as vehicles for involving other community-based organizations for engaging ex-inmates (D’Amico 2007; Johnson 2008). Heavy reliance of faith-based programs on volunteers also provides a venue for community involvement in exoffender reentry and for increasing civic engagement opportunities in communities where the formal opportunities may be limited (Mears 2007).

66

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Musick and Wilson (2007) point out that religious organizations have historically and currently enlisted thousands of volunteers for work with ex-offenders. Consequently, these organizations can fulfill intermediary or broker roles in helping connect offenders with community resources (Honig 2004). Just as importantly, however, ex-offender involvement in these and other community organizations provides the ex-offenders with an opportunity for community attachment that is widely considered essential as a deterrent to a life of crime. Johnson (2008), in examining the role of religion within the US correctional system, finds religion pervasive and with tremendous potential. For example, faith-based dorms and housing units can serve to counteract the insidious nature of prison culture (Clear and Sumter 2002). One study found that older adult male inmates’ self-reported religious/spirituality practices (daily spiritual experiences and not feeling abandoned by God) were positively associated with better emotional health (Allen et al. 2008). Maruna, Wilson, and Curran (2006) studied jail cell conversion and concluded that embrace of God serves many purposes for an inmate, with one of the most important being that it provides the inmate with a language and framework for forgiveness and hope for a “second chance.” In his book, The Church’s Returns Policy: Equipping the Church to Minister to Ex-offenders, the Rev. K. T. Houston (2008) proposes a model for helping ministries address the subject of ex-offender reentry based upon roots in practical theology. Health, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse Health is a broad and all-encompassing construct that can be viewed from a multidimensional perspective. For the purposes of this book and to facilitate discussion, the subject will be divided into three categories: (1) physical, (2) mental, and (3) substance abuse. However, I have yet to meet an inmate or ex-inmate with a substance abuse problem who did not have health and mental health needs, too. In essence, in reality it is best to think of ex-offenders as having a host of needs included in these three spheres. The subject of health and substance abuse is complex to begin with under any circumstances. However, nowhere is this complexity as great as when discussing prisoners, with substance abuse being a part of both physical and mental health and, by extension, well-being upon

Community Reentry

67

their release. Health is a major concern for both prisoners and exprisoners (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009). The circumstances surrounding health care within prisons severely compromises provision of health services upon inmate release from prison, raising the importance of discharge planning to help ensure that ex-inmates’ health needs are met (Western 2007). According to Freeman (2003), as cited in Kethineni and Falcone (2007), “a disproportionate percentage of inmates have medical problems that further affect their employability. . . . Issues such as mental illnesses, physical disabilities that prevent or limit employment opportunities, and learning disabilities are found in higher prevalence in the prison population and ex-offenders than compared to the general population” (pp. 37–38). The authors also cite a criminological perspective that “argues that social deprivation and economic disadvantages play an indirect and interactive role in explaining the complex relationship between unemployment and crime” (p. 39). Binswanger, Krueger, and Steiner (2009) undertook a nationally representative, cross-sectional survey of inmates in jails and state and federal prisons, and found that prisoners had higher rates of hypertension, asthma, arthritis, cervical cancer, and hepatitis than the general population. Even when adjusted for sociodemographics and alcohol consumption, higher rates of chronic medical conditions persisted. It has been estimated that rates of infectious diseases, especially hepatitis C, hepatitis B, tuberculosis (TB), and HIV/AIDS, are four to ten times higher in prison populations than in the general population (Golembeski and Fullilove 2005). Unfortunately, due to a variety of reasons, prisoners and exprisoners are at risk for many health issues, both physical and mental. It is becoming an increasingly important subject because of the costs of health care and given the fact that, due to harsher sentencing guidelines and an overall more punitive approach, including the privatization of prisons, the growth of the criminal population increased (Golembeski and Fullilove 2005). It is also important to note that the US Department of Justice estimates that 95 percent of the current prison population is expected to be released; most of whom will have been behind bars less than two years (Golembeski and Fullilove 2005; Rosen, Schoenbach, and Wohl 2008). This is important because it means that the majority of ex-prisoners will be returning to their home communities, bringing with them the problems and, more specifically, the medical problems that they had while

68

Prisoner Reentry at Work

in prison (Farmer 2002). These individuals are expected to enter community health systems at a time when there are concerted efforts at cutting costs and increasing premiums. The role of health care in facilitating or hindering the ex-inmate reentry process has started to receive the attention it deserves (Blitz et al. 2005; Davis and Pacchianna 2004; Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009; Hale, Brewer, and Ferguson 2008; Winter 2008). Unfortunately, financial concerns seem to have taken center stage, as opposed to the public health challenges ex-inmates and their communities will face as the numbers of released prisoners increase. It is important to emphasize that by addressing the health needs of ex-inmates, it not only helps them but also their communities by reducing the burden associated with illness and, in the case of communicable diseases, transmission to a wider community (Massoglia and Schnitter 2009). Not surprisingly, there is a positive relationship between reentry of ex-offenders with sexually transmitted diseases and increases of gonorrhea rates in the communities to which the inmates are returning (Thomas et al. 2007). In an ethnographic study undertaken in a North Carolina city, researchers found that census tract rates of incarceration were consistently associated with gonorrhea rates in the subsequent year after release from prison. The reasons for this correlation include new partners for those left behind, along with the need to meet financial needs (an increase in prostitution); men having sex with men for the first time in prison; and the introduction of new partners upon reentry back into the community. Similar findings were also reported in a Chicago study (Thomas, Torrone, and Browning 2009). In essence, public health meets public safety in the community arena (Rand Research Brief 2003). Delgado and Humm-Delgado (2009) conceptualized inmate health along two dimensions: (1) high-profile health care needs and (2) lowprofile health care needs based upon the prison officials’ level of awareness of health care needs. High-profile health care needs are substance abuse, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, suicide, and for special population groups (older adults and females). Low-profile health care needs are hepatitis B and C, tuberculosis, sexually transmitted diseases, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus infections, prison injuries, end stage renal disease, head injuries, and disabilities. These illnesses and needs paint a portrait of a patient who also happens to be an inmate or ex-inmate with serious health care needs.

Community Reentry

69

Because the three categories of physical health, mental health, and substance abuse generally are not mutually exclusive of each other, health care delivery is much more challenging for an ex-offender with a dual diagnosis (mental illness and substance abuse, for example), and several physical health care needs. Physical health. It is important to note that serious physical illnesses rarely exists in singular form and are often part of a constellation of illnesses that coexist with each other, making delivery of health services that much more difficult within and outside of prisons. When physical health problems are combined with mental health problems, community health care systems are severely challenged. A number of studies have been undertaken that shed light on the health conditions of prisoners and paint a picture of a health crisis in this nation’s jails and prisons. A 2004 study conducted by the Bureau of Justice found that an estimated 44 percent of state prisoners and 39 percent of federal inmates had a current medical problem other than a cold or virus (Maruschak 2008). Of those reporting a problem, 70 percent of state and 76 percent of federal inmates were seen by medical personnel. Wilper and colleagues (2009) found that among inmates in federal prisons, state prisons, and local jails 38.5%, . . . 42.8%, . . . and 38.7%, . . . respectively, suffered a chronic medical condition. Among inmates with a mental condition ever treated with a psychiatric medication, only 25.5% . . . of federal . . . and 38.5% . . . of local jail inmates were taking a psychiatric medication at the time of arrest, whereas 69.1% [of federal] . . . and 45.5% [of local inmates] were on a psychiatric medication after admission. (p. 666)

The failure in health care delivery has resulted in countless numbers of seriously ill inmates who are not receiving the necessary health care during their incarceration. Further, as the reader will see, the number of inmates with mental illness who were not taking their treatments at the time of arrest attests to the importance of treatment followup. Spaulding and colleagues (2009) sum up the state of affairs regarding HIV/AIDS and prison inmates: As the HIV epidemic has matured, the share borne by releasees has decreased, but the total number of persons with HIV released from CFs

70

Prisoner Reentry at Work

[correctional facilities] is unchanged. This steady size of the target population leads us to conclude that CFs still represent a rich focus for public health interventions. Interventions in CFs may have the greatest impact on the HIV epidemic among minority men, given the disproportionate incarceration rates in the US criminal justice system. The proportion of minorities diagnosed with HIV late in the course of disease, less than 12 months before a diagnosis of AIDS, continues to lag behind whites . . . so reaching minority populations is a public health priority. Jail and prison inmates represent a captive, and still very important, audience for HIV testing, counseling, and prevention messages. After diagnosis, enabling HIV-infected releasees to link to community care is of utmost importance. Because virtually all persons entering CFs return to the community, effective interventions benefit not only CF populations but also the communities to which releasees return. (p. e7558)

The stigma of having HIV (Derlega, Winstead, and Brockington 2008; Pettit and Lyons 2007), lack of adequate models for care of HIV/AIDS after release, and being an ex-offender can be formidable obstacles in a successful community reentry process (Barton 2009; Karus et al. 2007; Hudson et al. 2011). A Texas study of inmates receiving antiretroviral therapy found that only a small percentage followed through with treatment upon their release within sixty days (Baillargeon et al. 2009a). Lack of followup with health care is not restricted to ex-offenders with HIV/AIDS. One Baltimore study of ex-offender health needs and access to and utilization of health care services upon their release found that more than half reported at least two major, chronic health problems (Hawkins, O’Keefe, and James 2010). However, only 40 percent had any form of health coverage. Further, being able to name a specific health provider (doctor, clinic, or health organization) was even more predictive of the ability to obtain health services. Programs that help ex-offenders access, understand, and navigate health care systems are very much in need. Thomas and Torrone (2006) found that increases in negative health outcomes were associated with increases in incarceration rates. Willmott and Olphen (2005), in turn, raise particular alarm about how high incarceration rates impact health disparities within select urban communities across the United States. Further, London and Myers (2006) argue that current health disparity rates do not take into account the large numbers of incarcerated men of color, particularly African American/

Community Reentry

71

blacks, thereby underestimating the true nature of health disparities within communities of color. Ex-inmates of color, not unexpectedly, face more health challenges than their white counterparts. Their history of not seeking medical care or receiving poor quality medical care, combined with lifestyles hazardous to health, result in ex-offenders facing diseases and illnesses with dire consequences. Women inmates and ex-offenders of color stand out as groups whose health needs have been neglected (Brink 2008). The health disparities of ex-offenders of color and non-offenders are considerable and are further increased within the communities to which ex-offenders are released. Massoglia (2008a) found that incarceration plays a significant role in midlife physical health and later health status, contributing significantly to African American/black health disparities with whites upon release from prison. This disparity has resulted in a call for initiatives that take into account the influence of demographic factors, such as race, ethnicity, and gender, in designing postrelease health care programs (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009; Golembeski and Fullilove 2005; Hartwell 2005; Kurlychek and Kempinen 2006; Mathis and Schoenly 2008; Patterson and Greifinger 2004). Exposure to infectious diseases is compounded by similar exposure to stress (Massoglia 2008b). Providing better and more timely access to health care is often mentioned as key goals for prisoner reentry programs (Roberts, Kennedy, and Hammett 2004). Getting ex-offenders enrolled in health insurance programs has been identified as a major barrier in getting them access to health care (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009). There are many theories as to why ex-offenders have such high percentages of infectious diseases, including poor medical care, overcrowding, and high alcohol and substance abuse/use (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009; Golembeski and Fullilove 2005). Sykes and Piquaro (2009), for example, argue that prisons and jails are breeding grounds for various infectious diseases, yet there are significant inequalities in testing for HIV involving racial, education, and marital factors. The high rates of infectious diseases are especially problematic when ex-offenders reenter their communities. In fact, it seems that prisons are becoming venues for the growth and spread of diseases to the greater community (Golembeski and Fullilove 2005). The public health implications of this can be considerable when the vast major-

72

Prisoner Reentry at Work

ity of ex-offenders are returning to their urban, inner-city communities, which are already facing considerable challenges in getting their own health care needs met, resulting in significant health disparities. In essence, a difficult situation is made even worse. Mental health. In addition to physical illnesses that affect prisoners and ex-prisoners, mental illness is a major problem. In fact, it is estimated that one in six inmates suffers from some sort of mental illness (Golembeski and Fullilove 2005). Treating mentally ill inmates’ illness is both challenging and expensive within a prison context, and this challenge and expense do not disappear upon inmates’ release into society (AhnRedding 2007). Hartwell (2010), for example, in studying first- and secondgeneration programs, found slow progress in identifying empirically supported best practices for ex-offenders with psychiatric illnesses. Steadman and colleagues (2009) studied the prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates and found that 14.5 percent of male and 31.0 percent of female prisoners were mentally ill. The US Bureau of Justice (Glaze and James 2006) estimated that in 2002 almost 25 percent of both state prisoners and local jail inmates had a mental health problem, with female inmates having higher rates than men (73 percent compared to 55 percent for males), and that one-third of state prisoners, one-quarter of federal prisoners, and one-sixth of local jail prisoners with mental health problems received treatment since admission. The high prevalence of substance abuse combined with mental illness, or dual diagnosis, has increasingly been found among inmates and ex-offenders, providing challenges for treatment within and outside of prisons (Rees 2010). Dually diagnosed ex-offenders, however, can also have a host of physical illnesses, such as hepatitis C, TB, and HIV/AIDS, to further complicate delivery of health services. Achieving success in community reentry goes far beyond whether or not an ex-inmate violates a probation requirement or commits a new crime, resulting in reincarceration (Darke 2008). Among inmates reporting mental health problems, 13 percent of state inmates and 17 percent of jail inmates were homeless in the year prior to their incarceration (Glaze and James 2006). Twenty-seven percent of state and 24 percent of jail inmates reporting mental health problems also reported having been sexually or physically abused (Glaze and James 2006). Negative public attitudes toward ex-offenders have a profound influence on their adjustment process (Hirschfield and Piquero 2010). However, Edwards

Community Reentry

73

(2000) found that attitudes toward ex-mental patients were far more stigmatizing than those toward ex-offenders, raising serious reentry implications for ex-offenders with mental illness. These individuals face the double challenge of being an ex-offender and one with mental illness. Constitutionally, prisons are required to provide medical and mental health services to inmates (Eber 2009; Mellow and Greifinger 2008). The Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and prison officials can be held liable if they do not provide adequate health care to a prisoner. Health care services must be consistent with standard levels of care recommended by the National Commission on Correctional Health Care and the American Psychiatric Association (Pogorzelski, Wolff, and Blitz 2005). These standards include screening, evaluation, crisis intervention, suicide prevention, and psychiatric medicines (Pogorzelski et al. 2005). Ironically, for many ex-offenders, the health care they got while imprisoned may well represent the best health care they have ever received in their lives, and that does not mean that this health care was of high quality. Consequently, the importance of continuity of postrelease care has been well recognized in general but is particularly significant for those individuals with histories of immune and other contagious diseases, which can easily spread across their communities (Rich et al. 2001). Braithwaite (2008) raises the provocative question of whether health is a right, particularly when examining the health status of at-risk groups. Unfortunately, only one-eighth of prisoners (or 80 percent of those who need it) receive counseling, and one-tenth of prisoners (or 60 percent of those who need it) are receiving psychotropic medication (Pogorzelski et al. 2005). The Committee on Psychiatry and the Community, Group for Advancement of Psychiatry (2009) concluded that “for people with serious mental illnesses and complex disabling conditions, criminal justice involvement is an expectation—not an exception—yet the system fails to account for it” (p. 723). Individuals with mental illness are not only more likely to get arrested and sentenced but are also more likely to violate prison rules, making their incarceration that much more problematic. Morgan et al. (2007) studied inmate self-perceptions of mental health needs and identified five types of problems: (1) behavioral dyscontrol, (2) physical health concerns, (3) negative affect, (4) interpersonal relationships, and (5) institutional relations. The authors went

74

Prisoner Reentry at Work

on to identify four types of concerns that present potential barriers to utilization of health care services: (1) self-preservation, (2) procedural, (3) self-reliance, (4) and professional service provider. These concerns, incidentally, can exist in various combinations with each other, including having all four being operative at the same time. Prince, Akincigil, and Bromet (2007) found a need for mental health staff to undertake routine evaluations and documentations of incarceration history, particularly among African American/black inmates presenting symptoms of psychosis. This history, in turn, not only helped in the development of a treatment plan but also served to highlight particular challenges an ex-offender faced because of mental health problems, which carried over to release. The mental health problem, however, is compounded when one considers comorbidity and the fact that many ex-offenders with mental illness also struggle with substance abuse (Pogorzelski et al. 2005). Inmates with mental health problems have an exceedingly high likelihood of having a substance abuse problem, with 74 percent of state prisoners and 76 percent of jail inmates dependent on or abusing drugs or alcohol (Glaze and James 2006). Not surprisingly, a high percentage of inmates (37 percent of state and 34 percent of jail) had used drugs at the time of their arrests (Glaze and James 2006). As a result, services needed upon release must address these two areas of concerns. Kenemore and Roldan (2006) conducted a qualitative study of exinmates to determine their experiences while incarcerated. These individuals often experienced collateral consequences. Because many exoffenders were released with little or no support, release planning, or preparation, it is important to recognize the challenges for reintegrating these ex-offenders. Providers need to have the potential to engage in “therapeutic rebiographing” (development of a “coherent, pro-social identity”) with clients who are ex-offenders reentering a program. The study involved ten hour-long, audiotaped, and open-ended interviews. The twelve participants (eight men and four women, of which one man and woman were white, with the rest African American) were from the Chicago area, previously incarcerated in Illinois, and “judged as stable enough to potentially utilize counseling services.” Kenemore and Roldan (2006) found that while the respondents had “relatively happy and ordinary” childhoods, they had issues of “abandonment, violence, and early involvement in criminal activity” (pp. 10– 11). At school, they experienced intimidation, awkwardness, and failure. Fathers were often absent, home life was often disrupted, and thus friendships were held in high importance. These ex-inmates’ environ-

Community Reentry

75

ment during adolescence normalized drug use/sale, alcohol use, and violence with friends, and they became distanced from family. Prison was described as a negative experience for some, a lifesaving or a growing experience for others, and a life-changing one for all. Mentors were important, and leaving prison was described as traumatic and overwhelming. The respondents emphasized lack of preparation for leaving the structured, predictable prison environment, and most found it hard to resist temptation once released and experienced feelings of boredom. Many needed the support of others to get through in prison. After release, “Spirituality, religion, belief in God as a protector, and the power of prayer were important aspects of their current experience and their hopefulness about the future” (Kenemore and Roldan 2006, p. 16). Mental health services were viewed negatively because of stigma or fears that counselors without prison experience wouldn’t understand them. Kenemore and Roldan (2006) went on to identify three main implications for practice from the responses of the ex-offenders: First, the overriding need is to address the social realities of the exoffender, who inevitably faces daunting social obstacles when transitioning into free society. . . . Second, the ex-offender’s history of abandonment, trauma, and loss makes them particularly vulnerable to feelings of depression and anxiety, which may interfere with their ability to face the challenges of reintegration into the free world. . . . Third, understanding the subjective experience of the ex-offender is essential to an effective clinical response. (pp. 18–19)

The challenges of helping ex-offenders with mental illness successfully reenter their communities goes beyond working on behavior management and interaction with service systems, and necessitates a conceptualization that encompasses the inmates’ social context, with necessary support (Draine et al. 2005). Success at reintegration may ultimately determine life or death for the ex-offender. Although the reader may think this statement dramatic, health problems, unfortunately, do not end in prison. Because disease is easily spread in prison, ex-prisoners have extremely high mortality rates soon after their release from prison (Rosen et al. 2008). In fact, it has been documented that risk of death is higher for ex-prisoners, compared to the general population, in their first year—and especially their first week— out of prison (Rosen et al. 2008). Of those deaths, the majority are due to nonnatural causes such as homicide, suicide, and accidents (Rosen et al. 2008). Bingswanger and colleagues (2007) also found the period

76

Prisoner Reentry at Work

immediately following release from prison dangerous for ex-offenders, with high rates of death from drug overdose and cardiovascular disease, as well as homicide and suicide. Similar conclusions have been found in Denmark and Australia (Christensen 2007). Rosen and colleagues (2008) were some of the first researchers to attempt to show the mortality rates over time by looking at North Carolina prisoners from 1980 to 2005. Overall, they found that the state’s ex-prisoners had mortality rates higher than those of the general North Carolina population. Also, in comparing African American and white prisoners, white non-Latino prisoners had higher mortality rates. This was also true when white prisoners were compared to the general white population: North Carolina white non-Latino prisoners have mortality rates twice as high as the general white population across the board (Rosen et al. 2008). Despite knowing that death rates are higher immediately following release, little research has been published on the subject, and there is also almost no research as to the long-term effects of prison on exprisoners’ health (Rosen et al. 2008). Rosen, Schoenbach, and Wohl (2008) also found similar results to those of Binswanger and colleagues (2007). African American males, with some exceptions (such as those noted in the North Carolina study of Rosen et al. 2008), are more medically vulnerable than their white non-Latino, male counterparts to premature deaths following release. Consequently, reentry takes on added significance and urgency for an ex-offender of color. However, Binswanger and colleagues (2011), in a study based in Washington state, found that being fifty years or older when released, being white, and having a longer incarceration were associated with a decreased risk of all-cause deaths. Unlike their white non-Latino counterparts, African American/black ex-prisoners’ mortality rates were only higher than the general population in certain categories. For African American/black ex-prisoners, injuries such as homicide and suicide rates were 1.2 to 2.7 percent higher than the general African American/black population, but mortality rates were less than expected for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, all cancers, and a few other diseases. Additionally, and surprisingly, while overall African American/black ex-prisoners had higher mortality rates than the general population, the two eldest black ex-prisoner groups had lower mortality rates across the board. Interestingly, it seems that prisons may have acted as a protective force for this population group, although why this is so is not well

Community Reentry

77

understood (Rosen et al. 2008). To explain death following community reentry, Tremblay and Pare (2003) advance a social strain theory. They emphasize the significance of suicides and overdoses as critical factors in mortality rates in accidental deaths, rather than deaths resulting from engagement in criminal activities. There is little debate about the importance of inmates receiving necessary treatment for a variety of ailments and addictions while in prison (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009). Mallik-Kane and Visher (2008) examined the health status of returning male and female inmates, and found that eight out of ten male and nine out of ten female inmates had chronic health conditions requiring treatment or management once the inmates were back in the community. However, 68 percent of males and 58 percent of females did not have health insurance eight to ten months after release, seriously compromising their health-seeking options. As noted earlier, older adult inmates face considerable challenges in having their health needs met within total institutions, and this will undoubtedly translate into challenges upon release (Gallagher 2001). Welsh (2004) found that health care treatment during incarceration is economically efficient in reducing ex-offender reengagement in a life of crime when back in the community. Therefore, funds invested in inmate treatment carry over into the community upon their release. For example, Butzin, Martin, and Inciardi (2005) found that substance abuse treatment during the reentry process helps ex-inmates with low rates of marital bonds and substantive unemployment avoid relapsing and returning to prison because of drug-related crime. Ex-offenders with psychiatric histories, in turn, are more likely than those without histories to recidivate, making postrelease treatment critical in preventing reincarceration (Baillargeon et al. 2009b). Finally, it is important to point out that inmates and ex-offenders with serious mental illness are not a monolithic group and thus require different policy and programmatic initiatives (Constantine et al. 2010). Having a diagnosis of severe and persistent mental illness brings with it more challenges than having a lesser diagnosis. An ex-offender with a history of substance abuse, who is dually diagnosed with a mental health condition (as covered in the following section), faces different challenges than one with only a history of substance abuse. Substance abuse. Unfortunately, prisoners have no constitutional rights to substance abuse treatment, unlike those with mental illness, as long as their more serious medical needs are being met (Pogorzelski 2005).

78

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Therefore, even if their mental illness is being treated, their substance abuse remains an issue, which then becomes an even greater concern upon their release. Substance abuse treatment capacity is clearly inadequate to meet the demands of prisons (Belenko and Peugh 2005). One estimate has 50 percent of the nation’s inmates with substance problems, reflecting the magnitude of this need (Lyons 2010). The prevalence of substance abuse among prisoners is astronomically high and is estimated at being four times greater than among the general population (Taxman, Perdoni, and Harrison 2007). Fazel, Bains, and Doll (2006) undertook a systematic review of the literature on the subject and concluded that prisoners have a high likelihood of drugrelated problems, particularly among women inmates. The authors recommend screening for substance abuse and dependence treatment while prisoners are incarcerated and follow up upon release. Kroop and colleagues (2007) undertook a review of the literature on women inmates and strongly recommended the development of treatment models that address subgroups, such as older women and those with co-occurring substance abuse and psychiatric disorders (such as eating disorders). Horton (2011) notes that the substance abuse treatment needs of women are just as great as those for their male counterparts, but treatment models for women are desperately in need. Taxman, Perdoni, and Harrison (2007) undertook a national survey of prisons, jails, and community correctional agencies to estimate the prevalence of entry into and accessibility of correctional programs and drug treatment services for adult offenders. Substance abuse education and awareness is the most prevalent form of service provided, being offered in 74% of prisons, 61% of jails, and 53% of community correctional agencies; at the same time, remedial education is the most frequently available correctional program in prisons (89%) and jails (59.5%), whereas sex offender therapy (57.2%) and intensive supervision (41.9%) dominate in community correctional programs. (p. 239)

High rates of substance abuse necessitate development of new models for service delivery for ex-offenders after their release, including outreach and methods for engagement (Belenko 2006). Inmate treatment of substance abuse and addiction in prisons has been found to correspond with a decrease in substance abuse and criminal activity upon release (Chandler, Fletcher, and Volkow 2009). Consequently,

Community Reentry

79

engagement in treatment while incarcerated increases the likelihood of inmates seeking to maintain their treatment upon release, thereby decreasing the likelihood of relapse and reincarceration. As already addressed, many prisoners are essentially facing a death sentence, as a result of poor health care delivery, while in prison (Jacobi 2005; Murphy 2003, 2005). However, there is little recognition that those fortunate enough to finish their sentences and return to their families and communities may also be facing a death sentence. The period immediately following release should be one of great joy for an ex-inmate. However, this period is also one of great peril, fraught with social and health hazards. Shinkfield and Graffam (2009), in a study conducted in Australia cited earlier in this chapter, concluded that a series of variables influenced successful reentry of former inmates into their community and found that perceived physical health status was higher immediately after reentry than before incarceration. Not surprisingly, psychological health status was lower, largely the result of the stressors related to reintegration. Substance abuse, a key factor in the lives of many of those who were incarcerated, remained a key force in their lives back in their community. Unfortunately, this finding is also applicable to ex-offenders in this country, too. Krienert and Fleisher (2004), however, caution that “imprisonment cannot resolve chemical dependency or its social and economic consequences. Drug treatment must exceed parole requirements, which require parolees to attend only once-a-week treatment appointments in offices located miles from home” (p. 54). Similar recommendations are also made for other services, such as work and vocational training programs (Colgan 2007; Tarlow and Nelson 2007). Unfortunately, it is estimated that only 25 percent of inmates have participated in vocational training programs, and 33 percent have participated in educational programs prior to release, with both levels of participation down from a decade ago (Petersilia 2005).

Health Care Initiatives To address the health care needs of ex-offenders, a range of initiatives can and must be launched. Sometimes a simple act will have tremendous consequences. For example, providing written health information that an

80

Prisoner Reentry at Work

ex-offender can take with him upon being released from prison can increase adherence to a medical regimen (Mellow 2007). Making health care more easily available through provision of health insurance upon release from prison is another example. Ex-offenders are in need of advocates who know the health insurance system and how best to access it in a timely manner. As mentioned earlier, health concerns do not disappear once inmates are released from prison; rather, they face different challenges. Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001) mention a series of factors that contribute to compromised health for ex-prisoners, including lack of sufficient discharge planning. This planning could be as minimal as a referral to a community health center, but, they argue, at the very least an appointment should be made at a center (Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy 2001). Poor discharge planning leads to a second challenge of maintaining treatment. Ex-prisoners are often unlikely to keep up with their treatment plans, which can cause them a great deal of physical problems. Unfortunately, most prison facilities release inmates with simply a referral and a short supply of medicine (Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy 2001), rather than connecting them and following up to make sure they receive health care. Additionally, especially for mentally ill ex-prisoners, it is important that ex-inmates enroll for public benefits as soon as possible, in order to get necessary treatment and medicines. However, ex-prisoners are excluded from a number of benefit programs and, even if they qualify, there is usually a long waiting period between applying and getting approved (Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy 2001). Also, Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001) address the need to integrate treatments for dually and triply diagnosed patients, which almost never happens. Finally, Hammett, Roberts, and Kennedy (2001) argue for the importance of housing for an ex-prisoner’s health, which is the most crucial yet also the most difficult resource to find. Overall, both in-prison and after-prison health concerns are some of the major barriers facing prisoners and ex-prisoners alike.

Special Population Groups: Women and Older Adults Although a pervasive argument can be made for thinking about exoffenders as a high-risk group as a whole, certain population subgroups within this category are at greater risk for recidivism upon their release

Community Reentry

81

from incarceration. Two special population groups have been selected for attention (women and older adults), because they represent a growing sector of the nation’s prison population. I believe these two groups bring a unique set of challenges for the reentry process, while acknowledging the overall challenges any ex-offender faces upon release. Female Ex-Offenders The vast majority of ex-offenders being released today tend to be male, and this has historically been the case in this country. The public’s image of an “ex-con” is one who is male. However, as already addressed, an increasing number of women are entering and departing correctional systems, and this trend brings with it a host of challenges that are gender based (O’Brien 2002): Men exiting prisons face some of [the] same barriers. [H]owever, women, due to sexism coupled with racism, may be less equipped to overcome obstacles to reentry. . . . Compared to men, they have more childcare responsibilities, fewer job skills, less work experience, and more significant problems with substance abuse. Moreover, women prisoners have extensive traumatic abuse histories, both as children and as adults, at the hands of intimate partners. Few have practical knowledge about how to secure resources in the community, and most lack a sense of hope for their futures outside of prison. (p. 6)

O’Brien’s (2002) assessment of female ex-inmates paints a picture fraught with many of the same challenges facing male counterparts and a list of additional challenges. This raises the need for new models of assessment that are holistic or comprehensive as a means of capturing the uniqueness posed by female ex-inmates (O’Brien and Young 2006; Scroggins and Malley 2010; Spjeldnes and Goodkind 2009; Van Wormer 2010). Leverentz (2010), for example, found in a Chicago study that female ex-offenders viewed a return to their neighborhoods as either neutral or positive. (Males did not have a positive view of going back to their communities.) Female ex-offenders saw the possibility of helping other women avoid a life of crime and thereby help them and their community. Bui and Morash’s (2010) study of female ex-offenders who achieved success in their transition found prison programming and prosocial family members critical in helping them form new positive social networks upon release. Herrschaft and colleagues (2009) found

82

Prisoner Reentry at Work

that female ex-offenders recount their experiences differently than do males, in their role transformation back to society. Male ex-offenders refer to status-related factors, while women stress relationship-related factors as integral elements in their narratives, which has implications for reentry programs. Brown (2003) argues that African American female criminality has far greater impact on the African American community than does the male counterpart because of the low life spans of males. In addition, African American females are often expected to fulfill a variety of key roles within their respective families and communities (Jordan-Zachery 2008). Female imprisonment can have far-reaching collateral consequences on communities of color (Richie 2002). Brown (2010) comments on the extent of these consequences: African American women face challenges in reentry and reintegration that other populations do not have to face. Additionally, incarcerated African American women are often mothers, care givers, and heads of household before they become offenders. Once they become offenders, their children become displaced and income that is desperately needed by their families is lost. African American children languish in foster care, awaiting their parents’ release from prison or, alternatively, become permanently severed from their families. Furthermore, African American women suffer health consequences that are largely ignored by mainstream society. Rates of HIV transmission are rampant in lowincome African American communities, and African American women are now the fastest growing HIV positive (HIV+) population. Incarcerated women are overrepresented in rates of HIV transmission. (p. 3)

As a result, African American women suffer even greater consequences than their male counterparts, further increasing the likelihood of reengagement in activities that can result in reincarceration. Hayes (2008) examined the experiences of mothers after prison and found high levels of stress. Arditti and Fen (2006) point out the importance of family support for returning mothers, who encounter stressors in assuming parenting roles after extended interrupted periods of time. Tompkins (2005) advocates for specialized reentry programs for women because of the unique needs that women encounter upon returning to their families and communities. These unique needs, incidentally, have also been confronted within prisons, because these institutions have historically been established for men (Ahn-Redding 2007; Van Wormer 2010).

Community Reentry

83

While arrest rates and the number of people in prison have been on the rise for the past few decades, this trend has been particularly evident among the female population (La Vigne, Brooks, and Shollenberger 2009). In fact, the rate of increase of women behind bars has surpassed that of their male counterparts. While males still make up roughly 80 percent of the prison population, the increase in female prisoners is significant, and it is important to consider the implications of their presence—both while they are in prison and upon their release (Richie 2001). First, it is important to note that women in prison tend to have different issues than men. They tend to have extensive substance abuse histories, are more likely to be clinically depressed, have lower selfesteem, have less employable skills, and have more child-care responsibilities than their male counterparts, both before and after release. Additionally, the vast majority (96 percent in a study of Houston female inmates) of women are in prison for low-level crimes, most of which are related to drug offenses (La Vigne, Brooks, and Shollenberger 2009). In fact, the incidence of violent crimes is low among female inmates. It is important to note that prior to their incarceration experience, the prevalence of substance abuse among female inmates is staggeringly high. In an Urban Institute (La Vigne, Brooks, and Shollenberger 2009) study of female inmates in Houston, 83 percent reported using illegal drugs within six months of entering jail, and 30 percent reported heavy drug use. Additionally, of the women reporting that they used illegal drugs, the average length of use was seven years, and 40 percent of the illegal drug user population reported having used drugs for ten or more years. Not surprisingly, due to the extensive drug histories of many female inmates and the US government’s “War on Drugs,” many of the inmates were there on drug convictions, with the majority (81 percent) having prior criminal convictions (La Vigne, Brooks, and Shollenberger 2009). On average, the length of incarceration for Houston female inmates was seven months. Because the vast majority of female inmates are released from jail in a relatively short period of time, it is important to better understand their release experience and gain insight into the unique challenges they face. While reintegration is difficult, it is especially challenging for women, who must face both sexism and racism during their struggle (O’Brien 2002). As a result, incarceration provides an excellent opportunity to help these women with a variety of social and health problems.

84

Prisoner Reentry at Work

First, there is a serious need for better drug treatment programs, both in prisons and especially out of prisons. Most women return to their original communities upon release and do not have adequate access to chemical dependency treatment programs. In fact, Richie (2001) argues that even if a short-term treatment program is available in jail (and often they are not), it is not enough to sustain a successful drug-free life outside of prison. Community-based treatment programs that consider gender-specific issues, such as child care and sexual harassment protection, are necessary in order to increase successful reintegration. In fact, O’Brien (2002, in a Safer Foundation Report), urges lawmakers to consider drug treatment programs as an alternative to prison for lowlevel drug offenses. Next, similar to their male counterparts, female inmates do not have adequate medical care. Although they may receive medical attention while they are incarcerated, there is no real long-term plan for medical care. This is especially disheartening given that a large number of women have chronic illnesses, such as HIV, diabetes, hypertension, and reproductive health problems (Richie 2001). Possibly more concerning than physical issues are the mental health problems that go untreated. Richie (2001) found that a large number of women suffered from mental illnesses, ranging from depression to a number of undiagnosed issues. In fact, over half of the female inmates interviewed reported some sort of chronic emotional problem. Unfortunately, without proper diagnoses and care, the women return to their communities with serious unmet needs, which serve as further major barriers to their reintegration. Histories of trauma, violence, and abuse bring additional barriers that are unique to women. Unfortunately, a large number of women inmates suffer from abuse, either as a child or by their intimate partners. Due to this, many women suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder, which often goes untreated and, as with mental disorders, can be a major inhibiting force postrelease. Richie (2001) found that many women were concerned about their safety from further abuse upon release. Unfortunately, studies have shown that women are as likely to be abused following prison as they were before prison. Other unique barriers relate to the difficulty that women have in finding a job postrelease and their child-care responsibilities. Historically, women have not had the same opportunities for education and job training as men and are therefore less likely to be employed and more likely to struggle financially upon release (Richie 2001). As a result,

Community Reentry

85

they are more likely to turn to illegal activities to support themselves and their families. Also, it is important to realize that the majority of females in prison are mothers (O’Brien, 2002), and that their struggle to maintain relationships with their children is an ongoing battle while in prison. Finally, while women face many barriers, it is not a hopeless situation. However, there is a tremendous need for increased and better programming and legislation to help this population, both while they are still in prison and postrelease. Many models have been put forth, but one in New York City has had particular success. Health Link was established in the early 1990s, and its goals were threefold: (1) to reduce drug use and recidivism rates among female ex-inmates in Harlem and the South Bronx, (2) to increase the capacity of community organizations to help, and (3) to strengthen the network of providers (Richie, Freudenberg, and Page 2001). As far as direct services, Health Link begins with a six-week curriculum in prison and continues with extensive case management services for a full-year following release (Richie, Freudenberg, and Page 2001). In addition, the program engages in community organizing and works at the policy level. Although more research needs to be conducted on the effectiveness of the program, in an initial study, those who continued with services postrelease had 21 percent lower rearrest rates compared to those who had not followed through with services (Richie, Freudenberg, and Page 2001). Overall, findings from this program suggest that prisons can be used as a great intervention point to start much needed services and create the proper networks to help ex-offenders reintegrate into society. This model embraces a social-ecological approach that emphasizes partnerships and collaborations. Older Adult Ex-Offenders The rush to release inmates back into the community as a result of budget constraints has not resulted in all categories of former inmates receiving equal attention in the professional literature. Older adult inmates, who are primarily male, for example, have not received the attention they deserve in the reentry literature and research, even though the challenges they face are arguably far greater than any other age groups (Higgins and Severson 2009; van Wormer, Chandha, and Jaggers 2009). At the time this book went to press, an extensive review of the literature did not uncover any reentry program that specialized in older adults

86

Prisoner Reentry at Work

(Christian Science Monitor 2002). When such an initiative is developed, it will have to take into account a variety of sociodemographic and health-status issues, such as older adult women’s health needs, for example. Finally, the older adult ex-inmates (aged fifty and older) bring with them a host of challenges not found among younger age groups in the United States (Marquart, Merianos, and Doucet 2000; McCaffrey 2007). Older adult inmates and ex-inmates are also a challenge for other countries around the world, such as Australia (Grant 1999), Japan (Norrie 2008; Onishi 2007), Canada (Crawley 2004), and England (Collins and O’Neill 2006; Crawley 2005; Mesurier 2007), for example. Reentry challenges primarily relate to health and safety, and carry over into social networks, which may be nonexistent in cases involving long-term incarceration, and limited options for employment (Crawley 2004; Sterns et al. 2008; Williams and Abraldes 2007). Because this age group is relatively complacent when compared to young inmates and ex-offenders, it may not get the attention and resources it deserves, assuming a low-priority status upon release from prisons (Crawley 2004). Few with compromised physical health are considered a threat to society. Older adult inmates are widely considered to be one of the most challenging and expensive groups within prisons (Aday 2003; Caverley 2006; Grant 1999; Rikard and Rosenberg 2007; Williams 2008). For example, costs of incarcerating them are two to three times that of their younger counterparts (Caverley 2006; Colimore 2005; Gubler and Petersilia 2006). Not surprisingly, these increased costs are primarily the result of health illnesses associated with aging (Fazel et al. 2004; Green 2009; Loeb and Dagga 2006; Milford 2006). It only stands to reason that these challenges do not go away upon their release from prison after decades of incarceration, and failing health is often associated with difficult lifestyles and advancing age (Aday 2003; Anno et al. 2004; Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009). Although these returning inmates are not a threat to recidivate, their special needs will result in serious concerns on the part of policymakers, because of the costs associated with health conditions (Kerbs and Jolley 2008; Rikard and Rosenberg 2007). States are starting to view releasing older adult inmates as a quick means of reducing costs. In early 2003, Georgia released forty-nine older adult inmates as a cost-saving measure and was exploring further

Community Reentry

87

releases (Jonnson 2003). However, state prison costs essentially are being transferred to other sectors of state and local budgets, and older adult ex-offenders may become pawns in a shell game in which various public systems refuse to accept the costs of this population group.

Conclusion As noted in the introduction to this chapter, reentry is far from being a simple episodic act of someone returning to a community after an extended stay somewhere else—in this case, a total institution. Once reentry was reconceptualized as a process of reintegration, with a host of associated factors influencing outcomes, the criminal justice field discovered the importance of involving ex-inmates, families, and community in this process. Hopefully, what comes across quite clearly is the multifaceted nature of the process of reentry and the need to involve all significant sectors in any reentry initiative. This takes on an even greater challenge because, in all likelihood, the families of ex-offenders and the communities they are returning to are also in great need of assistance. Where does the field draw the line on what constitutes a legitimate need to be addressed, and what is simply beyond the purview of criminal justice and should or must be addressed by society? Some would argue, as I do, that to separate the ex-offender from his immediate environment would be futile and only further exacerbate a difficult situation. A social-ecological perspective brings into the discussion multiple arenas and considerations to increase the likelihood of success. Mind you, no form of social intervention can guarantee success. All we can ask is to increase the odds that success can occur. Ahn-Redding (2007) summed up quite well why society should care about ex-offenders becoming an integral and positive part of society: “By giving ex-inmates a chance to belong to their communities in the fullest sense, we are helping our own. When communities flourish, so does society” (p. 127). It would be a serious mistake to think about ex-offenders and employment without a social-cultural context of their state of being. Thus, how feasible is finding employment for someone struggling with a wide variety of illnesses, stigmas, and the lack of appropriate supports? Consequently, the next chapter focuses on employment, with this backdrop as a foundation for better appreciating the services that will be needed to help ensure that ex-offenders have a high likelihood of success.

3 Employment Issues

The previous two chapters have highlighted a variety of extraordinary individual and environmental challenges that ex-offenders face in socially navigating their reentry into their respective communities and society. The magnitude of these challenges can easily result in elected officials avoiding these problems, particularly if they necessitate taking funding from programs serving “worthy” sectors of their community to be redirected to serve ex-offenders, who many consider to be “unworthy.” There is little doubt that successfully addressing the reentry of ex-offenders requires a major financial commitment on the part of government at all levels and entails having the political will to do so. Nevertheless, engaging in denial will not result in the problem of ex-offender reentry going away, because it will manifest itself in a variety of ways that threaten the well-being of communities. For example, in late 2010, Georgia state inmates in seven prisons organized a protest using contraband telephones to highlight their demands for better living conditions: pay for work performed while in prison, more education, and a change in sentencing rules (Wheaton 2010). Hallett (2011) makes a critical examination of prisoner reentry research, which strikes at many of the central arguments made in this chapter: “Academic research on ‘prisoner reentry’ has been heavily focused upon experimental designs and program evaluation rather than broader shifts in race and class relations or underlying economic change” (p. x).

89

90

Prisoner Reentry at Work

An ability to find jobs quickly (Rarick and Kahan 2009) increases the likelihood of ex-offenders not committing crimes and not returning to prison, making finding employment quickly a critical element in the job search process (Mead 2010). Ahn-Redding’s (2007) book, The “Million Dollar Inmate”: The Financial and Social Burden of Nonviolent Offenders, provides a detailed account of the social and economic, and visible and invisible, consequences of incarceration, many of which will be addressed in this chapter. The average citizen must question at what expense a correctional system should be supported. For example, keeping an inmate in a Michigan prison is more expensive than keeping a student at the University of Michigan. States are struggling with the costs of maintaining their prison systems. It costs an estimated $69 billion a year in state and federal dollars to maintain all the state prisons combined (Greenhouse 2011). State budget gaps have served to increase the rate of offender release back into the community. However, funding gaps have also provided an opportunity for prisoners to learn new skills not normally within the purview of prison-work programs (Brown and Severson 2011). In Florida, one program has inmates growing produce (tomatoes, peppers, squash, broccoli, and oranges) for prisoner consumption. This program produced 4.8 million pounds of produce a year and is estimated to save the state $2.4 million a year. The program involved developing a partnership between the University of Florida Agricultural Center and the Century Correctional Institute. In addition, these efforts have created critical alliances (Brown and Severson 2011): “Liberal humanitarian groups that advocate more education and exercise in prisons find themselves supporting proposals from conservative budget hawks to get inmate jobs, often outdoors, where they can learn new skills” (p. A14). Creating successful reentry programs that keep ex-offenders out of prison and in productive employment, for example, will result in significant cost savings and increase the income from taxes paid by these new wage earners. It is not surprising that states are starting to pay greater attention to reentry and to finding work for ex-offenders because of the long-term savings the work generates and the potential for increased state revenues. However, investment of considerable public funds will be needed before a return on these investments can be realized, saving state and local governments correctional-related expenses. The political will to invest needed funds, at a time of economic crisis, will surely test the resolve of local governments.

Employment Issues

91

Apel and Sweeten (2010), not surprisingly, found that incarceration results in serious deterioration in ex-offender employment opportunities. Brown (2011) speaks to the potential role that vocational counseling can play in helping ex-offenders reenter the labor market. Rhodes (2008) goes so far as to argue that the role of employment is widely acknowledged as being critical for ex-offender successful reentry into society, not only because it occupies a period of time in their lives, but it also exposes ex-offenders to other workers who may exercise positive influence in their lives. In essence, the social network of the employed ex-offender will differ considerably from that of the exoffender without employment. The complexity of ex-offender employment has necessitated extraordinary efforts to help ex-offenders and those who work with them through this process (Garland, Wodahl, and Mayfield 2011; ToussaintComeau 2008). Katvin and colleagues (2009), for example, produced a 294-page document, Facilitating Employment for Persons Who Are Ex-Offenders, to help ex-offenders in Indiana. This report focused on two critical dimensions of reentry: (1) “Laws pertaining to the hiring of persons with specific convictions and/or probation requirements” and (2) “job-seeking strategies” (pp. 1–2). In 2010, Katvin and colleagues published a companion book, A Guide to Facilitating Employment for Persons with Mental Illness Who Are Ex-Offenders, in an attempt to meet the needs of a specialized subgroup of ex-offenders. Centralized efforts attempt to bring together needed resources in one place with relatively easy access. Nevertheless, such efforts are only as good as the information they possess about jobs and services, and their accessibility (physical and language in the case of those who do not have English as their primary language) to ex-offenders. The magnitude of the problem or challenge has caught the attention of book publishers specifically targeting the ex-offender market. The book Best Jobs for Ex-Offenders: 101 Opportunities to Jump-Start Your New Life (Krannich 2008) brings a self-help perspective to the discussion of ex-offender reentry and employment. Other self-help publishers will no doubt follow this lead because of this growing market. Bierens and Carvalho (2010) found that the geographical areas where ex-offenders reenter and their ages at reentry play important roles in dictating success in obtaining employment. This finding takes on significance, as noted earlier, because of the high rates of ex-offenders returning to select urban neighborhoods where they lived prior to their incarceration. If those neighborhoods have excessively high rates of

92

Prisoner Reentry at Work

unemployment and crime, then the likelihood of not finding employment and reengaging in criminal activity is correspondingly increased. Pettit and Lyons (2007) raise similar concerns about the ages of exoffenders upon their release: Incarceration appears to have important consequences for employment and wage outcomes regardless of when individuals are admitted to prison. Even the most motivated offenders suffer sizeable and significant wage penalties and, over time, decreased likelihood of employment. These findings underscore the relevance of legal and institutional shifts associated with carceral expansion and the aging of the inmate population for life course theories of criminal desistance, accounts of labor market inequality, and prisoner reentry programs. (p. 725)

As a result, the reentry subject is quite complex and challenging, including the added dimension of discrimination because of race and ethnicity (Stageman 2010; Varghese, Hardin, and Bauer 2009). Thus, a number of particular challenges to successful employment upon reentry exist, as seen in the previous chapter. The challenges will be addressed in isolation from each other, yet they are interconnected. Viewing these subjects singly facilitates presentation of the material. Nevertheless, efforts will be made to highlight these areas in their individual sections, but information will be also presented showing the interconnectedness. Research on unemployment trends in the United States raises the strong possibility that rates of unemployment, particularly among those of color, will be considerably higher as ex-offenders reintegrate into their communities. The challenge of finding suitable employment, however, must be surmounted against one of the deepest and most persistent unemployment rates in decades, as this book goes to press. Thus, finding a job is among many challenges that ex-offenders face when they are released from jail or prison (Greenhouse 2011; Tripodi, Kim, and Bender 2010). In fact, one study reported that among prisoners in the Baltimore area, finding a job was the number one concern upon their release (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Interestingly, the same study showed that they were optimistic about their chances of finding and maintaining a job upon their release, which is not as easy as many prisoners hope it will be. Ex-offenders may feel that getting an initial job interview represents a critical step in reentry because it provides

Employment Issues

93

them with an opportunity to present themselves in a positive light and explain how their lives have been changed as a result of incarceration. While almost two-thirds of prisoners in a Maryland study held jobs prior to incarceration, rates of employment postincarceration are considerably less (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Additionally, even when individuals in this study were able to secure a job in the first few months after their release, they were disappointed to find that, on average, their hourly wage was $7.50, which was $1.50 less than the average expected wage upon release, and $0.50 less than the average wage of workers prior to incarceration (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Purchasing power, however, has been reduced to an even greater degree due to inflation. In this study, it was also shown that individuals finding a job within the first few months of their release used a variety of methods, including asking friends and relatives, directly applying to the employer, and looking at newspaper ads (Solomon et al. 2004). Of those who were unsuccessful in finding employment, their main methods of searching included talking to their parole officers and use of the Yellow Pages and newspaper ads (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). From these findings, it seems that social networking was the most efficient way to find employment. Also, in the months immediately following release, those who had participated in work-release or in-prison employment programs had higher rates of finding employment. However, as more time passed, this advantage disappeared, and there was no statistically significant difference in employment rates between exprisoners who participated in employment programs and those who did not participate (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Rhodes (2008) came to a similar conclusion concerning the role of social networks in exoffender success in finding employment. The influential role of social networks has not been fully understood and tapped in helping exoffenders reintegrate into their communities (Jordan 2006). Berg and Huebner (2010) found that the quality of family ties can either help or hinder obtainment of employment and recidivism. Also, it was found that those who initially found work had a few things in common: they tended to be male and had some sort of debt, and work was usually a condition of their release. The unemployment rate among ex-inmates is astronomically high when compared to other groups. In 2006 in New York state, the unemployment rate of ex-inmates one year after release was 60 percent (compared to 4.5 percent for nonprisoners), and 83 percent of individ-

94

Prisoner Reentry at Work

uals who violated the terms of their probation were unemployed at the time of their violation (New York State Bar Association 2006). Raphael’s (2004) research on incarceration and the socioeconomic status of African Americans/blacks found a strong association between the overall unemployment rate and the presence of ex-inmates: “The proportion institutionalized has a strong negative effect on the proportion of the non-institutionalized that are employed. The relationship is strong enough to explain one-third to one-half of the relative decline in black male unemployment” (p. 2). McKean and Ransford (2004) note that substance abuse treatment, education, and employment are the most frequently cited key elements in any successful reentry initiative. Collaborative efforts involving various sectors within a community represent a cost-effective way of achieving this comprehensive approach, although this is much easier said than accomplished (Mack and Osiris 2007; VanDeCarr 2007). Western (2008) identified four approaches to facilitate ex-inmates’ return to the labor market, which address the multifaceted needs they can be expected to confront upon their return: (1) transitional employment programs; (2) residential and training programs for disadvantaged youth; (3) prison work and educational programs; and (4) income supplements for the unemployed. Unfortunately, each of these four areas is severely underfunded and understudied. Finally, Thacher (2008) shares observations on current thinking related to reentry programs and how they should prioritize certain goals: Current thinking about these programs emphasizes two roles they can play: First, reentry programs may build ex-offenders’ human capital, helping them develop skills and attitudes that employers value; and second, they may build social capital, providing the connections to employers and employment resources that ex-convicts themselves often lack. I argue that reentry programs also serve what labor economists call a signaling function, ascertaining and certifying their clients’ employability. (In terms more familiar in sociolegal studies, this role reflects an actuarial logic rather than the largely disciplinary logic of human and social capital development.) Understanding the role of prisoner reentry programs in this way highlights an under-appreciated category of practical tasks that prisoner reentry involves, and it raises new concerns about the limitations of this increasingly-important policy movement. (p. 1)

The reader has no doubt realized the host of challenges that exoffenders face and the political will that it will require to increase the

Employment Issues

95

likelihood of their success upon reentry into their communities and society. Several dimensions related to employment will be discussed in the rest of this chapter. Each of these dimensions, plus their rewards and challenges, is summarized.

Employment and Relationship to Recidivism The subject of employment is one that is widely recognized for its significance in the reentry process. Phillips and Lindsay (2011) found in their study of ex-offenders that they undergo a defined process in reentry, which starts with a heightened sense of optimism, cravings for alcohol and other drugs, and coming to grips with practical challenges (finding suitable living arrangements and employment, reconnecting with loved ones), which eventually transcend into feelings of being overwhelmed and then hopeless. Their perceived inability to manage daily problems and relapse into substance abuse result in committing crimes and recidivism. There is little doubt that employment is often considered the centerpiece in scholarly literature of the reentry process (Bushway, Stoll, and Weiman 2007; Harrison and Schehr 2004; Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002; Kennedy and Garcia 2006; Pager 2006; Uggen, Thompson, and Manza 2000; Uggen and Wakefield 2007; Visher, Debus, and Yahner 2008; Wells 2008; Western 2008). This significance, however, does not mean that a consensus exists on how best to approach the issue of employment of ex-offenders. The role and importance of employment in the lives of the average American is well understood. They not only derive important financial resources from work but also their identity. Consequently, it is not hard to see why employment takes on such prominence in any discussion of ex-offender reentry. Bierens and Carvalho (2010) reviewed the history of scholarship on the lack of employment and its relationship to recidivism, and concluded that the benefits of gainful employment go far beyond economic survival. Benefits extend to increased self-esteem, attachment to community, and development of a sense of belonging. These benefits, in turn, extend beyond the ex-offender to his immediate community. Nevertheless, employment of ex-offenders is an elusive goal under normal circumstances and possibly an impossible goal in a recessionary economy (Jacobs 2008a, 2008b).

96

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Bossler (2004) notes the current discussion on unemployment and crime is overly simplified. In addition, a number of sociodemographic factors interplay with each other to further increase the odds against successful employment by ex-offenders. For example, single marital status upon entering prison, length of prison sentence (more than five years in federal prisons), history of un- and underemployment, and co-occurring disorders such as mental illness and drug abuse have been shown to be particularly influential in acting as barriers for successful employment (Goldsmith and Eimicke 2008; Osher, Steadman, and Barr 2002; Wolff 2005). Bellair and Kowalski (2011), based on an Ohio study, found that the lack of low-skill employment opportunities within communities are far greater for African Americans, when compared to their white nonLatino counterparts. As a result, the geography of where ex-offenders reenter, due to their race, plays an influential role in low-skill employment opportunities. Visher, Dubus-Sherrill, and Yahner (2010) found a number of other employment-related factors that influence success in finding employment after release: “Findings indicate that consistent work experience before incarceration, connection to employers before release, and conventional family relationships improve employment outcomes after release. Individuals who relapse to drug use quickly after release, have chronic physical or mental health problems, and are older or nonwhite are employed fewer months after a period of incarceration” (p. xx). Employment can decrease the likelihood of reoffending by keeping ex-offenders out of the job market and decreasing the likelihood that new crime actually will result (Tripodi, Kim, and Bender 2010). However, the availability of high-quality jobs, more than mere employment, has a positive impact on recidivism (Kethineni and Falcone 2007). Kethineni and Falcone (2007) note that more employers should hire ex-offenders and offer four key recommendations for accomplishing this goal: (1) the criminal justice system should assist ex-offenders through skillbuilding while in prison and help them gain employment upon release, even if not released under formal supervision; (2) employers should be given incentives to hire ex-offenders; (3) clear statutory guidelines should be established for employers, both in public and private sectors; and (4) crime prevention efforts to reduce opportunities for criminal behavior should be given priority. (p. 36)

Vishner, Winterfield, and Coggeshall, whose study was cited by the National Poverty Center (Bloom 2006), did a meta-analysis of eight

Employment Issues

97

postrelease programs and found that they did not reduce recidivism. However, studies on this topic generally are limited in scope, and more research is necessary. Therefore, policy advocates argue that further studies, such as a long-term study of the effects of these programs, is necessary for positive results to occur. Without this concrete information, it will be nearly impossible to obtain the funding necessary to create the proper programs to effectively reduce recidivism. One study argues that, while having a prison job adds purpose to inmates’ lives and provides a means for prisoners to contribute to their families, it is not helpful for future employment (Solomon et al. 2004). In addition to in-prison work assignments, prisoners can participate in work-release programs, but the quality of the work is similar to that within prisons and does not contribute much to marketable skills. Additionally, in prison, different programs aim to help prisoners with their transition to employment postrelease. Although a few studies of these programs’ effectiveness in reducing recidivism argue that the programs help, experts maintain that the results are based on weak study designs (Bloom 2006). Nevertheless, Pryor (2005) raises important questions pertaining to the production of goods and services by prison industries and to those who participate in these programs: “Studies on the recidivism rate among inmates participating in prison industry programs show that their graduates have a somewhat lower rate in returning to prison. Nevertheless, many of these results reflect a selection bias—those most eager to learn marketable skills are more likely to volunteer for the prison industries and these inmates, in turn, are less likely to return to crime after they are released” (p. 12). Kethineni and Falcone (2007) undertook a comparison of rates of incarceration in the United States (724 per 100,000 people) to those of other countries, which included England and Wales (145), Canada (116), Germany (97), France (88), and Japan (60). They found that the United States has significantly higher rates of incarceration than other developed countries. Of those incarcerated who will be released at some point, many will be rearrested for new crimes. Kethineni and Falcone (2007) concluded that: “A major concern is how correctional systems can manage the release of vast numbers of inmates and how communities can absorb and reintegrate them as law-abiding citizens. . . . The role of employability is particularly important in ex-offenders’ efforts to avoid recidivism” (p. 37). Krienert and Fleisher (2004), too, put forth the argument that the lack of employment can be a risk factor toward engagement in crime

98

Prisoner Reentry at Work

and that employment and crime are not related in a causal relationship. They go on to posit that employment is necessary to maintain a crimefree life and avoid recidivism. However, a crime-free lifestyle is dependent upon a host of factors that transcend employment, as noted in the previous chapter. This is an important argument for providing a comprehensive set of supports for ex-offenders that go beyond employment. Taxman, Young, and Bryne (2003), in turn, view employment from an ex-inmate’s perspective and note the central role it plays in reducing recidivism. Lack of employment programs and recidivism are certainly closely associated (Visher, Winterfield, and Coggeshall 2005). HaslewoodPocsik, Brown, and Spencer (2008) report on findings from a study of employers in the northwest of England that provision of personal employment support is considered the preferred form of support by both employers and by ex-offenders. As a result, it is not surprising to have the policy question of governments and foundations subsidizing employment of ex-offenders continuing to gain prominence (Katel 2009). Foundations such as Chicago’s Joyce Foundation, for example, have funded transitional jobs programs (in Chicago; Detroit; Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and St. Paul, Minnesota) in an effort to subsidize exoffenders over a four-month transition period. The evaluation of the success of this program has yet to be completed as this book goes to press. Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2002), in a review of the role employers can play in facilitating ex-inmate community reentry, identified a series of critical factors pertaining to employer attitudes and behaviors toward hiring ex-inmates: “The evidence . . . indicates that employers are, in general, quite adverse to hiring ex-offenders. Indeed, they are more reluctant to hire them than workers from virtually any other disadvantaged or stigmatized group. The severe skill deficiencies and other personal limitations of ex-offenders, such as substance abuse problems, would certainly limit their employability even without offender status” (p. 10). As a result, employer needs, attitudes, and recommendations must be systematically gathered and considered in any effort at facilitating ex-offender employment (Kurlychek 2010; Raphael 2007, 2011). Sonfield (2008), following up an analysis to postulations he made in 1992, attributes the current high recidivism rates largely to employment barriers and recognizes the high cost of recidivism: “The resulting costs of recidivism to society are enormous: public safety risks, a weakening of family and community ties, public health risks, and rap-

Employment Issues

99

idly rising criminal justice costs” (p. 193). In his original article published twenty years ago, Sonfield (1992) articulated the idea that “small business and entrepreneurial training programs for soon-to-be-released inmates and for recently-released ex-convicts might increase their opportunities for self-employment and therefore reduce their rate of recidivism” (p. 194). In 1992, Sonfield tested the “entrepreneurial propensity” of inmates using the Miner Sentence Completion Scale—Form T and found it to be valid in measuring motivational factors associated with entrepreneurial success. Business teachers who were working with inmates found that many of their inmate-students (with no prior legitimate business or employment experience) seemed quite “business-savvy,” with a surprising understanding of the nuances of marketing, finance etc. The test was given to 59 male inmates in 3 states, with the results showing that the inmates had higher scores than did comparable groups of “normative entrepreneurs,” “slow-growth entrepreneurs,” and “managerscientists,” thus indicating that some prison inmates possess high levels of entrepreneurial aptitude. (p. 194)

A comprehensive view of drug use will illustrate that drugs not only play a pivotal role in incarceration, because of crimes committed to support an addiction, but also have a significant role through provision of economic opportunity in communities where these opportunities are severely limited (Weiman, Stoll, and Bushway 2007). Venkatesh’s (2008) book Gang Leader for a Day reinforces some of Sonfield’s major conclusions concerning the business skill-set possessed by gang leaders, although without the expected business training available in graduate business schools. Gang members engaged in the drug trade, for example, understand the importance of math, supply and demand, pricing and distribution of product, marketing, employee motivation tactics, and organizational structure. Unfortunately, these knowledge areas and the corresponding skill-sets are related to an illicit activity and therefore can’t be used on a résumé. Sonfield (2008) gave an example of how the amount of money, resources, and management needed to run drug-dealing operations could be translated to legitimate entrepreneurial success: If entrepreneurial “propensity” or “aptitude” is an attribute that some people possess to a greater degree than do others, and if a portion of our nation’s prison inmates possess this attribute, then entrepreneurial or

100

Prisoner Reentry at Work

self-employment training for soon-to-be-released inmates and recentlyreleased convicts would be a potentially valuable component of our nation’s social policy efforts, and might result in a lowering of recidivism rates with resultant benefits for society. (p. 194)

Implementing this propensity into programming includes the need to carefully design such a program, but Sonfield (2008) suggests that in a changing political climate, shifting from the conservative views of the 1980s and 1990s toward incarceration and reentry, such programs could be successful in reducing recidivism. A shift from a punishment to a rehabilitative way of thinking brings with it a corresponding change in how correctional resources are allocated and to what extent these resources can be transferred out of institutions and redirected to programs in communities. Unfortunately, ex-offenders face a number of obstacles that make gaining employment difficult. Incarceration plays a role in eroding legitimate job skills and enhancing illegitimate job skills (Western 2007): “Behaviors that are adaptive for survival in prison—a taciturn demeanor, and suspicious approach to human relationships, or a resistance to authority—are inconsistent with work routines outside” (pp. 340–341). Further, the general population of ex-offenders tends to be disproportionately African American males from low-income backgrounds, with low levels of formal education and some form of mental illness and/or substance abuse (Bloom 2006). Even without the criminal background, these characteristics would make this population group difficult to employ. However, when combined with a criminal background, the chances of employment become even slimmer. Although employers may be more willing to consider factors, such as the nature of the crime (that is, violent crime versus petty theft), length of time out of jail, and prior work experience, the mere existence of a criminal record can be a formidable detriment to employment (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002).

Legal Impediments Current scholarship in the area of legal impediments as consequences of incarceration has generally focused on political participation, employment, and public benefits (Henderson 2005; Lee 2010). These penalties, as touched upon in the previous chapter, can include “infringement or abrogation of the right to vote, potential public registration as a sex of-

Employment Issues

101

fender, prohibitions on the right to possess firearms, enhanced penalties for future convictions, exclusion from certain professions, and restrictions on access to public housing” (Henderson 2005, pp. 1240–1241). The Legal Action Center (2004) undertook what many consider to be the first national comprehensive study of laws and policies that hamper ex-offender reentry into the community, identified numerous legal barriers, and concluded: People with criminal records face a daunting array of challenges. Without a job, it is impossible to provide for oneself and one’s family. Without a driver’s license, it is harder to find and keep a job. Without affordable housing or food stamps or federal monies to participate in alcohol or drug treatment, it is harder to lead a stable, productive life. Without the right to vote, the ability to adopt or raise foster children, or access to a college loan, it is harder to become a fully engaged citizen in the mainstream of society. These roadblocks block the reintegration of people with criminal records, which in turn compromises everyone’s safety and the well-being of our communities. (p. 23)

Further implications of incarceration include limited access to credit and financial services. As a result, reintegrating into society brings with it “invisible punishments” that result in civil, political, and economic impediments suffered by the ex-offender (Collins-Molden 2009). Harris and Keller (2005) identify many of the legal barriers that systematically prevent ex-inmates from engaging in lawful employment. Many employers hesitate when considering employing ex-offenders because of the risk of liability on their part. Thus, it is not only hard for ex-offenders to find employment in general, but there are significant social, legal, and economic barriers to gainful, well-paid employment, in particular. A criminal record can also impede the ability of an ex-offender to get licensed in certain professions, even when the crime has no relevance to the intended job. Kethineni and Falcone (2007) note that “Only 10 states prohibit employers and occupational licensing agencies from considering arrests in employment decisions if those arrests did not lead to convictions, and three states prohibit certain employers from using arrest information in employment decisions” (p. 44). Limiting potential occupations limits potential jobs that ex-offenders can apply for and occupy. Additionally, employers in many states are permitted to review arrest records, even when these arrests have not led to a conviction.

102

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Finlay’s (2008) study of increased employer access to criminal history data found that it posed a significant challenge for ex-offenders: “I find evidence that labor market outcomes are worse for ex-offenders once state criminal history records become available over the Internet. Non-offenders from highly offending groups do not appear, however, to have significantly better labor market outcomes” (p. 1). As a result, an ability to start a new life is further challenged because of increased access to background histories. Because of advances in information technology, the ubiquitous nature of background checks represents a serious challenge for exoffenders wishing to assume a life and identity that are crime free (Blumstein and Nakamura 2009). Harris and Keller (2005) review the usage and implications of background checks in the employment hiring process. In recent years, employers have had more access to records than in the past, particularly because of new technologies and the passage of new laws: “Employers’ responses to enhanced access have been enthusiastic; more than half of the fingerprints sent to the FBI for processing in the year ending May 31, 2002, came from noncriminal justice agencies, up from just 9% in 1993” (Harris and Keller 2005, p. 6). Some licensing requirements pose direct barriers to ex-offender employment, while some indirect barriers occur from employers’ access to records. Harris and Keller (2005) note that it is important to distinguish between hazard and risk: “Confusion of hazards and risks in employment decisions means that employers and coworkers may understate actual risks of new crimes associated with individuals who survive the hiring criteria and overstate risks of those who are declined employment” (p. 14). They also discuss criminal records, which are frequently inaccurate and can be hard or untimely to obtain. Further, there is also the “assumption that offenders make substantial contributions to crime in the workplace. Yet, little research on workplace crime focuses on employees with criminal histories” (Harris and Keller 2005, p. 17). Expansion of possible employment arenas, to include jobs in areas formerly not open to exoffenders, is one way of increasing employment options. It is recommended that the hiring processes of ex-offenders be reformed, so that employers utilize appropriate and accurate riskassessment, because such processes have significant impact on exoffender reintegration. According to Henderson (2005): “Successful exoffender reentry accomplishes two separate public policy goals: promotion of public safety and self-realization of the individual as a productive citizen” (p. 1241). However, the social stigma suffered by ex-

Employment Issues

103

offenders can work to increase recidivism and decrease opportunities for successful reentry. Additionally, barriers to obtaining public assistance and employment result in some ex-offenders undertaking illegitimate money-earning activities as a means of meeting their financial needs. Banks also impose barriers by requesting criminal records during their loan processes, making it harder for ex-offenders to receive a legitimate loan. The federal government also engages in such practices. This applies to the Small Business Assistance Administration and its Form 912, which asks about criminal history. This information is also requested of partners, officers, directors, or individuals who hold at least 20 percent of an applicant company’s equity. Disallowing or making it excessively difficult for ex-offenders to receive small business assistance effectively eliminates a potential pool of individuals who can contribute to their communities. Mind you, it would be unrealistic to expect a large percentage of ex-offenders to enter into small business creation. However, there is bound to be a percentage with such interests, although the amount of interest is unclear because of minimal research on this topic. The consequences of this barrier are “acutely felt in communities of color, which sustain high concentrations of ex-offenders and among individuals in those communities who suffer the stigma of such exposure” (Henderson 2005, p. 1246). This is a significant consequence, considering the economic power of small businesses in this country and their strategic location within urban communities (Delgado 2011). The disproportionate burden of unfair lending practices, coupled with racism, takes a toll on communities of color. Furthermore, “these communities also become more susceptible to gentrification and its attendant displacement when community members are unable to hold a financial stake in the development of the area” (Henderson 2005, p. 1252). As a result, many members of such communities turn to subprime and predatory lenders for high risk and expensive loans. Henderson (2005) believes that “the federal fair lending landscape should provide an avenue for challenging the use of criminal history in deciding whether or not to extend a loan to an applicant” (p. 1252). The current guidelines, as established by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, are insufficient to successfully defend ex-offenders. As a result, some steps have been made to rectify the issue in the realm of employment. Some states “currently prohibit employers from inquiring into the arrest records of potential employees, while others limit the information that

104

Prisoner Reentry at Work

an employer may use in an employment rejection” (Henderson 2005, p. 1261). It is difficult to track the rate of discrimination based on criminal history in lending practices because banks are not required to report it. There are no studies that associate criminal exposure to risk of default, which places too much power in the discretion of individual lenders in making funding decisions. Fairer lending practices need to be enacted to combat discrimination against ex-offenders and the communities to which they reintegrate, and to give ex-inmates a fair chance at reentry. Fahey, Roberts, and Engel (2006) conducted four focus groups at the Criminal and Justice Institute, with a total of twenty-eight employers based in Boston and the surrounding areas. Participation in each of these groups was based on whether or not the employers had hired exoffenders. Focus group participants were determined by several characteristics, such as whether the employer had entry-level or intermediatelevel positions for persons without a college degree. The four groups were then further divided into two groups of employers who had hired an ex-offender in the past three years and those who had not. Boston was chosen because the area has the largest number of returning offenders in Massachusetts. The teams also looked at the current research surrounding barriers to ex-offender reentry, analyzed the results of the focus groups and related surveys, and concluded with strategies and suggestions for improving the reentry process and incorporating exoffenders into the labor force. The research yielded a wealth of information. Employers reported nontechnical (soft) skills as being most important and were in favor of considering applicants who had some sort of work experience postincarceration: Transitional employment was considered by some as “evidence of rehabilitation.” The findings also identified a series of issues for reentry, including the use of background checks, availability and access to criminal records, racism, inconsistent hiring practices by employers (that is, those who say they would hire an ex-offender compared to those who actually do), legal barriers, employment discrimination, employer liability, educational and financial obstacles, health issues, prevalence of mental illness, infectious disease, lack of stable housing, and lack of job opportunities. Giguere and Dundes’s (2002) Baltimore study of potential employers’ concerns about hiring ex-offenders reinforces much of what Fahey, Roberts, and Engel (2006) found in their Boston study. An employer’s greatest concern focused on ex-offender people skills and customer dis-

Employment Issues

105

comfort once customers knew they were being served by ex-offenders. The authors recommend that programs be developed that enhance the people skills of ex-offenders and increase exposure between employers and ex-offenders as a means of eliminating stereotypes employers may have about this group. Legal liability was a major consideration for employers, and many were “generally unfamiliar with Massachusetts law pertaining to liability regarding such issues as discrimination, and negligent hiring, as it relates to ex-offenders” (Fahey, Roberts, and Engel 2006, p. 15). In terms of references, “Employers rated references from workforce development agencies and probation or parole agencies as having the greatest positive influence on hiring, while references from faith-based organizations and prisons or jails had the least positive influence.” The following themes were also identified by Fahey, Roberts, and Engel (2006): “Soft and hard skills; transitional employment experience; education and marketing to employers (e.g., tax incentives, bonding, employer successes hiring ex-offenders); use of intermediary organizations; protection from liability (e.g., legal, reputation, work environment/ safety); and basic tools for transitioning inmates, such as identification, social security cards, etc.” (p. 22). Murphy and colleagues (2011) view criminal history as a “Scarlet Letter” that perpetually spoils the identity of the ex-offender and makes this identity available electronically. This spoiled identity can also encompass a variety of other stigmas, such as HIV/AIDS, substance abuse, and the nature of the crime that led to incarceration. The key recommendations focused on skill enhancement, outreach to employers, further education, and provision to ex-offenders of the necessary social tools to succeed, with strategies listed for each. For skill enhancement, strategies included strengthening collaboration between key service providers to increase ex-offender preparation, providing structured employment and training opportunities postrelease, and providing training of soft skills. For education, the strategies included developing marketing, communicating information about resource supports available to employers to facilitate the process of hiring and keeping ex-inmates, and recruiting champions—individuals who would advocate for ex-inmates. Finally, it is necessary to provide exoffenders with basic communications and interpersonal tools by providing a package of materials for reentry and linking ex-offenders with resources outside of prison postrelease. Active social brokering is predicated on the broker having resources that can be marshaled to aid ex-

106

Prisoner Reentry at Work

offenders. It is also predicated on community service providers having a keen understanding of the needs and willingness of ex-offenders to engage in the help-seeking process.

Discrimination and Employment As already noted, ex-offenders face a great deal of discrimination and stigma upon their reentry into the community and society. One of the greatest challenges in the ex-offender reentry process is overcoming the overt and covert discrimination that comes with being an ex-con. In a study of four metropolitan areas, approximately two-thirds of employers surveyed said that they would not knowingly hire someone with a criminal background (Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). Furthermore, the federal government excludes ex-prisoners from holding certain positions, such as interstate transit, child care, and patient care. This is particularly detrimental because many of these jobs have potential for growth versus blue collar jobs, such as industrial work (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002). Also, in midsized to large companies, the increasing availability of criminal background checks and information is detrimental to an individual’s chance of getting a job. Discrimination, however, gets exacerbated when the race and ethnicity of the ex-offender is taken into consideration. African Americans and Latino ex-offenders, for example, experience greater discrimination than do their white non-Latino counterparts. In fact, potential employers would prefer to hire ex-offenders who are white non-Latino over African American and Latinos without criminal history backgrounds (Pager, Western, and Bonikowski 2009). Fear of facing discrimination, in turn, seriously undermines the self-confidence often required in the employment search process. Discrimination, in essence, becomes a dual-edged sword. In addition to the stigma ex-offenders experience in the general community, one researcher noted (Pager 2003) that “the state certifies individuals who are incarcerated in ways that qualify them for discrimination or social exclusion. The official status of this negative credential separates it from other forms of social stigma” (p. 40). Besides the state’s role in this discrimination, Pager (2003) found that “roughly 75 per cent of the employers [studied] asked explicit questions on the application form about the applicant’s criminal history even though, in most cases, employers were not allowed to ask criminal history ques-

Employment Issues

107

tions” (p. 40). Pager (2003) also studied the implications of race and criminal record on the likelihood of a call-back for a job and found that “even white people with criminal records received more call-backs (17%) than black people with no criminal records (14%)” (p. 31). Lucken and Ponte (2008) propose the use of a “bona fide” occupational qualification defense, used in employment discrimination law, as a useful framework in guiding reform efforts to tear down legal barriers for ex-offender employment. Henry (2008) suggests that partnerships be established between reentry programs and legal services, as a means of closing serious legal services gaps in this and other arenas. Williams (2007) acknowledges the important role that discrimination plays in the reentry process and presents a series of recommendations for how to correct some of the more serious forms of employment discrimination that ex-offenders face when looking for employment postrelease. The author’s main argument rests on taking the burden off employers, who often do not have the proper risk-assessment tools and thus err on the side of caution in hiring. As a result, corrections officers who supervise ex-offenders can assist in the hiring process, because they may be better equipped to make such a judgment as to the risks the inmate carries. Although workplace violence is comparatively low, employers still fear the legal retribution that would accompany their liability if they hired an ex-offender who committed a crime at their workplace. Evaluating the suitability of an applicant who has previously offended may not be a task easily completed by employers (Williams 2007): “Forcing employers to evaluate ex-offenders already under corrections supervision is redundant, confusing for employers, unfair to ex-offenders, and ill-suited to address potential workplace violence” (p. 525). Williams (2007) goes on to stress the importance of limiting employers’ liability in the hiring process. This would enable corrections officers to evaluate criminal histories and records and notify potential employers of risks, instead of leaving this task to the employers (Williams 2007): “Corrections departments have developed risk assessment instruments designed to make ‘more rational and accurate’ recidivism predictions” (pp. 527–528). Although the number of supervision and parole officers has decreased in recent years, states may be more willing to increase these resources in the face of rising incarceration costs, especially since research has found that employment can reduce recidivism. While some fear that ex-offenders may reoffend in the workplace, Williams (2007) argues that “the majority of incidents are committed

108

Prisoner Reentry at Work

by nonemployee strangers; co-workers are responsible for only 7 percent of workplace homicides” (p. 534). However, employers still heavily rely on background checks, out of fear of liability and the risk of incident. Employers can be held responsible for negligent hiring, yet, “unfortunately for employers who are trying to determine risk, courts offer few rules about when the connection between past crime and current conduct is sufficient—would the prior crime need to be the same or involving some of the same elements as the current conduct?” (Williams 2007, p. 539). Unclear provisions, as a result, make it difficult for employers to risk hiring an ex-offender. Employers can refuse to hire an ex-offender if they can show there is a business necessity for this choice. States have different antidiscrimination laws. Some states, including New York and Connecticut, have “fact-specific inquiries,” which “attempt to look not only at the crime with which the individual was charged but also at the circumstances surrounding that crime” (Williams 2007, p. 541). Some states, such as Wisconsin, use “element-of-thecrime” inquiries, which “evaluate job relatedness by looking more to the statutory elements of the prior conviction than the specifics of the crime” (Williams 2007, p. 542). Formal Education and Training Obviously, the entire problem of finding employment does not begin at release. The need for new programming or a different form of intervention should begin well before that event. Goldsmith and Eimicke (2008) and others have highlighted the challenges for successful reentry when ex-offenders lack employment, training, mentors, and a social network, which help them socially navigate their communities. For example, fewer than half (46 percent) of ex-offenders have a high school diploma or a GED upon their release, making the job-finding process that much more difficult in an already weak economy (Katel 2009). Cole (2009) makes an important conclusion of what this statistic means for all African American males: The most dramatic effects of . . . incarceration are concentrated on the most disadvantaged—those who are not only African American or Latino, but also poor, uneducated, and living in highly segregated ghettos. While roughly 60 percent of black high school dropouts have spent time in prison, only 5 percent of college educated African Americans have done so. The indirect consequences of such disparities, however,

Employment Issues

109

extend much further. Many people cannot tell whether an African American is a dropout or college-educated—or, more relevant, a burglar or a college professor, as Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates found in July 2009, when he was arrested after trying to get into his own house. The correlation of race and crime in the public’s mind reinforces prejudice that affects every African American. (p. 2)

Not surprisingly, there has been a call for greater emphasis on inprison education programs and the need to evaluate them in the hopes of better utilizing an ever decreasing amount of local and state funds (Lichtenberger and Ogle 2008; Rose, Reed, and Richards 2005; Rose, Reschenberg, and Richards 2010). Yates (2010) examined how a neoconservative view of prisoner education in the Second Chance Act has favored vocational training over liberal, higher learning, resulting in limiting the development of offenders’ and ex-offenders’ human capital within the marketplace. Hirschfield (2008), however, goes so far as to argue that the criminalization of school discipline in the United States, where acts committed during school hours can result in students being charged and sentenced if found guilty, has promoted greater punishment and exclusion for low-income students of color who are viewed as destined for the criminal justice system. Several scholars see the potential for inmates to reengage in their educational pursuits and even complete a significant portion of their college education while in prison (Rose, Reed, and Richards 2005; Ross, Reschenberg, and Richards 2010). They advocate for state and federal prisons to expand their college-level offerings so that inmates can apply for admission and financial aid to facilitate the transition to college immediately after their release. Parallels can be seen with the military offering college-level courses for active duty personnel. Uggen, Thompson, and Manza (2000) raise an important aspect of employment and community reentry by questioning the actual availability of jobs for all returning ex-inmates. The concentration of exinmates in select communities with limited access to jobs, as noted in Chapter 2, creates an imbalance between job availability and the number of ex-offenders in search of employment. Carlson’s (2004) review of the literature found that young male inmates of color with low formal educational levels are at high risk for recidivism. Uggen and Staff (2004), in turn, concluded that postrelease employment and training programs offer promising results for reducing recidivism among older and drug-involved ex-offenders. However, these jobs must be of moderate or high quality to prove challenging.

110

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The role of formal education has been found to be a critical factor in any discussion of ex-inmate employment, as discussed already. Contardo and Tolbert (2008) note that a high percentage (40 percent) of prisoners in jails and state and federal prisons do not have a high school diploma or a GED diploma, compared to 18 percent for the general population, severely limiting inmates’ employment prospects. This percentage is even higher when discussing inmates of color, particularly African American and Latinos. Zgoba, Haugebrook, and Jenkins (2008), for example, found that possessing a GED improved the chances of not engaging in criminal activity. Tyler and Kling (2007), however, found mixed results. In the two case studies presented in Chapters 4 and 5, completing formal education represents an important element in any comprehensive intervention. Giles and Le (2009) comment on the multifaceted roles that employment can play in the lives of ex-offenders: The results suggest that prisoners use education/training to improve their skills in preparation for release from prison. From this perspective it can be argued that these prisoners see education and training as an investment in human capital rather than consumption. In addition, the decision to participate in either education or training is non-random and varies across the time remaining on the prison sentence, thus suggesting prisoners view education and training as different activities. However, the results show the expected benefit prisoners place on education and training is similar. (p. 1)

Important Developments from the Field The news on employment postrelease, fortunately, is not all dismal. Many ideas and programs have been generated in response to the dismal employment rates for ex-prisoners and the potential role employment can play in preventing recidivism. Some recommendations have focused on in-prison employment training, educational, and vocational programs, prison work, postrelease work programs, employer incentives, and thirdparty agencies acting as liaisons between the ex-prisoner and potential employer (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002; Solomon et al. 2004; Visher, La Vigne, and Travis 2004). In-prison work has a long history dating back to the Quakers in 1682, so this is certainly not a new idea (Solomon et al. 2004). As of 2000, 1.1 million individuals qualified for in-prison work assignments. While jobs exist, most are general maintenance jobs and do not enhance a pris-

Employment Issues

111

oner’s marketable skills upon release. In addition to in-prison programs, postrelease efforts are numerous, such as Project RIO (Re-Integration of Prisoners), which has a transition program for employment (Bloom 2006). Of the various programs offered, case management is argued to be one of the most important services. Advocates argue that case management increases the number of potential employers because case managers act as a third party to help both the employer and the employee (Solomon et al. 2004). For example, they can help ensure that the business is a good fit for both parties and can help employers navigate the federal incentives, which can be overwhelming to understand (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002; Solomon et al. 2004). However, despite postrelease efforts, their effectiveness in reducing recidivism is not well known. Saylor and Gaes (2004) found that inmates of color (who have a higher degree of risk of recidivism) who enrolled in a postrelease employment project benefited to a greater degree from participating than did their white (lower-risk) counterparts. Austin and Handyman (2004) point out that there is optimism about the increasing chances of exinmates making a successful return to society. In 2008, the passage of the congressional Second Chance Act authorized $165 million to make rehabilitation a central goal of the federal justice system, signaling a significant shift in philosophy pertaining to corrections (Eckholm 2008a). This shift has reintroduced the importance of rehabilitation and of gainful employment as key contributing factors in reducing the chances of reincarceration. Pogorzelski et al. (2005), however, caution that the call for expansion of reentry services will encounter existing policy restrictions pertaining to needed assistance, such as housing and financial assistance—two critical elements in any successful reentry effort. Ex-offenders with serious mental health issues, as noted in the previous chapter, face even greater challenges in transitioning into the labor force when compared to colleagues without these concerns. The colocation of mental health staff with employment staff represents an important effort in a comprehensive approach tailored to the individual needs of ex-offenders. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation, as shown in the case studies in the following two chapters, colocate and integrate clinical and vocational services as a means of better supporting participants in their quest for employment. An international perspective on reentry may help in the development of policies and programs in the United States. Ruddell and Win-

112

Prisoner Reentry at Work

free (2006) compare the incarceration and criminal history practices of Canada to the United States to determine whether some of Canada’s policies might be useful to consider in the US correctional system. Ruddell and Winfree (2006) contend that the cost of incarceration has led US policymakers to review alternatives, as noted in Chapter 2, and suggest: “With all of this interest in community reintegration, it might prove fruitful to examine whether pardoning practices in Canada that are intended to reduce the stigma and social handicap of a criminal conviction might realistically be imported into the United States” (p. 454). The authors thus embark on a study of criminal convictions in Canada, use of pardons, prevalence of pardons, rates of recidivism after being granted pardons, and profiles of those who were unsuccessful in getting pardons. Ruddell and Winfree then compare US and Canadian correctional practices. Crime rates are comparable between these two nations, although incarceration rates are higher in the United States, with Canada’s rate at 116 per 100,000 residents compared to the United States at 738 per 100,000. Sentence lengths for incarcerations vary between the two nations, according to the crime committed. The recidivism rates, however, were high (41 percent were reconvicted in Canada and 36 percent in the United States), but the rates in Canada are dropping. More rehabilitative programming is available in Canada than in the United States and may be the cause of this drop. Ruddell and Winfree contend that expungement of criminal records is not common in the United States, however, “sealing an offender’s criminal record provides a number of social benefits, including the right to tell potential employers that they do not have a criminal record” (p. 457). In Canada, this is called “setting aside” the record. In Canada, offenders can apply for pardons to get their criminal records set aside, which can be done after a certain amount of time and after a demonstration of rehabilitation. All conditions of the conviction must be satisfied before an ex-offender can apply, with the exception of offenders who are on parole for a life sentence (Ruddell and Winfree 2006): “After a pardon is granted, the individual’s criminal records are sealed and physically separated from other conviction records. However, they still may be used if the ex-offender commits another crime” (p. 459). This process may not completely eradicate stigma (as information can still be obtained about the pardoned conviction through newspapers or victims’ stories), but it is a step in the right direction.

Employment Issues

113

Research in Canada has shown that 98.5 percent of those who asked for pardons were successful. Of the 83,014 people who applied for a pardon during 1996–2003, only 1,239, or 1.5 percent, were unsuccessful. While this process is not immediate, the data (Ruddell and Winfree 2006) show that once an offender is granted a pardon, the chances of success of staying crime free are increased. For instance, 291,392 pardons were granted in the thirty-three years prior to March 30, 2003, and only 9,280 were subsequently revoked, illustrating the popularity of this option. Revocation occurs if the pardon was found to be granted with deceptive or false information provided by the applicant. Although stigma appears to be reduced by the practice of pardoning, only a small portion of eligible ex-offenders apply. Assistance in finding employment is often one of the first needs identified by ex-inmates (Haas and Hamilton 2007). To address this need, a number of practical approaches have been put forth. This initial need, however, necessitates the importance of obtaining and maintaining baseline data on resources and coordinating community efforts to help maximize available employment opportunities (Krienert 2005). Mellon and Christian (2008) recommend that reentry guides actively list formal and informal community resources to help ex-offenders in their efforts to connect with organizations. There is general consensus that for employment to be a successful factor in preventing recidivism, it must be considered of “quality.” Although the definition of quality will vary according to individuals, it invariably goes beyond money and encompasses factors such as fulfillment of responsibilities (Bossler 2004). Creating quality employment opportunities for ex-offenders becomes the challenge rather than just a chance to work. Falk, Walkowitz, and Wirth (2008) found that ex-inmates experienced significantly lower opportunities for employment and appropriate wages because of their histories of criminal involvement. Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll (2004), however, in a study focused on Los Angeles, found that even though employers are reluctant to hire ex-inmates, some might consider doing so when taking into account the type of offense and how long ago it occurred. One estimate has 70 percent of private-sector employers refusing to hire ex-inmates, regardless of the nature of the crimes they committed and the relevance of the jobs for which they are applying (Kennedy and Garcia 2006). Pager (2003), too, found potential employers reluc-

114

Prisoner Reentry at Work

tant to hire ex-offenders, and this was particularly the case when the exinmate was African American/black. Giguere and Dundes (2002) found that employer reluctance centered on concerns about the ex-inmates’ interpersonal skills. Pager and Western (2005) identified low levels of trust among potential employers as a key factor in discriminatory hiring practices against ex-offenders of color. Small Businesses and Ex-Offenders Unfortunately, for ex-prisoners, recent advances in the criminal justice field have resulted in an increase in access to criminal background checks. In 1992–1994, only 48 percent of employers checked for a criminal background versus 63 percent in 2001 (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002). The situation is not much better for ex-offenders seeking employment in small businesses. In fact, because small businesses have fewer staff and tend to have more informal screening processes than companies with large human resources divisions, there is greater potential to discriminate. Because of the lack of formal screening, small businesses are less willing to hire ex-offenders (Holzer, Raphael, and Stoll 2002). Interestingly, this lack of willingness for risk is verified by the low numbers of young African American males working in small businesses. A report issued by the Center for Community Corrections (Shilton, Lindsay, and Vail 2005) on reentry employment focused on the relationship between small businesses, the current state of the business/ prison system dynamic, and areas for potential collaboration. Shilton and colleagues discuss the potential for small business involvement in increasing successful reentry and provided case examples of successful programs. The authors undertook this project with the perspective that community should be a prominent partner in reentry and that collaboration is needed between the different levels of government. In addition, the public needs to understand the purpose of community corrections and that small steps can lead to big changes and greater success in reintegration. Shilton, Lindsay, and Vail (2005) wanted to reexamine two issues in particular: (1) the dimensions of offender employment as a public safety issue and (2) a way for conceptualizing the challenge of finding employment for ex-offenders under supervision. The authors cite the lack of well-paying, gainful employment opportunities for reintegrating ex-

Employment Issues

115

offenders as a public safety issue. Ex-offenders, as a result, must seek alternative ways of obtaining income that can result in engaging in criminal activities. The authors recognize that there are different types of reintegrating ex-offenders, which include those on parole or probation, those needing prerelease support, and those needing continuing support after getting off supervision. Each brings a particular set of challenges. The Open Door Study in Baltimore highlighted how a lack of a service-oriented infrastructure within prisons played a role in some of the problems facing offenders upon their release, including how the circumstances of their incarceration wield significant influence on their reentry success (Walsh 2010). Small business leaders were likely to be supportive of alternative sentences to incarceration, which focused on the preparation of inmates for gainful employment, but were often reluctant to hire ex-offenders themselves. Business leaders emphasized the “quality” of potential hires who were ex-offenders and that those who were “motivated,” “skilled,” and “trained,” were more likely to achieve success upon hiring. These qualities, however, are not unique to ex-offenders. Shilton, Lindsay, and Vail (2005) offer two case examples (in Montgomery, Alabama, and Dover, Delaware) where business leaders took action to address some reentry issues. The authors cite education as an important factor in gaining employment after release and also considered the fact that many ex-offenders will lose their first jobs out of prison, which can be discouraging for those trying to get their lives back on track. Family ties are also important for successful reentry for exoffenders. Small businesses have a lot of potential for increasing the prevalence of successful inmate reentries because of their large role in national job creation, their high percentage of produced gross domestic product, and the sheer number of people they employ. Generally, however, large businesses have led in hiring ex-offenders, particularly because small businesses face “unique challenges,” including “matching entry-level or skill-appropriate jobs for offenders, an ability to take risks on employees, as well as a willingness to absorb a certain amount of risk, . . . safety and security of both property and person, reputation of the business, worries about insurance and financial risks” (Shilton, Lindsay, and Vail 2005, p. 18). For-profit and social enterprises will form a key sector of the reentry field. Sonfield (2008) expresses a high degree of optimism concerning these forms of businesses:

116

Prisoner Reentry at Work

With politicians on both sides of the aisle now supporting reentry programs with the objectives of ex-convict employment and selfemployment, the opportunities for the funding and effectiveness of such programs should improve. . . . While the future of entrepreneurial training programs for prison inmates and recently released exconvicts is still unclear, it does appear to be a growing phenomenon. If the political climate and public opinion remain positively supportive of such programs . . . and if existing programs continue to demonstrate both cost-effectiveness and recidivism-reduction benefits, then we should see more programs . . . in the future. Fifteen years ago, such a future seemed unlikely. (p. 197)

There is little question that the solution to ex-offender reentry will necessitate a myriad of employment options, including social enterprises, but also conventional for-profit small businesses.

Conclusion It should not be a stretch to think of employment as an important, if not indispensable, component of ex-offender reentry into the community. This chapter has highlighted several different dimensions related to employment. It is estimated that more than 12 percent of the nation has both a history of chronic unemployment and a criminal history, with approximately 300,000 individuals a year being released from prison who lack competencies or are unable to secure employment (Shilton, Lindsay, and Vail, 2005). This figure will only increase in significance as more states seek to trim their budgets by releasing increasing numbers of inmates. As a result, communities must be creative and open to new avenues for gainfully employing these ex-offenders, in the hopes of making them a vital part of their social and economic fabric. Businesses are initially going to be reluctant to hire ex-offenders because of a range of concerns pertaining to liability, work skills, and worries about how the public will view these establishments. These concerns can be manifested legally and illegally, with the end result being the same: the lack of employment for ex-offenders. The following chapters will highlight two California case examples of social enterprises created with the express purpose of hiring and providing ex-offenders with the necessary skills and opportunities to learn a trade and seek successful employment in the private sector.

4 Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

Ex-offenders are certainly not a monolithic group, even though the media often presents a single demographic profile of them. Upon their return, ex-offenders represent a wide-range of offenses, sentences, and circumstances, and that applies to ex-gang members. Tailoring ex-offender reentry initiatives to these realities increases the likelihood that the outcomes of interventions will succeed. Gangs historically have occupied a special place in criminal justice lore in the United States and particularly urban areas. Consequently, the media has paid extra attention to the presence of gangs in the nation’s prisons and how they continue to wield influence within and outside of prisons. How ex-gang members make a successful transition back into society after incarceration, however, has not received the attention the subject deserves. Former gang members present a unique set of challenges in the reentry process and thereby are worthy of specific attention in this book. Their success will ultimately have profound implications for community well-being in many of this nation’s cities, as well as in the lives of these ex-offenders and their immediate families. Gang membership brings a dimension to ex-offender reentry that has generally escaped the attention of scholars, with notable exceptions, and makes the work done by Homeboy/Homegirl Industries that much more important to the field of ex-offender reentry.

117

118

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Scott (2004) assesses the role that gangs play in the life of exoffenders who were members prior to their incarceration and highlights the detrimental role they play in the reentry process: While the gangs supply important material and non-material resources to its members in the short term, association with [the gang] turns out to be debilitating and self-defeating in the long term. Ex-felons returning from prison to their neighborhood thus experience the street gang as a double-edged sword. They hold that poverty, institutionalized racism, and underdeveloped and undervalued human capital are best compensated for, if not remediated, by joining up with the gang. Yet they also realize that the gang is every bit as exploitative as the mainstream institutions of the host community that they seek to avoid. In most cases the adaptive strategies ex-convicts devised in response to this awakening reinforced and fueled the problems they were attempting to solve. The contemporary urban street gang forms in response to oppression but ultimately reproduces within its own ranks the oppression it originally sought to ameliorate. (p. 107)

Scott (2004) highlights the unique struggles that former gang members face in readjusting to life outside of prison and the temptations that present themselves for a life that is crime-involved. Gangs fulfill a variety of social and material needs in the lives of members, often filling a vacuum caused by neglect and abuse at home and in the institutions entrusted to protect, educate, and serve them. Few social programs can be expected or are able to fulfill these entire basic human needs. Gangs present a unique set of challenges for human services organizations because of how embedded an individual is within a collective membership. The role of peer pressure, which everyone in the criminal justice system understands, is strong and serves as a powerful magnet for drawing former gang members back into a life of risk-taking. The case of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is closely tied to Latino gangs and, in this case, those in East Los Angeles, which is widely considered as having the highest concentration of gang members in the United States. However, the role of a religious institution and the individual who heads it bring a dimension that will start to get greater attention in the field, as the nation searches for the right approach toward exoffender reentry. This approach necessitates that governmental agencies, community-based organizations, and houses of worship, among others, come together in a partnership. As noted in Chapter 2, houses of worship can and often do play important roles in helping ex-offenders reenter society. In the case of

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

119

Homeboy/Homegirl, it was a Catholic church in a heavily Catholic Latino community. However, other religious institutions have played and continue to play influential roles in helping ex-offenders reenter society. These institutions cannot be expected to shoulder the entire burden but can be a vital part of an extensive network of resources in any comprehensive, community-based initiative at facilitating ex-offender reentry. Martinez’s (2004) study of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries represents an excellent effort at bridging the divide between academia and the field of practice. The study examined the factors that determine success or are potential challenges for an ex-offender and identified the specific challenges for reentering ex-gang members, as well as the factors that promote success. Martinez insists that this is relevant to human service practice because current policies present challenges to reentry by ex-offenders, and understanding these challenges, as well as potentially successful factors, could increase the efficiency of social work practice. Organizations such as Homeboy/Homegirl Industries attract the attention of scholars and researchers because of their unique approach toward ex-offender reentry and their location in a major metropolitan area of the country. Although bridging the gap between academia and practice is critical in all areas of human service, it takes on even greater prominence when the subject is ex-offender reentry. The small window of opportunity that exists between the time an inmate is released and he/she faces a crossroads (concerning legal and illegal activities) makes the generation of knowledge on this subject of extreme importance to the field, community, and society.

Historical Origins Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is considered the largest gang rehabilitation program in the country and has a fascinating history. It was the inspiration of Father Gregory Boyle who, while pastor of the Delores Mission Church, witnessed numerous deaths of young Latinos among the church members’ families, prompting him to address this community concern. In 1988, Father Gregory Boyle started Homeboy Industries (Boyle 2009): “I founded Homeboy Industries in 1988 after I buried my first young person killed in our streets because of gang violence. My parish, the poorest in the city, was situated in the middle of the largest

120

Prisoner Reentry at Work

grouping of public housing west of the Mississippi. At the time, it was considered to have the highest concentration of gang activity in the country. Subsequently, I’ve buried 166 more young people because of these gang wars.” Father Boyle, the Jesuit priest who began serving as the pastor at Delores Mission in Boyle Heights in 1986, created “Jobs for a Future” in an attempt to address the increasing problems and unmet needs of gang-involved youth in his community and in the city of Los Angeles. The initial focus on employment reflects the importance that participants placed on finding an income not tied to illegal gang activity. As addressed in Chapter 3, employment is considered a crucial element of any rehabilitation. Father Boyle worked with many community partners, and together they were able to develop some positive alternatives to gang involvement, including a program to assist in finding legitimate jobs for these young people, as well as an elementary school and a day-care program. The Jobs for a Future program was extremely successful, providing the framework for Homeboy Industries. In 1992, Father Boyle decided to launch Homeboy Bakery, after extreme civil unrest in Los Angeles. The bakery’s mission was “to create an environment that provided training, work experience, and above all, the opportunity for rival gang members to work side by side” (Boyle 2009). The bakery was extremely successful and inspired Father Boyle to make Homeboy/Homegirl Industries an independent, nonprofit organization in service to these former inmates who were ex-gang members, as well as to the Boyle Heights community. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries became an independent nonprofit in August 2001 and built a new headquarters in 2007 in downtown Los Angeles (its fourth home in twenty years), two blocks from Union Station and a gang-neutral site.

Community Description The Boyle Heights neighborhood of Los Angeles is located between two public housing developments (Pico Gardens and Aliso Village) with long histories of gang violence and the highest concentration of gangs in Los Angeles County (Boyle 2005, 2010a, 2010b). Boyle Heights lies on the east side of the Los Angeles River and was once a popular immigrant destination, explaining its heavy concentration of immigrants from Mexico and Latin America. In more

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

121

recent years, it has become a primarily working-class Latino neighborhood. According to the 2000 census and the Los Angeles Times (2010a), Boyle Heights was composed of 92,785 people, with the neighborhood being 94 percent Latino, 2.3 percent Asian, 2 percent white non-Latino, 0.9 percent African American, and 0.8 percent other races. The household median income is $33,235, considerably lower than the rest of the city. Its population was also one of the youngest in the city, with a median age of just twenty-five years (Los Angeles Times 2010a). In many ways, this description of Boyle Heights and East Los Angeles can be replicated in countless other communities across the United States. The lethal consequences of despair are multifaceted. However, they invariably involve violence, crime, and incarceration, if not death itself. The creation of hope and the belief that others care represent the cornerstone of any organizational effort at helping exoffenders redirect their lives away from self-destructive behaviors. Since opening its new headquarters in downtown Los Angeles, Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries’ membership has quadrupled and now operates six self-sustaining businesses, becoming the largest gang rehabilitation program in the country.

Mission Statement/Operating Principles Mission statements and their corresponding operating principles wield significant influence in how an organization views its purpose for existence. This information, in addition, serves to guide all aspects of how services are conceptualized and implemented, in addition to the kind of individual it wishes to serve. The Homeboy/Homegirl Industries mission statement reads: “Jobs not Jails: Homeboy Industries assists at-risk and formerly gang-involved youth to become positive and contributing members of society through job placement, training and education.” The slogan of Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries is “Nothing Stops a Bullet like a Job.” As noted by Choi and Kiesner (2007), although Homeboy/Homegirl Industries sponsored many different businesses as part of its social mission, creation of new businesses is not a central part of the organization’s mission. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has developed two mechanisms through which to guide operations. Like other social enterprises, it has a board of directors, consisting of fifteen community members, and a

122

Prisoner Reentry at Work

five-member honorary board. Both boards have ex-offenders as members. These two bodies play influential roles in helping Father Boyle steer the organization through difficult times.

Funding Streams Since Homeboy/Homegirl Industries became an independent nonprofit in August 2001, its small businesses, in addition to its partnerships, grants (federal and local), and donations from various agencies, restaurants, and community partnerships, have served as key funding sources by generating approximately $3 million annually. Although Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries’ businesses are self-sustaining, the rest of the programs and services are not, requiring considerable generation of grants and donations to cover operating costs. It has a budget of approximately $8 million a year, making it a substantial organization from a funding perspective. Three major fundraising activities account for the majority of funding from nongovernmental sources: (1) a yearly dinner, (2) a direct mail campaign, and (3) Father Boyle’s speaking engagements. Approximately 16.3 percent of all funding goes to administrative expenses, and 4.0 percent is spent on fundraising activities, and the remaining percentage goes to support activities, such as counseling. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has a full-time staff numbering approximately 265, 45 part-time workers, and 104 volunteers. Sometimes volunteers eventually become staff, such as Dr. Luis Moreno of Ya’stuvo Tattoo Removal Clinic. A graduate of the Harvard University Medical School, Moreno was completing his residency at the University of California–Los Angeles when Father Boyle, who was visiting the hospital, asked him to be a part of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. After a period of several months as a volunteer, he was hired on a part-time basis (twice a week). In his remaining time, he works in the emergency rooms at three hospitals. Much can be determined by how well an organization responds to a crisis. In the case of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, the crisis was financial. In 2009, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries received a $340,000 grant from the city of Los Angeles as part of a gang-reduction program grant operated through the US Department of Justice. However, the organization cotnued to struggle financially as it continued to grow. Even after the federal grant, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries had to lay

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

123

off 300 employees due to financial issues. Since this layoff, Father Boyle reported in a Los Angeles Times article that the organization received donations totaling $3.5 million, including a $100,000 grant from Chevron in July 2010 and a $50,000 grant from Boeing in October 2010. Furthermore, in September 2010, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries received another contract from the County of Los Angeles for $1.3 million, which allowed for the hiring of twenty new job trainees and services to be provided to 665 more young people in need. Father Boyle further reported that the businesses owned and operated by Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries—such as the café, bakery, maintenance, and silk screening—generate about $3.5 million per year. However, the organization needs an additional $6 million per year to cover its total operating costs. The organization’s financial troubles are the direct result of a decline in donations caused by the nation’s financial crisis, a decrease in available jobs, and a corresponding increase in the demand for services. Fundraising remains a challenge for any nonprofit or social enterprise that aids individuals who are highly stigmatized in this country. This point is well stated by Father Boyle in a Los Angeles Times interview (Becerra 2010, p. 1): “If these were puppies or little kids, we wouldn’t be in this trouble. . . . But they’re tattooed gang members with records. So I think a lot of people love this place, but not the folks who can write the big checks.” Serving highly stigmatized and therefore “undeserving” individuals will require highly creative approaches to fundraising. Reliance on governmental sources, however, will bring with it a highly politicized set of circumstances, which dictates organizational priorities, although government will understandably be the primary area of funding for ex-offender reentry initiatives.

Profile of Participants Homeboy/Homegirl Industries serves around 12,000 men and women, ages fourteen to thirty, each year. Father Boyle reported that about 85 percent of these people coming in the door are on probation or parole (Los Angeles Times 2010b). The mission of Homeboy/Homegirl is to serve men and women who are in need of an alternative to gang membership. Father Boyle makes it clear that it is not his mission to convince people to leave a gang and join the program, but that he works with men

124

Prisoner Reentry at Work

and women who are willing and wanting the help. In an interview on National Public Radio (NPR), he reports that it is necessary to wait for young men and women in gangs to realize when they are ready to change their lives. It may be due to the birth of a child or the death of a friend or family member, among other reasons. The demographic profile of a Homeboy/Homegirl Industries participant reflects that of the Boyle Heights Latino community. However, participants bring added dimensions that are difficult to profile but still have tremendous influence on their prospects for employment. Physical appearance goes far beyond clothing and grooming, as the following case of Carlos vividly illustrates. The following descriptions of two individuals who became a part of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries provide graphic examples of some of the many challenges ex-offenders face in their return to their communities and search for gainful employment (Boyle 2005): Carlos looks like he was dipped in ink. Twenty-four years old, just days out of Corcoran State Prison, his arms are covered in tattoos. His neck is blackened by designations of his gang. Head shaved, it is filled with tattooed threats and ominous markings. Most prominent, though, are two pronounced devil’s horns situated alarmingly on his forehead. “You know,” he says, “I’m having a hard time finding a job. . . . I’ve been locked up now since I was fourteen. . . . I’ve never had a job in my life.” (p. 79)

The second example highlights the consequences of violence, which can be lifelong but do not crush hopes for a better life (Choi and Kiesner 2007): Felipe Antonio had also turned his life around, thanks to Homeboy Industries. A young man with a gentle demeanor, he recalled his childhood: “I didn’t have parents. My sister raised me from the time I was eight. Nobody was checking on me—I was free. I was in a gang. We went to parties, got into fights. We did graffiti.” In 1997, as Felipe climbed from his car one evening, he was shot in the spine. He was only seventeen. “I just passed away a little bit,” he recounted, “and when I woke up I couldn’t feel my legs no more.” Now he was in a wheelchair, paralyzed from the chest down. Nevertheless, Felipe was hopeful about his future and planned to attend California State University–Los Angeles for a degree in social services. (p. 771)

The typical organization serving ex-offenders does not maintain active data on how many participates have disabilities resulting from

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

125

violence-related activities or a database on tattoos, for example, to go along with other demographic data related to formal educational level, age, gender, race, and ethnicity. Tattoos may reflect gang membership or only individual preferences. However, the influence of tattoos is such that any organization wishing to be effective in helping ex-offenders find employment and reenter society must either provide removal of tattoos that convey gang membership or have access to such services. The case illustrations of Carlos and Felipe provide a stark reality of the challenges ex-offenders face and the challenges of those who seek to help them. Martinez (2004) conducted an extensive review of the current literature to ground the topic of ex-gang reentry into a community context. She discussed the implications of mandatory sentencing and then briefly touched upon the four theoretical perspectives regarding criminal behavior (biological, sociological, psychological, and socialpsychological). Several studies (Turner and Petersilia 1996; Zhang, Roberts, and Callanan 2006) showed that programs that provided services to ex-offenders, particularly ones that had a job-training component, could be effective at reducing recidivism rates.

Businesses and Services Homeboy/Homegirl Industries owns and operates its own small businesses in which they hire former gang members receiving services through Homeboy/Homegirl. Like Delancey Street Foundation, which follows in the next chapter, these businesses cover a wide range of types, allowing appropriate placement of participants based upon their interests and abilities. Homeboy/Homegirl businesses include Homeboy Bakery, Homeboy Silkscreen, Homeboy Maintenance, Homeboy Merchandise, Homegirl Café (which includes a catering service), Homeboy Press, and, as this book goes to press, Homeboy Diner (operating at the Los Angeles City Hall) and Homeboy Farmers’ Market. (Because the last two have recently opened, they will not be covered in this chapter.) Many of these businesses were recently expanded, with the building of the new headquarters, and are located in other areas of the city. It should be noted that not all of the business units have full-time general managers, with the operations manager often being called upon to handle various crises in different units. As the reader will see, many of

126

Prisoner Reentry at Work

the businesses provide an outlet for creativity, in a world that severely limits creativity among marginalized population groups. Some of the business units collaborate and actively seek to tap joint resources whenever possible, as in the cases of Homeboy Bakery and Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery. Homeboy Bakery The establishment of the bakery represented Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ initial venture into the social enterprise world and served as the inspiration for the development of other social ventures. The original bakery, established in 1994, was destroyed in an electrical fire in 1999 but reopened in 2007. While fundraising took place (in 2005) to open the new bakery, several young men were hired and trained, including as interns, to serve as lead bakers upon the reopening of the restaurant. These lead bakers have trained and worked with a new cadre of bakers. The bakery specializes in breads, muffins, cookies, and bagel pies. Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery, established in 1996 in a converted warehouse under a freeway overpass, is the largest division of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, employing almost 500 former gang members since its inception, with a staff of approximately eighteen members. Homeboy Silkscreen was the brainchild of Ruben Rodriguez, whose life of alcoholism and associated troubles was turned around by Father Boyle. To thank Father Boyle for his help, in 1996 Ruben presented him with a business opportunity based on the silk-screening skills of Ruben’s wife. Ruben’s idea was a business selling custom silkscreen and embroidery services for a variety of clothing and other products. This business, in turn, would facilitate the hiring of neighborhood exgang members. The startup of this business required surmounting a series of challenges: the expense of new equipment, finding startup funds, the refusal by landlords to rent space because of fears that ex-gang members would vandalize tenant or customer cars, and finding a gang-neutral location within close proximity so as to allow local youth to patronize the establishment. A number of fortuitous events played an instrumental role in getting the business to thrive. Power 106 FM, a popular radio station in Los

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

127

Angeles, placed a large order of T-shirts (10,000 T-shirts for $45,000) and provided free publicity for the business as part of programming. Power 106 FM has remained one of Homeboy Silkscreen’s biggest clients and managed to secure contracts from several record labels. Homeboy Silkscreen generally employs eleven to fifteen staff. Participants typically spend ninety days receiving job training and learning good work habits, until they are considered ready for employment outside of the organization. Staff is trained on the fundamentals of various jobs and use state-of-the-art silkscreen and embroidery techniques (Homeboy Industries 2010b). They create designs for 2,000 clients for clothing and promotional items, such as custom shirts and pens for sports teams, church groups, schools, and businesses, and sell these items through their shop and online. Homeboy Graffiti Removal Services and Homeboy Maintenance Services Graffiti is synonymous with gangs. Consequently, the emergence of a graffiti-removal business represented an opportunity, although a dangerous one, of beautifying the neighborhood and sending a message to gangs that they are not welcome. The Homeboy Graffiti Removal Services, not surprisingly, proved quite popular. This business, however, was stopped because two Homeboy participants in the program were killed by gangs, and Father Boyle did not want any more deaths resulting from this activity. After the closure of the graffiti-removal business, Homeboy Maintenance Services also sought to beautify the neighborhood by keeping the “neighborhood clean.” This business covers a wide variety of activities, such as removal of refrigerators, furniture, and other large items to its reclamation center. This service also provides landscaping and exterior home maintenance. Homeboy Maintenance has also sponsored neighborhood cleanups and trash collections. The costs of both the graffiti removal and maintenance businesses were paid for by the City of Los Angeles. Homeboy Merchandise Homeboy Merchandise, like Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery, was established in 1996. The merchandise covers a wide range, such as DVDs, books, canvas bags, umbrellas, mouse pads, hats, totes, mugs,

128

Prisoner Reentry at Work

shirts, and sweaters. The merchandise, which focuses on selling the Homeboy brand, comes in infant, kids, and adult sizes for the entire family. The Homeboy Industries Merchandise business went through a developmental period that witnessed a variety of marketing approaches in an attempt to broaden its market. Homeboy Merchandise works closely with Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery by outsourcing its clothing line to this business and being the inspirational source for new products. The design, marketing, and distribution, however, are done within the business. Finding retail outlets in a highly competitive Los Angeles market proved to be a particular challenge for Homeboy Merchandise. This challenge was so great that its biggest sales outlet was at religious conferences where Father Boyle was invited to speak. For example, the annual Religious Education Congress is its biggest customer, with $6,000 to $7,000 of purchases annually. Initially, an effort was made to sell directly to various retailers in Los Angeles, but experiences with rejection proved particularly troubling because these former inmates had so much rejection in their lives, resulting in anger and feelings of low self-worth. By the mid-1990s, the strategy changed to a specific focus on selling to stores in shopping malls. However, this required Homeboy/ Homegirl participants to maintain ongoing working relationships for which they were not prepared. As a result, Homeboy Merchandise rented a kiosk at the Santa Monica Shopping Center, but this had to be abandoned because of a lack of sales volume and rumored complaints from other merchants concerned with the potential compromising of the mall’s “atmosphere” (Choi and Kiesner 2007). The selling of Homeboy Industries merchandise serves a variety of goals beyond generation of money. The publicity that it brings through its logo and use of inspirational messages related to hope also serve to broaden the positive message of this organization beyond the geographical confines of Los Angeles. In addition, it provides an outlet for creativity for participants who design the merchandise. Homegirl Café and Catering Service Homegirl Café and Catering was established in 2004 with the same determination found in the other Homeboy Industries (Homeboy Industries 2010a):

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

129

Homegirl Café began in 2004 in a 26-seat restaurant and with a kitchen about the size of a postage stamp on 1st Street in Boyle Heights, one block east of the former Homeboy office. There Chef Patricia Zarate trained cooks and wait staff. Today, in the new facility, the café is staffed by 30 young women who are in training to learn the various aspects of the food service industry. Currently we have a group of volunteer consultants helping to develop systems and train staff. The café has specialized in providing “Latina flavors with a contemporary twist.”

Homegirl Café and Catering usually has a staff of approximately twenty-seven female participants (either former gang members or residents of neighborhoods under extreme gang influence) and provides a wide range of services and products to the community beyond selling of meals in the café: catering, cooking classes, produce for farmer’s markets, and a gallery. The café generates approximately $525,000 a year serving breakfast and lunch six days per week (Flanigan 2008). Homegirl Café operates a fully organic garden, in collaboration with Delores Mission Parish, Farmlab, Solano Gardens, and Urban Farming, focused on locally grown vegetables. Produce from the garden is used in the café and is also sold at five farmer’s markets across Los Angeles. The café also provides cooking classes to the public. In addition, the café offers a staff development component through provision of classes, training, and team-building activities, centered around the needs and interests of the women and men who work there. Streeter (2005) describes how the café’s staff represent a crosssection of gangs with long histories of animosity, making this a special place in the lives of countless ex-gang members: “Where else can you find a frothy bowl of fideo soup—noodles, peas, and cilantro—prepared by a girl from the Lynwood gang? Where else would it be served by a woman from the Maravilla gang? Where else would it be cleared from your table by a mother from the 18th Street gang?” (p. A24). Homeboy Music Program Homeboy Industries has developed an enrichment music program that seeks to tap participants (male and female) who have musical talents and aspirations. This program provides training and education on various aspects of the music industry (production, marketing, law, and distribution). Participants collaborate in group recording sessions and receive mentoring. The music group, called Just Like That, produces songs with

130

Prisoner Reentry at Work

a positive message—about how Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has changed their lives. Homeboy Press In similar fashion to the other businesses run by Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, Homeboy Press serves multiple goals. Started in the classroom, the press focuses on the teaching of computer skills, Web design, computer graphics, and publishing skills. These goals lead to others related to business and creativity outlets. All marginalized communities in this country have their share of artists and writers who possess the requisite competencies to seek careers in these areas. Unfortunately, unlike their counterparts in middle- and upper-middle-class communities, the avenues for lucrative careers are severely limited. The participants in Homeboy/Homegirl Industries are no exceptions. These individuals often possess life experiences that should be shared with the outside world and have the necessary drive to shape artistic works—visual as well as written. Having this talent not only benefits those who are artistic but also the community and society as a whole. The Homeboy Press represents a dimension of Homeboy Industries that is unique to this organization and to the Boyle Heights community. In 2008, the Homeboy Press and the Homeboy Review, a literary magazine, were founded and currently serve as a voice for poets and other writers of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, as well as a forum to publish both underrepresented and established writers from around the globe. The inaugural issue (160 pages) [includes] works by Luis Rodriguez, Kerry Madden, Naomi Shihab Nye and Fr. Gregory Boyle, S.J. The homegrown poets at Homeboy Industries have their own section called 130 West Bruno Street. The poems in this section mainly derive from the Creative Writing class at Homeboy Industries, now in its third year. A section called Art and Justice features photos and poetry by young poets living in Prichard, Alabama, one of the poorest neighborhoods in Southern Alabama. The Homeboy Review is published annually. (Homeboy Product Information)

As noted earlier in this chapter, ex-offenders can be quite creative, and provision of an outlet serves to capture their voices and possibly inspire others in the community to do so, too.

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

131

Social Services Offered by Homeboy/Homegirl Industries Social enterprises such as Homeboy/Homegirl Industries strive to address multiple needs of participants, and in doing so, must be prepared to offer a range of social services to accomplish their mission and goals. The following services help participants in meeting the challenges of reentry and maintaining a crime-free life: case management; education; jobs training and employment counseling; legal services; mental health counseling and substance abuse services; and tattoo removal. The Homeboy Industries businesses hire some of the most difficultto-place ex-offenders in our society and offer them a safe and supportive environment in which to learn concrete and soft job skills while simultaneously building their résumés and work experiences. Exoffenders are given a job and must participate in at least one of the programs offered by Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. This organization is constantly looking to develop new areas of services and to expand the ones currently in existence, depending on funding. Not surprisingly, volunteers are actively sought by Homeboy Industries as a means of expanding community participation and supplementing the organizational budget. Volunteers, particularly those with highly specialized skill-sets, such as tattoo removal, for example, bring an important vitality and hope that can be contagious to program participants. Case Management The complexity and degree of challenges facing ex-offenders in their reentry journey, as covered in earlier chapters, necessitate a comprehensive approach and coordination of services. Case management has been found to play an instrumental role in helping individuals who have spent lengthy periods in total institutions, such as prisons. As a result, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has established a case management system to help ensure that participants are viewed from a holistic perspective. Case managers work with each Homeboy/Homegirl participant to create individualized service plans based on an assessment of participant needs, with their input sought in the development process. These plans help to ensure all appropriate needs and services are met and can be tailored for specific parole or probation requirements, as well. Case

132

Prisoner Reentry at Work

managers share a similar demographic profile to that of the participants—that is, their Latino heritage—which effectively reduces the distance between staff and participants, and provides role models for program participants. The lesser the divide between ethnic and experiential backgrounds, the more effective the communication and services. Education The role and importance of education in the reentry process is consistently mentioned in the literature, particularly in the case of those who did not finish their high school education, which applies to the vast majority of participants, severely limiting their options for employment upon release from prison. As a result, Homeboy Industries offers a wide range of educational opportunities to help strengthen participants’ skills in all aspect of their lives. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has a Charter High School Program for youth under twenty years of age and offers GED preparation courses, tutoring services, computer training, life skills classes, and parenting classes. The program also runs classes and seminars on financial and household management. Its education department offers many enrichment programs, as well as a Solar Panel Installation and Certification Program. Job Training and Employment Counseling As noted earlier, a lack of employment history combined with limited formal education significantly alters the probability of ex-offenders gaining meaningful employment with the potential for advancement. The case example of Carlos vividly illustrates the challenges that exoffenders face in finding gainful employment when they have not finished their secondary education. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has four full-time employment counselors who work one-on-one with Homeboy/Homegirl trainees who are ready to move to permanent full-time positions. Homeboy/Homegirl places approximately 300 youths a year in a variety of areas, such as construction, clerical, textile, and health care. Trainees work with the counselors to develop résumés, write cover letters, and perfect the skill of interviewing. Furthermore, these counselors reach out to the community and educate employers on the benefits of hiring this population

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

133

of workers. Ex-offenders need help with finding jobs, and counselors, with their extensive knowledge and contacts in the field, are in excellent positions to facilitate this process. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, in addition, provides opportunities for those requiring community service as part of their probation requirements (Homeboy Industries 2010c): As our commitment to providing constructive alternatives to gang life, we offer unpaid, time-limited positions to young men and women who need to perform community service in order to fulfill their probation requirements. By doing so, we hope to give these youth a hands-on, positive work experience. At the same time, they are interacting with older men and women, who act as mentors and examples to the dangers of life on the streets. Through their interaction, these young people are provided concrete, living examples of those who have chosen to leave the gang life behind them, and have chosen a more constructive, positive direction for their lives.

Restitution is often mentioned as a key element in a reentry process. It not only helps communities but also puts the ex-offender in the position of helper, which, for many of them, is a role that is seriously lacking. Community service helps generate positive community attitudes toward ex-offenders and helps ex-offenders develop job-related skills that can transfer to other aspects of their lives. Legal Services The legal challenges facing ex-offenders, as addressed in Chapter 3, require extensive legal assistance. As a result, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has a full-time lawyer employed on-site who conducts workshops and offers one-on-one guidance, support, and referrals for criminal and civil issues. The attorney is available to assist with clearing warrants, resolving child custody issues, and other legal matters, all of which are often obstacles for these young men and women to finding stable housing and employment. Mental Health Counseling Homeboy/Homegirl Industries provides a variety of mental health services to its participants: individual, family, and group therapy; “Baby

134

Prisoner Reentry at Work

and Me” and other parenting classes; relationship building; grief, loss, and anger management; substance abuse and domestic violence counseling, including relapse prevention; 12-step meetings; domestic violence survivors group; and referrals to other services. Because of the range in needs of participants, a variety of services are provided. Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries further supplements these programs by offering experiential field trips, speakers, as well as the community service placements mentioned previously, so that young men and women can fulfill probation requirements. Father Boyle’s perspective on typical Homeboy/Homegirl participants captures the immense challenges addressed through counseling (Choi and Kiesner 2007): [The homeboys] think they’re the bad son. I keep telling them over and over, “You are the son that any parents would be proud to claim as their own.” That’s the truth. That’s not some fantasy. As soon as they know that they’re exactly what God had in mind when God made them, then they become that. Then they like who they are. Once they can do that—love themselves—they’re not inclined to shoot somebody or hurt somebody or be out there gang-banging. (p. 772)

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries offers a domestic violence intervention program for batterers that meets the requirements for courtmandated programs. Not surprisingly, many participants have histories of violence growing up and continued this vicious cycle in their adult relationships. Three classes (two for men and one for women) are offered on a weekly basis and enroll approximately forty participants. Through a partnership with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health and the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, several of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ participants have been trained as peerto-peer counselors. This work entails “having them meet regularly with the incarcerated prior to release, encouraging them to make a change in their lives, informing them of the services offered at Homeboy, and striving to establish a support network so that upon release, these young men and women stand the best chance of success” (Homeboy Industries 2010d). Having peers helping ex-gang members brings an added dimension of expertise (experiential as opposed to educational) and empathy to the therapeutic relationship that is often missing in conventional professional services, and illustrates an assets, or capacityenhancement, paradigm.

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

135

Tattoo Removal Finally, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries realizes that the presence of visible tattoos, especially gang-related tattoos, inhibits their participants’ abilities to secure employment and move on with their lives and out of the gang culture. Tattoo removal often represents an immediate and probably the most urgent and visible element in case management. Therefore, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has a free tattoo removal clinic with two laser tattoo-removal machines and provides about 350 treatments per month, which translates into about 4,000 to 5,000 treatments a year. This is often one of the first services accessed by individuals leaving prison. Although it takes an average of eight to ten treatments per tattoo and can be very painful, the clinic maintains a patient retention rate of 100 percent, which illustrates the importance of this service. The program’s name is Ya’Stuvo Tattoo Removal, which means “that’s enough, I’m done with that.” Clearly, a lack of formal employment history is compounded by an unprofessional physical appearance, such as the presence of tattoos, which can be considered off-putting by prospective employers. Further, the removal of tattoos also represents a new beginning or life for ex-offenders. A psychological transformation goes along with a physical transformation.

Evaluation of Outcomes It is the general consensus among workers, participants, and directors at Homeboy/Homegirl Industries that it is not the numbers that count in determining the success of the program. Father Boyle, as the symbolic face of this organization, has shown great reluctance to speak in terms of success or failure, when asked about the organization and its participants (as quoted in Choi and Kiesner 2007): “I feel called to be faithful, not successful. . . . I feel called to be faithful to an approach and to a certain wisdom about who these kids are. I believe that if they are given a chance, then they’ll thrive and they’ll begin to imagine a future for themselves” (p. 778). A fundamental belief that success can only be measured one participant at a time and that no two participants are the same, requiring different measures of success to be applied, represents a distinct philosophical stance and the importance of an individualized approach. However, some funders will be reluctant to view this perspective as “legitimate” when determining the bottom line on the outcome of their funding.

136

Prisoner Reentry at Work

The question of how best to measure the impact of Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries often becomes one of quantity versus quality, particularly in the case of governmental contracts and grants. There are numerous quantitative ways of viewing Homeboy/Homegirl Industries outcomes. The business outcomes can be viewed just like any enterprise—by examining the bottom line. Profits (income after expenses) seem like a straightforward manner of measuring success. However, a social enterprise such as Homeboy/Homegirl Industries does not neatly fall into a business model because the businesses exist to support a social mission. The qualitative ways of measuring success are much more difficult to gauge, but that does not dismiss their importance. How does one measure the relationships or social bonds that develop between longtime rival gang members working together? Histories of gang rivalries can cover multiple generations, as in the case of Boyle Heights and East Los Angles, making these relationships even harder to achieve. When they do occur, however, they can have profound ramifications for future generations in the families of those individuals. Individuals who have spent half of their lifetimes in gangs and been incarcerated numerous times face different challenges than those who have spent relatively short periods of time in gangs and have only been incarcerated once. In order to receive federal or local grants and contracts, concrete numbers are needed to prove the success of the organization. The more typical organization, as a result, may be tempted to pick and choose those whom they serve in the hopes of increasing their success rates. This is not the mission of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. As a result, success rates may be compromised the moment the organization is willing to broaden its reach and accept anyone who wishes to change his or her life. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, similarly to social organizations that have been established because of a deep mission of one individual, has not placed a high priority on gathering data to substantiate its existence (Choi and Kiesner 2007): “Michael [operations director] agreed that there were still a wide range of financial and operational objectives that could be defined and measured. ‘We cannot depend on divine intervention alone,’ Michael explained. ‘We must do a much better job and be more effective operationally. To be more effective, we need to define our goals and measure our progress’” (p. 781). Therefore, Uni-

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

137

versity of California–Los Angeles Professor Jorga Leap is in the middle of a two-year long study to evaluate the effectiveness of Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries. She reported that the initial numbers show that about 70 percent of all who come through the doors for help will stay and work through the entire program. One can also look at success in terms of the growth of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. Martinez (2004) conducted a qualitative study of twelve participants to further understand Homeboy Industries and the challenges and successes of ex-offenders. This study, although based on a relatively small sample, aimed to contribute new information and insights to our understanding of ex-offender reentry. In addition to demographic information, the study looked at the characteristics of incarceration and parole, challenges and successes of reintegrating into society, coping mechanisms, support systems, resources used, and perceived programs and factors for a successful reentry into society. Ten of the twelve men who participated cited job training or job opportunities as “essential for a successful reintegration into society.” Not surprisingly, the biggest challenges for survey participants included finding employment and keeping their lives on course (which included the need to avoid old contacts or environments that enabled the previous destructive behavior). As a complement to the findings, the biggest successes identified were finding employment and a place to live. Thinking positively and staying busy were the two most frequently mentioned coping mechanisms. The strengths of this study included the verbatim quotes from participants and the emphasis Martinez placed on getting the opinions of the ex-offenders about their ideal reentry program—a rare perspective. There are certainly limitations to the study, as the sample size was small and the results thus not generalizable. Nevertheless, the study still yielded some rich information and firsthand accounts about the reentry process for Latino ex-gang members.

Lessons Learned Some of the lessons learned are not uplifting in light of the financial struggles Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has faced during the most recent national fiscal crisis. Further, Homeboy/Homegirl will eventually require the services of a new leader, and that prospect is one that will be

138

Prisoner Reentry at Work

painful for the organization and the community of Boyle Heights. Yet, inspiring lessons can be learned from Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, which speak well of the organization, and, more importantly, of what is possible when there is a commitment to helping ex-offenders, regardless of the crimes they have committed and the circumstances they bring, and a willingness to individualize service plans. Funding Challenges Funding seems to be a perennial challenge for organizations reaching out to highly stigmatized individuals. It is appropriate to start with the financial crisis that Homeboy/Homegirl Industries faced during the summer of 2010. The immense support that must be put into place to help ex-offenders translates into the need for extensive funding. It is important to emphasize that someone who is twenty-three years old or so and has spent ten to twelve years involved in gangs and or imprisoned does not turn his life around in several months. Unfortunately, the road to recovery is often paved with relapses. The road to recovery often involves being drug free, restarting formal education, obtaining job training, and altering social networks. Each of these tasks is significant itself. However, in combination with each other, they represent a monumental task for ex-gang members, who may be facing the first real chance at success in their lives. The costs associated with a comprehensive approach toward reentry will put an immense strain on any organization offering these services. The national economic crisis has had a profound impact on all sectors of this country, and the nonprofit world has not escaped this crisis. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has required the infusion of new capital, due to a decrease in corporate and foundation funding sources, increased demand for services, and a dramatic decrease in jobs for its participants. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries devotes a relatively small percentage of its operating budget to fundraising. This is not unusual for social enterprises that place a tremendous amount of time and effort in creating and nurturing their businesses. However, in all likelihood, a greater amount of Homeboy/Homegirl Industry resources will have to be spent on this administrative function, requiring hiring or attracting volunteers with increasingly specialized skills in this area. Father Boyle, the symbol of this organization, will continue speaking engagements and meet-

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

139

ing with potential corporate and foundation funders. However, tapping government funding will necessitate a different skill-set, making it necessary to hire or partner with individuals with these sets of knowledge and abilities. Importance of Social Services Although the business side of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries can be selfsustaining, the service components require assistance. Job training, counseling, and actual employment are critical elements in Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries, and this cannot be expected to change as the organization continues to mature. Actual provision of employment is insufficient to keep ex-offenders from relapsing and eventually reentering prison. As a result, social services play a key supportive role in helping participants stay actively employed, while attending to a myriad of health, education, and social needs. The organization’s ability to provide a wide range of services in-house increases the likelihood of each participant having his or her needs met. This does not mean, however, that partnerships with other service organizations are not needed. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ social services, however, require staff with specialized skill-sets and knowledge, which is focused on exgang members. Consequently, staff who represent the profile of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ participants are recruited. Even when staff do not have a history of gang involvement, many come from families where gang involvement was a reality and consequently have intimate knowledge of the forces that are operative in recruiting gang members, keeping them active in this lifestyle, and the challenges of finding substitutes for this lifestyle. This knowledge enhances the effectiveness of the counselors and is buttressed through formal educational courses and degree programs. Evidence of Success Evaluation still holds tremendous weight in an organization turning to governmental grants. The increasing emphasis on evidence-based research has thrust organizations, such as Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, into quantitatively proving that what they do is not only effective but cost effective, too. This requires that organizations founded on a profound social mission shift their way of thinking and put mechanisms in

140

Prisoner Reentry at Work

place to generate data that can be analyzed and shared with funding sources and academics. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is at a critical place regarding this decision. The shifting of funding streams to cover the social service aspects of the organization will increasingly require Homeboy/Homegirl Industries to turn to governmental sources for funding. These sources, in turn, require gathering of operational data that are different from that usually required from corporate donors and foundations, although the latter are increasingly requiring greater detail on outcome results. Partnership with universities seems the logical way of evaluation, and Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries has done this in its relationship with Professor Leap at UCLA. Devoting considerable sums of money to fund an evaluation department does not seem to be the most prudent way for the organization to utilize limited existing funds. Nevertheless, regardless of how the organization decides to fill this gap in data, gathering of data will require a dramatic shift in culture, training of staff, quality-control efforts, and new ways of keeping records, which will upset current staff and organizational culture. This shift will prove challenging, particularly in light of increased governmental efforts at accountability. Physical Appearances and Stereotypes Ex-offenders, and more particularly ex-gang members, must surmount numerous obstacles in their quests to start anew in the community upon leaving prison. Much of the literature has been devoted to the importance of self-worth, confidence, competencies, and a positive social network. Unfortunately, physical appearance has not received the attention it deserves, particularly in the case of ex-gang members and their physical tattoos. Tattoos, probably more than any other physical aspect of an exoffender, are most associated with a gang lifestyle, and this is certainly true with Homeboy/Homegirl Industries participants. The case illustration of Carlos raises the issue of how physical appearances, in the form of tattoos, represent a significant barrier. Clothing, although not touched upon in the literature, has started to receive increased attention in the popular media (Schwartz 2010b). Tattoos, too, are mentioned in the media, particularly the need to cover them up while an individual is undergoing trial (Schwartz 2010c). However, what happens regarding tattoos after ex-offenders are released from prison and start the job search process, as noted by Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, has not garnered tremendous coverage or support.

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

141

Creation of Bridging and Bonding Social Capital Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has sought to meet the instrumental and expressive needs of its participants. However, the process of engaging and helping ex-gang members has also created a sense of family for members and staff. This dimension does not get manifested in a job description or in a contract for services that participants must abide by. Nevertheless, the bonding of social capital represents the glue that keeps members engaged and staff willing to help in the reentry process during good times and bad times. Staff sees their work as part of a mission that is very much community connected. When they help one former gang member lead a life that is crime free, they are also having a tremendous impact on that person’s immediate family, neighbors, and the community as a whole. These rehabilitated members of the community act as role models for other youth in their community and across the city. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, for example, has a speakers bureau that provides opportunities for members to go into schools and community organizations to speak to other youth about the mistakes they have made and why it is important to choose a life that does not include crime and gangs. As a result, prevention plays an important role in the life of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. Creating and reinforcing social capital takes on greater significance with ex-gang members because of the influential role that the gang played in their lives. For many ex-gang members, the gang took the place of family, and in this case the family was dysfunctional. Consequently, efforts to recreate a sense of group and belonging predicated on the positive values and attributes families can provide is an immensely powerful goal. The opening of new relationships across community, in turn, becomes possible, and the entire community benefits from these relationships. Succession of Leadership There is little dispute that Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is Father Boyle, and this association has been a definite plus for both the organization and the founder. However, Father Boyle, being human, will eventually slow down and have to stop being the face of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries. Thus, the prospect of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries having a new leader in the immediate future is something that the organization must face, unpleasant as that may be.

142

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Unlike the Delancey Street Foundation, as the reader will see in the following case study, Father Boyle has been the only leader this organization has had. His recent bout with illness has made the organization realize that succession of its founder will prove challenging. The board president (Michael Hennigan) is optimistic about the organization after Father Boyle leaves (Flanigan 2008): “Several years ago, I might have doubted that it could [survive]. . . . But today I think the organization is large enough and talent from the Jesuit order [of which Father Boyle is a member] and elsewhere would come forward. The organization will go on and prosper” (p. C5). Strategic Initiatives Homeboy/Homegirl Industries has shown tremendous flexibility and responsiveness to environmental factors, as in the case of its solar-panel program. In 2009, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries joined forces with the East Los Angeles Skills Center (a public vocational school) to launch a training program to design, construct, and install solar panels (Jordan 2009). Funding ($131 per student) was obtained from a variety of sources to support thirty participants, who receive $8 per hour for attending this training, which runs from 9 to 3 p.m. for a period of two months. Morning sessions focus on academics (math), and the afternoon sessions are hands on, as students work on solar panels and electrical circuits. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ ability to respond to environmental opportunities and to be creative about funding these initiatives illustrates one of the many virtues of this social enterprise.

Conclusion The case of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is truly inspiring because of the role this small social venture has played in engaging ex-offenders and because of the stability it has brought to a neighborhood. The message of hope that is central to this enterprise, combined with the range of services and mission of the organization, typifies the potential of social ventures playing a role in ex-offender reentry. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries also stands as a beacon of inspiration for the community. The extensive history this organization has regarding ex-offender reentry is a testament to the leadership, in this case that of Father Boyle and the people who have rallied around him to address a social

Homeboy/Homegirl Industries

143

problem of immense proportion in this country. The wide range of small businesses provide participants with invaluable work experience, and provision of the needed supports serves as a testament to what is possible when a community comes together, with the assistance of external funding. The ability of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries to navigate its way through the turbulent times associated with this nation’s second biggest economic depression will prove to be another obstacle in its path. The case study that follows (Delancey Street Foundation) provides the reader with an example of the potential of an organization fulfilling its mission of helping ex-offenders by relying on ex-offenders themselves to support the activities and services needed to help them reenter society. This case example complements that of Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries, and the reader will see striking similarities and also significant differences in how a mission statement shapes how an organization responds to a similar set of challenges. Obvious, too, are the incredible challenges that face social enterprises in seeking to fulfill missions focused on highly marginalized individuals.

5 The Delancey Street Foundation

The subject of funding invariably emerges with any serious discussion of how to fund reentry initiatives for ex-offenders, when “lawabiding” citizens are going without services because of fiscal constraints at all levels of government. In other words, the “worthy” are going without needed services, and the “unworthy” are making unreasonable demands for and receiving needed services. This debate, however, goes back centuries and is certainly not limited to ex-offenders. The Delancey Street Foundation, as a result, interjects an interesting perspective to this dilemma—one that has centuries of support—by stressing “self-help” and avoidance of government funding. Further, this case example stands out because of its illustrious history and the critical role that program participants play in its day-to-day operation. Taxpayer reluctance to spend money on ex-offenders presents challenges and rewards for the field. This stance brings with it an incentive and need for innovation, as well as the challenge of generating funding streams to support activities. This mission brings with it an inherent set of challenges when the individuals called upon to run the organization have histories of drug abuse, violence, and minimal formal education and work histories. Learned helplessness is a natural outcome of the life of many of Delancey Street Foundation’s residents. In fact, one of the biggest challenges facing this organization is society’s attitudes toward ex-offenders, which translate into a reluctance to hire them. A shift in paradigms of this kind occurs when we start thinking of ex-offenders as possessing hope, knowledge, competencies, and a work 145

146

Prisoner Reentry at Work

ethic. Ex-offenders cannot and must not be viewed as consisting of nothing but deficits. They bring rich life experiences, strengths, and assets, which have helped them socially navigate life within and outside of prison, and have kept them alive. These abilities need to be recognized and tapped in any serious reentry initiative, and this case example in San Francisco certainly illustrates this. The Delancey Street Foundation is best conceptualized as a multifaceted and multipurpose social enterprise organization that, in addition to providing housing and a range of social services to ex-offenders, operates a series of small businesses that generate funding and opportunities for participants to learn job skills and develop résumés. These businesses seek to help participants develop multiple job competencies. By having participants rotate among jobs, they are provided with learning opportunities across various types of businesses, creating synergy across these businesses and organizationally (Jones 2005). The foundation has a commitment to peer-support, self-help, and communal living as a means of reinforcing new ways of thinking and creating new competencies. Social services, in turn, are provided to assist participants in meeting the multiple challenges they must surmount to have a successful crime-free life. These services rely heavily upon current residents in the program, as well as graduates who come back as volunteers to help. As a result, the creation of a sense of community goes beyond the boundaries of this organization and encompasses a wide sector. The Delancey Street Foundation, like Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, is able to address a range of what are typically characterized as intractable social problems, such as ex-offender reentry to the community, more effectively than government programs by being able to be innovative without undue governmental restrictions—creating incentives and opening up revenue streams unavailable to conventional nonprofits (Marquez 2010). Relying on peer support brings a dynamic and valuable source of resources that would otherwise not be available and are rarely tapped in most ex-offender reentry programs. Approximately 600 participants, of whom 130 are on probation, reside in a 200-unit townhouse complex, which was built in 1989 at a cost of $30 million (Jones 2005; Werth and Sumner 2005). Participants are expected to reside at the Delancey Street Foundation for at least two years, with an additional three months during which they stay in the program while holding down employment outside of the organization. It

Delancey Street Foundation

147

should be noted, however, that the average stay in the program is closer to four years.

Historical Origins The historical origins of the organization illustrate both the tremendous needs of the participants and vision of the early founders. The Delancey Street Foundation is approximately forty years old and was established in 1971 in San Francisco by John Maher, an ex-offender with a history of substance abuse. Although it started out with four residents and a $1,000 loan from a loan shark, these humble beginnings were short lived. Within one year, it had grown to 100 members. The name chosen for an organization reveals a tremendous amount about the vision of its founder, and this is the case with Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries, as well as the Delancey Street Foundation. The name Delancey Street captured the conditions confronting newcomers to the United States in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries who came through Ellis Island and settled in the Lower East Side of Manhattan in New York City. These immigrants found tremendous challenges, including stigma and discrimination, awaiting them, but through hard work and self-reliance were able to achieve the American dream in many cases. The past forty years have witnessed this organization increasing in size and reputation (nationally and internationally) to the point that many, both in and out of the field of criminal justice, consider it this country’s foremost case example of ex-offender self-help. Like other organizations across the United States, Delancey Street Foundation owes its creation to the vision and commitment of Maher and his ability to surround himself with similarly minded individuals, who turned a dream into reality. Maher passed away in 1988 at the age of forty-eight from a heart attack (Whittemore 1992). However, well before his death, Maher enlisted the support of Dr. Mimi Silbert in 1971, who many consider to be a cofounder, to help him create the Delancey Street Foundation (Delancey Street Foundation 1999a): John Maher . . . invited her to join him in creating a center for criminal rehabilitation and vocational training. It would be for ex-cons and

148

Prisoner Reentry at Work

run by ex-cons. When they joined forces Silbert and Maher agreed on a system of total self-sufficiency. All residents would work to support the group, with no outside funds. They would follow strict rules of behavior and self-governing. Each resident would develop at least three marketable skills as well as earn a high school equivalency diploma. . . . Delancey Street started with four addicts in a San Francisco apartment. By late 1972, about 100 former felons were jammed into that single space. Yet through the efforts of the residents, they were able to buy an old mansion in fashionable Pacific Heights. After Maher’s death in 1988, Silbert became Delancey’s driving force. (p. 1)

Silbert has a doctorate in criminology from the University of California–Berkeley and is considered a national expert on criminal justice. This academic background has facilitated Delancey Street Foundation’s influence in this field. She has been the recipient of numerous awards for her work at the Delancey Street Foundation, including nine honorary doctorate degrees, and has been awarded the Mahatma Gandhi humanitarian award and the Living Legacy Award by Women’s International Centre.

Community Description The Delancey Street Foundation began and still operates its headquarters in San Francisco and has a large facility on the bay in the downtown area. However, the foundation has expanded to Los Angeles; San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico; Greensboro, North Carolina; and Brewster, New York. It is also starting to utilize facilities in Stockbridge, Massachusetts. This geographical expansion reflects the national challenge of helping ex-offenders reenter society, with no region of the country having escaped. In many ways, the headquarters of the Delancey Street Foundation could not be more different than the place it is named after in New York City. Located in San Francisco’s Embarcadero District, the foundation occupies one city block (370,000 square feet), with a Mediterraneanstyle courtyard, and consists of a structure that is four stories high, with businesses occupying the first floor. The building was primarily built and supervised by Delancey residents. Although the design has won numerous awards, this structure is much more than a well-designed building (Delancey Street Foundation 2010a): “Ordinary people can transform extra-ordinary—even impossible—dreams into reality by

Delancey Street Foundation

149

pooling their resources, supporting one another and living lives of purpose and integrity.” Delancey Street Los Angeles began with the purchase of a former Hilton Hotel near midtown in 1993. Since then, the hotel has been renovated by the residents in order to make it into more of a home. The facility houses about 300 residents in dorm- and apartment-style living quarters. It includes a large ballroom for catering events for up to 500 people, as well as room for offices for the catering company. Delancey Street Los Angeles also has a 50,000-square-foot warehouse in Montebello, where there are training schools and facilities for moving and trucking, automotive and auto body repair, shipping and receiving, making terrariums and ceramics, handcrafted ironwork, and sales. The Delancey Street New Mexico facility is the only rural home of the Delancey Street Foundation and was purchased in 1976. This facility is in the heart of the San Juan Pueblo reservation, on a seventeenacre ranch located in the Espanola Valley between Santa Fe and Taos. Delancey Catering is the main service run out of this facility. However, residents here also have completed renovations and have built a 38,000square-foot warehouse that includes offices and shops. Other skills learned here are culinary arts, retail sales, accounting, bookkeeping, moving and trucking, construction, property management, and making handcrafted furniture, ceramics, and terrariums. The unique aspects of this facility are its rural location and opportunity for residents to learn Native American arts and dance. In 1987, the Delancey Street Foundation opened its facility in the Fisher Park area of Greensboro, North Carolina. The Fisher Park neighborhood was the first suburb of Greensboro and is home to many historic homes and buildings. Housing only thirty residents, this is the smallest facility operated by Delancey Street Foundation and is more of a small family environment, best suited for Delancey Street members who work well in smaller communities. This facility mainly serves those who have a substance abuse problem. Here, the residents are taught to operate enterprises in culinary arts, accounting, landscaping, construction, craft production, Christmas sales, and decorating, as well as moving and trucking. In 1980, the Delancey Street Foundation purchased its facility in Brewster, New York, a small village located approximately one hour north of New York City and only a few miles from the Connecticut border. On fifty acres of land, this facility is home to a grand historic castle, a cottage, and a carriage house, which have all been renovated into

150

Prisoner Reentry at Work

resident housing and offices. Upon purchasing the building, residents found the original plans for the building and decided to restore the buildings to their original state. Residents learn and operate enterprises in culinary arts, moving and trucking, handcrafted terrariums, ceramics, woodworking, construction, accounting, automotive repair, and antique refinishing, as well as Christmas sales and decorating. A 2007 article in Putnam Magazine reported that “since opening in 1980, the Brewster Delancey Street has turned around the lives of up to 7,000 men and women, ages 18–68—many of whom were hard-core drug, and alcohol abusers, with no work skills, or education, and histories of poverty or violence” (p. 30). Finally, the newest facility of the Delancey Street Foundation is located in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, approximately 150 miles west of Boston and not far from the New York State border. The foundation partnered with the Norman Rockwell Museum and is housed in the original home of Norman Rockwell. This facility is used primarily to help graduates of Delancey Street who have fulfilled a two-year commitment to study and further develop their talent and skills in the arts. Catering services are also available.

Mission Statement/Operating Principles The Delancey Street Foundation has embraced an organizational mission that operates on the following key principles (Delancey Street Foundation 2010b): 1. First and foremost, we believe people can change. When we make a mistake we need to admit it and then not run from it, but stay and work to fix the mistake. And though no one can undo the past, we can balance the scales by doing good deeds and earning back our own self-respect, decency, and a legitimate place in mainstream society. 2. We believe that people can learn to live drug free, crime free lives of purpose and integrity. Rather than following a medical model or a therapeutic model, we’ve developed an educational model to solve social problems. We teach people to find and develop their strengths rather than only focusing on their problems. 3. Rather than solving one issue at a time (e.g., drugs or job skills) we believe that all aspects of a person’s life interact, and all people must interact legitimately and successfully with others to make their lives work. Delancey Street is therefore a total learning center in which res-

Delancey Street Foundation

151

idents learn (and teach) academics, vocational skills, and personal, interpersonal, practical and social survival skills. We believe the best way to learn is to teach; and that helping others is an important way to earn self-reliance. Person A helps person B and person A gets better. 4. Delancey Street functions as an extended family, a community in which every member helps the others with no staff of experts, no “program approach.” Everyone is both a giver and a receiver in an “each-oneteach-one” process. 5. Economic development and entrepreneurial boldness are central to our model’s financial self-sufficiency and to teaching residents self-reliance and life skills. 6. Delancey Street is value-based in a strong traditional family value system stressing the work ethic, mutual restitution, personal and social accountability and responsibility, decency, integrity and caring for others in a pro bono publico approach.

These operating principles seek to achieve a comprehensive perspective about ex-offenders by providing them with a supportive environment consisting of peers and actively supporting their quests for crime-free lives. Self-reliance, resiliency, participatory democracy, neighborhood, interdependence, family, learning environment, and taking control of one’s life all emerge as key theoretical concepts and values that shape the organizational structure, behavior, and culture of the institution and those who work and live there. As a result, the Delancey Street Foundation is probably viewed best as a family or small neighborhood, which makes it different from the conventional drug-rehabilitation organization. Process is emphasized over outcome or goals. Silbert coined the term mutual restitution to capture this philosophical approach (Silbert 1984). Residents achieve competencies and self-esteem through their work at the organization and are therefore able to make restitution to society for their misdeeds. Self-hate is eventually replaced with self-respect. Giving back benefits the community and participants by making them contributors rather than takers. Residents are encouraged to vote, and some even go so far as to volunteer on political campaigns of candidates they believe would be good advocates for social causes such as those associated with exoffender reentry. Political participation is viewed as an important element of civic engagement, as noted in Chapter 2. The Delancey Street Foundation is self-governed by board and resident councils, composed of one-third African Americans, one-third Hispanics/American Indians, and one-third white non-Latinos, as represented among the residents. Women, in turn, comprise about 20 per-

152

Prisoner Reentry at Work

cent of the population and approximately 30 to 40 percent of all management positions. Having leadership reflect the ethnic, racial, and gender makeup of the residents is important for role modeling and minimizing the introduction of racism, sexism, and classism. The exercise of political power brings with it the responsibilities of having power.

Funding Streams An analysis of the Delancey Street Foundation funding uncovers an atypical organizational budget. The foundation receives no governmental assistance, and no one receives a salary; technically, there is no “professional” staff, because participants teach and help each other. This perspective accounts for the fact that 98.6 percent of the expenditures are allocated to programs, and only 1.4 percent goes to administration and fundraising. Operating funds come from three primary sources: (1) 55 to 65 percent from pooling incomes of the organization’s small businesses, which generate approximately $17 million a year, forming a significant portion of the organization’s operating budget; (2) 25 to 35 percent from donations of products and services, which primarily originate from various corporations; and (3) 5 to 15 percent from individual and foundation donations. This operating profile is sound because no more than one-third of Delancey Street’s funding comes from any one individual source, such as a foundation or governmental entity. However, generation of funds is labor intensive because considerable effort must be expended to generate the overall budget. Also, by relying on business-generated income, the organization places itself in a position where the vicissitudes of the economy wield considerable influence on the generation of funds.

Profile of Participants There are countless ways of presenting profiles on who is served by the Delancey Street Foundation. Most types of ex-inmate profiles entail a demographic description of one form or another. As a result, these types of profiles tend to emphasize easily quantifiable factors or variables that lend themselves to various statistical analyses. However, such an ap-

Delancey Street Foundation

153

proach would do an injustice to this program and mask the incredible odds facing program participants. Ex-offenders are more than a statistical number, particularly if one is interested in their life stories. This life story approach places far more weight on qualitative measures that do not lend themselves to spreadsheets. The type of ex-offender that the Delancey Street Foundation serves is well articulated by Silbert and highlights a generational perspective that is rarely captured in a typical profile of an ex-offender enrolled in a program: Ms. Silbert explained that the goal of the program is to show that “losers” in our society can be helped and empowered . . . to help others. She describes the client population as part of the underclass. Fully one third of the clients are homeless, and the average resident of the program comes from a family that has been in poverty for four or five generations and has had members in prison for two or three generations. The clients have been hard-core dope addicts and are unskilled and functionally illiterate. They have experienced horrible violence and have been violent themselves. (as quoted in Gray 2007, p. 418)

Silbert has gone so far as to compare the Delancey Street Foundation to Harvard University, by saying that Harvard attracts the upper 2 percent of the nation, while Delancey attracts the bottom 2 percent. The multigenerational description provided by Silbert highlights the immense struggles that the typical program participant faces in his or her attempt to achieve a productive life in society. As a result, family is less a source of support in the life of the ex-offender, which further stresses the importance of a comprehensive approach toward facilitating ex-offender reentry. The lethal collateral consequences of criminal convictions necessitate the development of comprehensive and integrative programs and initiatives (Pinard 2006). Participants are screened to ensure that they are in good physical and mental health, and have a high likelihood of remaining crime free and drug free after graduation from the program (Jones 2005).

Businesses and Services The Delancey Street Foundation conceptualizes itself as a family, and, as such, its values and expectations are to function like a family and provide

154

Prisoner Reentry at Work

for all of the key instrumental and expressive needs of members as those needs relate to education, health, welfare, and employment (Delancey Street Foundation 2007): We function as an extended family, rather than a more typical program. Our daily operations are not funded and we charge no fees. We pool all our resources. No one draws a salary including our president. There is no staff. The whole place is run by the residents themselves. All money is funneled into the community, and each resident receives food, housing, clothing, education, entertainment and all other services at no cost.

This perspective reflects a keen understanding of the multiple challenges most ex-offenders face in their reentry into their community and society. One description of the participants’ daily schedule illustrates the importance of structure and discipline in their lives (Burnett 2010): “The residents . . . keep farmers’ hours, rising at sun-up. After eating and meeting, they head to work at more than a dozen on-site businesses. . . . Lights out at 10 P.M., though a little late-night reading and such isn’t frowned upon” (p. 4). Participants are required to learn three trades as a way of increasing their competencies for employment outside of the organization (Burnett 2010). The Delancey Street Foundation offers many services and opportunities for its residents to acquire the requisite competencies and self-esteem to make them independent and contributing members of a community and society. When residents first enter Delancey Street they work one on one with counselors or as part of groups to build personal skills and break old habits that can be detrimental to the reentry process (Burnett 2010): “[T]he counseling sessions— called The Game—are not for the faint of heart. The Game consists of group-therapy sessions in which participants demand blunt honesty from one another about their feelings, for better or worse” (p. 4). Basic hygiene, employment skills, and social skills are taught and practiced. These skills include what to wear to work, getting along with coworkers and roommates, and the importance of showing up on time. Although these newly acquired skills and perspectives may seem rudimentary, they are essential for individuals who have led chaotic lives with few routines. When the residents enter one of the vocational training schools, they start at the bottom and work their way up. The Delancey Street Foundation operates on an “each one, teach one” model, where more experienced residents train new residents, and everyone moves up the line in that way.

Delancey Street Foundation

155

Additionally, the Delancey Street Foundation offers academic services, such as tutoring for residents who did not complete high school. Residents are tutored in reading, writing, and math, until they receive the GED or equivalent. Here, too, the foundation uses the each one, teach one system. Residents are given the opportunity to take college courses and, for those who stay three years or more, courses at a postsecondary academy accredited by the state of California. Providing a wide range of educational and training programs in-house facilitates the coordination of service delivery to ex-offenders. However, just as important, it allows the organization to employ teachers and trainers who have expertise in reaching these types of students. For residents who are committed to academics, there is a partnership with San Francisco State University to obtain a bachelor’s degree in urban studies, as well as a program through Golden Gate University. Finally, there is a “semester abroad” program in which residents can spend a semester working, studying, and living at any of the other Delancey Street Foundation sites in the country. This provides residents with an opportunity to broaden their horizons, just like their college counterparts. Hampden-Turner’s (1976) book Sane Asylum: Inside the Delancey Street Foundation, written over thirty-five years ago but still relevant today, chronicles the journey ex-offenders embark upon in Phase I of the rehabilitative process, during which they seek to systematically break down defenses and then go about rebuilding their self-esteem. This phase represents the foundation upon which Delancey Street Foundation seeks to change the image of the ex-offender. Because physical appearance plays an important role in creating images, ex-offenders are expected to alter their appearances (Whittemore 1992): “They have to cut their hair, get into a suit and even change the way they walk. We ask them to act as if they were upstanding citizens or successful executives, even though they feel the opposite. Through external imitation, something gets internalized” (p. 5). After residing at Delancey Street for six months, residents go through what is called “Dissipation.” These weekend-long sessions are geared to “dissipate the guilt of past behaviors.” It is a time for residents to look at their pasts, relive these pasts, and work to let go of all of the guilt and shame they have been living with. These sessions are run by older residents who are able to walk the new residents through this process and show them a new path. Ideally, residents leave these sessions with a

156

Prisoner Reentry at Work

greater sense of commitment and responsibility to become contributing members of society. Through its social and community-based program, Delancey Street Foundation residents are encouraged to participate in a variety of different community service events such as fundraisers and political campaigning as a way of reconnecting with the community. An active speakers bureau arranges for residents to speak at schools on drug use, crime, and violence prevention. Residents also assist business owners on preventing theft of their merchandise. They also are encouraged to reach out to the community and often do street outreach with adolescents, run drug and alcohol prevention groups, serve as mentors, and help older adults. As part of the restitution model, residents are encouraged to use their own stories and experiences to help others, whether speaking directly to youth or giving talks to youth workers and policymakers. Community involvement also provides program participants with an opportunity to alter public perceptions of ex-offenders. Delancey Street Foundation gives its residents a chance to learn about themselves and learn new skills, not just in a classroom or in a therapy group, but by practicing these skills in real life situations. The four goals in the design and operation of the Delancey Street enterprises are to: (1) teach residents to interact positively with the public, (2) help educate the public about the positive changes ex-felons and former substance abusers can make, (3) teach marketable skills to the formerly unskilled, and (4) earn income. Each of these goals is closely tied to the others and reflects the importance of employment and service to community. Following are various enterprises and vocational training programs that are operated at the different sites throughout the country. Restaurant and Café The Delancey Street Restaurant, which opened in 1991, is probably the largest and most profitable of all of the Delancey enterprises. It has been featured on many television shows and was rated “the friendliest restaurant in San Francisco” when it opened. The Delancey Street Foundation residents received guidance from an architectural firm to help design the restaurant, and it was completely built and hand carved by the residents. Everything from the structure of the restaurant to the hand-carved bar to the cement floor and painted walls to the bookshelves were developed, designed, and constructed by residents of Delancey Street. Much of the

Delancey Street Foundation

157

artwork was done by residents, as well as by the different Delancey Street handcrafting shops throughout the country. The model for the restaurant is similar to the model of the foundation as a whole: all tips are considered donations, and all proceeds after food production costs go directly to the Delancey Street Foundation to house, feed, and clothe the residents. The menu at the restaurant changes daily and is often a reflection of the heritage of the residents, combined with American-style cuisine. The residents are trained by some of the best chefs, managers, and wait staff from restaurants around the city. There is an outdoor patio with a view of the San Francisco waterfront, a large dining room for general eating, a copper bar for drinks or meals alone, two private dining rooms, and a private club on the third floor for much larger parties and events. The Crossroads Café, Bookstore, and Art Gallery is a training school of the Delancey Street Foundation. Here residents are trained in all aspects of the food industry—from bookkeeping to food preparation to service positions. The café is known for its large selection of fresh ground coffee and a selection of forty different teas, as well as gourmet salads, sandwiches, bagels, and fresh made pastries. It has a private garden and lounge areas in which to enjoy food, coffee, deluxe ice creams, beers, or wines.The bookstore is housed with the Crossroads Café and boasts a large variety of books and magazines. Catering Service The catering service programs train residents in menu developing and planning; food purchasing, preparation, and serving; floral and facility decorating; renting and estimation skills; audio and visual setup; and other skills needed to plan and cater events. The San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New Mexico sites offer a variety of catering services and boast both indoor and outdoor event spaces. Event planners (trained residents of Delancey Street) and staff are available to help plan business dinners, seminars, and even weddings. The catering programs can accommodate up to 500 guests in each given location and can do anything from light hors d’oeuvres to a full ten-course sit-down meal. All locations have full liquor licenses. Credit Union Delancey Street’s Credit Union stands out as a highly innovative service, within a constellation of many innovative services. Started in 1997, this

158

Prisoner Reentry at Work

service seeks, according to John Maher, to “extend credit to a class of people formerly considered to be bad credit risks” (San Francisco Examiner 1973, p. 24). Maher went on to note: “We feel justified in establishing the credit union as another vehicle towards the education of our people to the consumer habits of thrift and credit” (San Francisco Examiner 1973, p. 24). In 2011, the Credit Union had assets of $357,000 and 543 members. Advertising The Advertising Specialty Sales Department that is operated through Delancey Street Foundation has many components. Delancey residents are trained to sell items with imprinted seals and slogans. The most common buyers are businesses and the military, as well as college bookstores, fraternities, and corporations. The Advertising Department is a member of the Advertising Specialty Association International and therefore has access to the product lines of thousands of suppliers worldwide. Residents are also trained in inventory and records keeping in order to fully operate all aspects of this business. Finally, the art department is capable of providing customized art work and designs. Moving Company The Delancey Moving and Trucking Service, which began operations in 1975, is one of the oldest and largest enterprises of the Delancey Street Foundation. It is the largest independent moving company in the Bay Area and completes approximately 5,100 moves per year. In California, Delancey Moving and Trucking is available for moves throughout the country, with offices and services in New York, New Mexico, North Carolina, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The residents design and construct all of their own dollies and other equipment and offer full-service moves. Currently, Delancey Street Moving and Trucking contracts with many large companies, such as Gap, the San Francisco Giants, and the County of San Mateo. Since 1988, Delancey Moving and Trucking has been accredited by the Better Business Bureau and has a consistent A+ rating. Delancey Street Foundation also offers classes through the National Diesel Trucking Operation, which offers students and residents

Delancey Street Foundation

159

practice with operating diesel tractors. These diesel trucks run a circuit from San Francisco, Los Angeles, New Mexico, and North Carolina to New York and back on a continual basis. The Delancey Street Foundation website lists recommendations and partnerships alike. Limousine Service Otherwise known as Delancey Coach, a private car service is operated by the Delancey Street Foundation specifically for corporate needs and contracts with Gap, Williams-Sonoma, Pottery Barn, and many law firms in the area. Delancey Coach provides marketable limousine driving skills, and the opportunity for residents to interact with the public in such a way that they are able to show people, without ever discussing the subject, how different an ex-con can become from people’s worst mental picture of them. This aspect of “public education” is particularly enhanced by the corporate clients the drivers are exposed to through Delancey Coach.

Senior Citizen Transport Service The paratransit service at Delancey Street is operated out of the San Francisco office. When the paratransit service initially started, it consisted of a group of volunteers who worked to assist senior citizens in the community. However, an additional group of volunteers were soon trained, and the project became an income-generating school for Delancey Street Foundation. For the first ten years, the foundation offered transportation for seniors and provided entertainment and activities, which included a weekly dinner at one of the foundation’s locations in the community. Now, for the past twenty-five years, Delancey Street has provided unlimited group van service for people with disabilities and older adult residents in the community who are unable to access public transportation. Because the Delancey Street Foundation also contracts with various agencies in the San Francisco Bay Area, all community members that access the service are certified by the City of San Francisco to utilize these paratransit services. This aspect of the organization serves to provide Delancey Street participants with the opportunity to interact with the public and help alter public perceptions of ex-offenders.

160

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Printing Service Ex-offenders often have a wide range of talents and interests, including artistic ones. Consequently, providing opportunities for those with these talents, and combining them with the business side of art, is a natural for the Delancey Street Foundation. Unlike their counterparts in middle- and upper-class communities, Delancey Street Foundation participants do not have the same avenues for arts-oriented career paths. At the Delancey Street Print and Copy Shop in San Francisco, residents are trained in all aspects of the silk-screening process. They learn how to use computers for graphic design purposes and how to complete the printing of shirts and clothing. Residents are able to print posters, banners, brochures, and business cards for both public and private needs. A separate frame shop offers custom design for frame and matting jobs. The Print Shop generates the majority of its income from local merchants but also from producing stationery, invitations, advertisements, and more. Handcrafts The Delancey Street Foundation has become known nationwide for its quality handcrafted products. Produced exclusively and fully by Delancey residents, the products are sold in wholesale and retail markets worldwide. Most of the Delancey sites have shops for these items, and these sites specialize in customized wooden furniture, ceramics, painting, glass pieces, and planters. There is also an ironworks shop in LA. Most of the furniture is made in Taos in traditional Spanish Colonial style, as influenced by the New Mexico site. Residents are taught how to fully manage the business, in addition to learning the creative process of making furniture. The residents learn how to maintain quality control, order supplies, schedule and make deliveries, and keep daily records and inventories. In the plant and glass shops, they make most of their tools by hand and are trained in plant care and horticulture, as well. All of the furniture shops work with high-end maple, oak, walnut, and other woods. The shops are often popular around the holidays when handmade gifts are in demand. Landscaping Delancey Street Landscaping services are available solely at the North Carolina location, where the landscaping business is a member of the

Delancey Street Foundation

161

Fisher Park Historical Society. The landscaping business offers both commercial and residential services with biweekly or monthly rates, as well as cleanup services and other special contracts. Screening Room The Delancey screening room in San Francisco was built as a training project and facility for the residents of Delancey Street Foundation for film screening. However, it has become wildly popular and is often used often for trainings, seminars, private screenings, or special events. The room is capable of multimedia screening and has seating for 150 people. A wet bar makes it ideal for private events. It has been rented by many industry professionals such as Sean Penn and Robin Williams and is used for the Academy of Motion Pictures’ regular screenings, as well as by the Directors’ Guild of America for its monthly screenings. Christmas Tree Sales and Decorating Every year between Thanksgiving and Christmas, in each location, Delancey Street Foundation maintains Christmas tree lots, where the public can purchase trees, mistletoe, wreaths, lights, and other Christmas decorations and accessories. Delancey Street also has a commercial tree-decorating business, which sells, delivers, and decorates large trees for the holidays to companies, banks, and other consumers. The residents create a design scheme for the trees and hand-make the decoration, as well. This business gives residents an opportunity to learn the basics in sales and customer service and helps new residents to learn relationship skills.

Evaluation of Outcomes Over the life of the Delancey Street Foundation myriad accomplishments have covered a wide variety of arenas: • More than 10,000 participants have obtained their GEDs. • More than 12,000 former gang members have led gang-free lives. • More than 8,000 participants have been trained to teach and mentor on nonviolence.

162

Prisoner Reentry at Work

• One thousand participants have received diplomas from their state-accredited three-year vocational programs. • Fifty individuals received their bachelor of arts degrees from the Delancey chartered college (Human Relations) through Golden Gate University or Delancey’s Urban Studies Program through San Francisco State University. • More than 100 have graduated with their high school diplomas from the charter high school for youth involved in juvenile justice. • More than 3,000 formerly homeless individuals have been moved into permanent housing. These accomplishments are relatively easy to measure because of their concrete nature (Rosenberg 2011). However, the accomplishments related to self-esteem and how they translate into improved physical and mental health are obviously more arduous to capture. Silbert notes: “Although our statistics are extremely impressive, we consider it far more important to measure our success not simply by counting the number of individuals ‘cured,’ but by measuring the impact we have had on the swamp” (DelanceyStreetFoundation.org). It is estimated that 75 percent of the participants remain crime free, which is an exceptional achievement under any circumstance. However, in light of the history of crime involvement in the average participant’s family, this achievement takes on monumental proportions (Silbert 1984): Thus, while great numbers of people succeeded in their task of no longer using drugs and no longer committing crime, we feel that our residents have succeeded in more important ways. They have demanded of themselves that they make restitution to society, that they care not only about their own financial success in life, but that they care about honesty, integrity and the values by which we remain more than a country of people living together: values which make us a society. . . . Ultimately, then, the success of the residents of Delancey Street is more than the hundreds of success stories . . . : it is the dent they have made and are continuing to make in cleaning up the swamp which threatens to re-infect them, and perhaps infect us all. (p. 5)

Although this statement was made more than twenty-five years ago, it is still relevant today.

Delancey Street Foundation

163

Lessons Learned The Delancey Street Foundation is an exceptional organization and one that would be difficult to replicate in its entirety anywhere else in this or any other country. Nevertheless, the reader should take away from this case example several valuable lessons that can be applied in any setting, taking into account local circumstances. In the following, I identify five lessons that stand out. Involvement of Residents The instrumental role that residents and ex-residents play in the life of the organization offers great hope for the field. This involvement in all facets of the organization increases the expertise and (experiential) legitimacy that they bring as staff and volunteers, because they have lived through great despair and turmoil. Graduates of the program are the field’s best spokespersons and bring unique life experiences to their new jobs. These individuals, in turn, can also fulfill critical roles in carrying out research involving ex-offenders because they can be part of research teams involving ex-offenders, practitioners, and academics. It will take this form of research to craft the right questions and arrive at the right answers. The meaningful involvement of residents and graduates stands out as a testimony to their assets and willingness to contribute when provided with opportunities to do so. A Village in a Building The Delancey Street Foundation building encompasses much more than the workings of an organization. In this instance, the building symbolizes a new beginning, and the physical environment conveys pride, hope, and a sense of community. The fact the ex-offenders play such a prominent role in the life of the organization is unique in the field of criminal justice and human services in general. It is probably best to think of the Delancey Street Foundation as a village in the conventional sense of the word. Residents work, learn, sleep, and play within the confines of this structure and geographical area, although they are not totally insulated from the outside world in their perspective and actions. There certainly is a world outside of the

164

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Delancey Street Foundation, and it is one that residents are being prepared to play a positive and constructive role in shaping. Getting the Word Out The amount of print and visual media attention that the Delancey Street Foundation has garnered signifies the important role it can play in assisting other organizations to actively get the word out about exoffenders’ success. This national and international publicity reflects the public thirst for positive news on ex-offenders. For example, the Delancey Street Foundation’s Web page provides a wealth of information— scholarly, as well as general—to help the public understand better the operation of this unique organization. For that reason, developing and maintaining a Web page must be a priority of an organization. The view of ex-offenders making concerted efforts at leading a crime-free life is extremely important, because of the amount of negative and widespread publicity that results when an ex-offender commits a horrendous crime. Maintaining an active public relations department, including a director of communication, requires resources and vigilance to grab opportunities to provide positive news and information on ex-offenders. Relying on Residents to Help Residents One of the greatest lessons, rewards, and challenges faced by the Delancey Street Foundation has been the bedrock upon which it rests: residents helping residents (Delancey Street Foundation 2010c). The constituents themselves provide perhaps the most difficult obstacle and challenge. Because of their repeated failures in life, they have developed a sense of learned helplessness, psychological paralysis. Because they have so many social problems and are several generations into hardcore crime and drugs and violence, they are truly defined by despair. It’s difficult to teach them to change because they have never experienced or seen another way. They feel powerless, are deeply dominated by self-destruction and self-hate and understandably without motivation or belief or trust. A separate set of challenges arises with the target population not only out of their personal problems, but also because of their violence and bigotry and hatred towards one another. Since a large portion of our population is gang involved, they have spent years dedicated to committing violence against gangs of other races or other neighborhoods. They need to

Delancey Street Foundation

165

overcome not only their own self-destruction, but also their vengeful hatred geared toward destroying one another. They need to develop not only skills and new behaviors, they need hope. Finally, the very model that we employ provides its own obstacles and challenges. The problem of our model is that we rely on the people with the social problems to be the solution to those problems. What that means is that we are relying on people who have failed in school to be teachers; we are relying on people who have never worked and have no skills to run our restaurant, our moving company, to earn our money, and to manage our entire organization. We are relying on self-absorbed people to care for others. And because our residents graduate once they have gained the attitudes, values, skills, talents and strengths they need, we are always relying on new people to keep the organization going.

Reciprocity is a value that brings with it an inherent set of rewards for participants. Further, it illustrates for participants the importance of receiving and giving, which for many of them may be a new experience. Acts of generosity can appear in various forms and do not have to be concrete in nature. Program participants have developed many different skills that have allowed them to live a life of danger without being killed. The lessons learned in this journey can also help others. Giving shop owners advice about how to minimize theft of their property, for example, represents a positive way of using their knowledge to help others. Continuity of Leadership Few human service-oriented organizations, social enterprise or otherwise, have benefited from continuity of leadership like the Delancey Street Foundation since its inception. The continuity of leadership is important for organizations such as Delancey and Homeboy/Homegirl Industries because the mission of those organizations are unique in nature, and the population groups they serve are stigmatized. The latest leader, Mimi Silbert (who turned seventy in 2012), has been coleading or leading this organization since 1971. This continuity of leadership and the vision that she brings are rare in the field of criminal justice. However, the question remains as to the succession of leadership and what it has in store for the future of the organization. The organizational structure relies less on one individual than Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries, making succession that much easier to accomplish

166

Prisoner Reentry at Work

with careful planning. The established linkages this organization has with the local San Francisco community (political, economic, and social) will serve as a solid foundation a new leader can draw upon.

Conclusion The reader may say that the Delancey Street Foundation is truly an inspiration but not feasible in their respective communities. Although Delancey Street is a tough act to follow, local circumstances must dictate how a model program or organization operates, and this case example is certainly not an exception. The intent in providing this case example and that of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries is not to replicate the organization in its entirety somewhere else in the country. Communities across the United States, however, may be able to learn from the Delancey experience and borrow and modify aspects as needed, taking into consideration their local circumstances and priorities. As noted in the previous section, there are certainly many lessons to be learned from this case example. The average individual participating in the Delancey Street Foundation, like his or her counterpart in Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, is the product of multiple generations of membership in a marginalized class, and provision of a job is not the ultimate solution, although it is central to any positive outcome. The realization that ex-offenders bring additional baggage to their reentry efforts should not discourage community-based organizations from moving forward on ex-offender initiatives. It should, however, forewarn them to the immense challenges that these efforts will necessitate. Comprehensive efforts are beyond the capacity of any one organization, requiring coalitions and collaboration across spheres. Delancey Street Foundation residents, however, bring real world experience and immense talents, which have not been allowed to be exercised in a positive manner prior to their involvement in this organization. Consequently, along with the challenges come rewards and the possibility of breaking a long chain of despair.

6 Implications for Theory, Policy, and Practice

The case studies and literature on the subject of ex-offender reentry and employment cover a great deal of material. Chapter 6 provides an opportunity to highlight key cross-cutting themes found in the literature and the case examples used in Chapters 4 and 5 and throughout the book. This will facilitate drawing conclusions about how helping professions can play an influential role in fostering the development of programs and initiatives involving small businesses and particularly social enterprises for the purposes of facilitating ex-offender reentry to the community. This chapter, however, is not meant to be a comprehensive critique of the criminal justice system and its role in furthering the marginalization of major racial and ethnic groups in this country. Instead, the focus will be on themes related to employment, community-based services, and small businesses and social enterprises playing an increasingly important role. No helping professional can claim he or she does not have to be involved in this issue. Facilitating ex-offender reentry to the community is an issue that touches countless lives as well as systems of care. Consequently, it is my hope that the multiple themes covered in this chapter will have relevance to readers and their professions.

Implications for the Helping Professions This section examines the implications for helping professions from two perspectives: (1) How can helping professions assist in the creation and 167

168

Prisoner Reentry at Work

support of small businesses and social enterprises involving ex-inmates? (2) How can helping professions benefit from development of a relationship with these businesses, with implications for other underserved groups? The answers to these two questions wield profound impact across many of this nation’s inner cities and countless numbers of families of color who are low income/low wealth. These communities, in turn, also impact their cities and states. Multifaceted Needs Require a Comprehensive Approach Both the literature and the two case examples highlight the immense struggles ex-offenders, particularly those of color, face upon being released from prison. The enormity of the challenge necessitates that a comprehensive approach be developed to help increase the likelihood of success. Comprehensive efforts do not necessarily mean that one organization will be responsible for all aspects of an intervention. Funding that encourages collaboration between social organizations may be the most efficient and expedient approach because no small business or social enterprise can possibly address all the needs of an ex-offender. However, small businesses or social enterprises, in collaboration with human service organizations, faith-based organizations, and other interested parties, can develop a comprehensive approach. Being able to provide housing, employment, and peer support provides an opportunity to initiate and follow through on a comprehensive approach toward helping ex-offenders. The responsibility of helping ex-offenders rests with society— and not just one sector of society. Consequently, enlistment of a wide range of community-based institutions, both formal and informal, and volunteers and interns—and, in the case of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, government—opens the door for highly innovative coalitions and partnerships. However, a central organization still remains in charge. Tax Credits, Stipends, or Incentives for Small Businesses There is little doubt that new and highly innovative approaches will need to be developed to provide financial incentives for small businesses and for-profit or social enterprises to take on the responsibilities associated

Implications for Theory

169

with ex-offenders. These types of incentives will help cushion the costs (training and supervision) associated with hiring ex-offenders as interns or “associates in-training.” Lerman (2010) advocates for expanded use of apprenticeships as a way of bridging the divide between individuals with limited competencies and new jobs that require different knowledge and skill-sets. The severe economic recession can have a positive lining and prove to be an impetus for businesses to undertake innovative efforts at increasing revenues and also providing a social service to their communities. Obviously, the subject of taxes brings with it a set of tension points. Government investments in programs and services to facilitate the successful transition of ex-offenders into their communities will necessitate increase in public spending. Nevertheless, there is no denying that saving money is an important motivator for any discussion on exoffender reentry. Maintaining offenders in prisons is increasingly garnering bigger portions of state dollars that could be spent on other pressing social needs. Although a careful study of the risks and benefits of granting tax credits is in order, it would not be surprising to discover that the benefits far outweigh the risks of granting tax credits to facilitate ex-offender reentry into the workforce. Tremendous Potential of Social Enterprises The two case illustrations reflect extraordinary efforts that go far beyond an organization carrying out a social mission. These two enterprises were developed by individuals with a core vision who were able to surround themselves with individuals who believed in them and, more importantly, shared their social convictions. It is as if all the stars were aligned in the correct order to bring about such fruitful undertakings and outcomes. Both enterprises have encountered and surmounted numerous obstacles, as is to be expected. However, in doing so, these institutions have become stronger, as has their resolve to address the needs of their memberships. In many ways, Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation typify the characteristics and resolve of the ex-offenders they seek to serve. This should not come as any great surprise. Institutions derive the same status and challenges from the individuals they serve. In an effort to expand their reach, social enterprises can develop collaborative relationships with local small businesses.

170

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Organizations like Delancey Street and Homeboy/Homegirl Industries enjoy good reputations within their communities, and this capital, so to speak, can be used to enlist the support of locally owned small businesses in the creation of internships and jobs for program participants. Delgado (2011) found that Latino small business owners, for example, play important social roles within their respective communities and can benefit from relationships with social organizations. Thus, they can help and be helped in the development of employment and training opportunities for ex-offenders. Voice and Decisionmaking Powers for Ex-Offenders Participatory democracy must not exclude certain groups, as in the case of ex-offenders. The literature on education and human services is replete with numerous examples of knowledge gained from experience versus from formal education. Concepts such as informal knowledge, self-knowledge, and community knowledge, for example, help capture the unique perspective of individuals without university degrees. This form of knowledge is invaluable in providing a comprehensive understanding of their lives, struggles, and hopes. Ex-offenders are no exception. No one knows ex-offenders better than ex-offenders. Consequently, the field of criminal justice is way behind other fields in tapping the voices of those being served. The ex-offender perspective, although probably painful for correctional systems administrators to hear, provides a vantage point on the complexities and intricacies of the adjustment or reentry process into society. No Magic Bullets The literature as well as the lessons learned in the Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation case histories show how the field of criminal justice must be prepared to make a long-term commitment to ex-offender reentry. As a nation, we can no longer afford to engage and disengage from major social problems at whim. In essence, it has taken almost a generation and billions of dollars to get to this sad state of affairs, and it will necessitate decades and even more billions of dollars to get the nation out of this mess.

Implications for Theory

171

Conclusion I am sure that the reader cannot help but feel a sense of awe at the challenges that stand before this nation concerning ex-offenders. On the positive side, we certainly are not in the dark about what it will take to meet this challenge. Although there is a wealth of research and a need for further research, we can certainly debate the more cost-effective ways of achieving the goal of helping ex-offenders transition back into their communities and society. We cannot, however, debate the goal. The active involvement of the courts in forcing correctional systems to release inmates before their sentences are completed will no doubt continue into the foreseeable future. As a result, states cannot sit back and wait to be sued. Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation serve as examples of what is possible and what it takes to help increase the odds for ex-offender success in their communities. It can be argued that every major city in the country can benefit from having such social enterprises in their midst. Lessons can be learned and applied to social service organizations and small businesses wishing to help in the reentry process.

7 Further Challenges

The subject of ex-offender reentry is growing, and one that seems to have no limits as to its challenges and rewards, as persistently raised throughout this book. As noted in the preface, there is a desperate need to change the dialogue on ex-offenders—from one of desperation and fear to one of hope and possibly even celebration. From a human rights or economic perspective, the nation cannot afford to continue following failed criminal justice policies in the twenty-first century. We need a new vision of what is possible. Will this vision guarantee results? There are virtually no guarantees in life. However, the possibility of achieving a significant measure of success is possible with the proper planning, cooperation, and funding. The following statements and questions touch on a variety of subjects related to ex-offender reentry. This section will highlight thoughtprovoking and highly troubling aspects of ex-offender transition to communities. Clearly, these questions and observations are meant to evoke a response from the reader, just like they evoked a response from the author. None of these is easy to address. However, it would be foolhardy to ignore them because of their complexity or the controversies they generate.

Reentry Brokers There is little question that a new type of helper is needed to help exoffenders reintegrate into their communities and the world of employ173

174

Prisoner Reentry at Work

ment. Clearly, a new position with a corresponding job description is needed because the present challenges are beyond the scope of the criminal justice system and the community awaiting the newly released inmate. This new specialist will start with the competencies necessary for the development of an individualized reentry plan that takes a comprehensive perspective on the ex-offender and the community to which he or she is returning. An inmate’s reentry plan must ideally be developed prior to his or her release and should seek input from a wide variety of personnel in the criminal justice system. The reentry brokers will work with the criminal justice team and the inmate to develop an assessment of strengths and needs. This specialist must be based in the community, have an extensive knowledge of local resources, and possess the necessary financial resources to purchase services, as needed. This individual, in turn, should be in a position to assist ex-offenders in finding employment or, if not available, internships and educational programs that enhance their competencies. The cases of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries and Delancey Street Foundation illustrated the need to have a comprehensive perspective of ex-offender strengths as well as needs. In the case of Delancey Street, housing was part of the services provided in-house, while Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries assisted in finding housing. Some ex-offenders may only need particular information, while others may require extensive assistance in facilitating their reentry because of limited formal educational attainment, social support, and employment histories. Consequently, one size does not fit all, thus requiring individualized plans and specialists with the expertise, time, and resources to individualize their approach. Determining the Experts on the Subject Matter The criminal justice field will no doubt have to address the question of deciding who are the experts on ex-offenders and their reentry, and the process will prove painful and controversial. Why try to answer such a question in a field dominated by controversies and tensions? The subject, I believe, is too important to ignore, because we are in desperate need of answers as to how we, as a society, can prevent or minimize recidivism, particularly in the nation’s inner cities and among population groups that can be expected to increase demographically in the next

Further Challenges

175

forty years, as in the case of Asian Americans and Latinos. Consequently, those who have the right to call themselves experts on the topic will wield considerable influence in shaping the dialogue and solutions that follow. Alexinas (2008) argues that the research field lacks the necessary measures for better understanding successful rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders and that these measures require continued support and assistance. These measures, in turn, must not solely rely upon what professionals judge to be success but must also actively and systematically tap the voices and judgment of ex-offenders. The emergence of ex-offenders as researchers and research advocates, as addressed again later in this chapter, is such a case in point. Gideon’s (2010) scholarship typifies the latest trend in research involving ex-offenders, and in this case those who have struggled with addiction, by stressing the importance of tapping the voices of these individuals and how they managed to succeed in their return to their communities. The Convict Criminology School, as noted earlier in this book, can be expected to increase in importance because it critiques current scholarship from a vantage point rarely considered legitimate: that is, the voices and experiences of the ultimate beneficiaries of services— the ex-offenders. However, the emergence of this school of thought as a key player in designing and implementing research and evaluation efforts is bound to cause tremendous unrest in traditional academic circles (Richards and Ross 2001, 2003, 2004). This tension resulting from ex-offenders of the Convict Criminology School who may not have academic credentials dictating what kind of research should be done and by whom, however, has the potential to help the field of criminal justice shift its paradigms from a deficit and highly professionally centered approach to one that is asset driven, participatory, and empowering. In many ways, this debate, so to speak, is reminiscent of the civil rights movements of the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s. These movements for the rights for women, blacks, those with disabilities, and those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered ushered in an era that maintained that oppressed individuals are their own best spokespersons. The decisionmaking surrounding ex-offender reentry to the community cannot be left to academics and policymakers but must include exoffenders at the table.

176

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Racism and the Criminal Justice Literature A review of the literature on ex-offender reentry has generally viewed the subject from an “a-racial” perspective: namely, ex-inmates are a homogenized group that share a common experience (prison) and a socioeconomic set of characteristics related to gender, formal educational attainment, health status, and—oh by the way—are of color. Greater attention to the role of race as a key factor in ex-offender discrimination provides the field of criminology with a lens that allows it to better understand and therefore address the lethal collateral consequences of incarceration. Of course, no elected official or administrator in the criminal justice system will acknowledge that the system is racist and that it systematically draws from the nation’s inner cities, and that rural areas of the country, where prisons are located, benefit politically and economically from these policies. Further, the a-racial nature of research funded by the government further compounds an issue that cannot and should not be swept under the rug. It is difficult to read a government-funded research report about exinmates that provides highly detailed demographic information pertaining to the race and ethnicity of the sample but does not take the sample composition into account in reporting findings. In essence, the fact that the vast majority of this nation’s inmates are of color and low income cannot be addressed in the analysis and conclusions of the funded research.

Role of Language Although addressed earlier in this book, language’s importance in shaping dialogue is such that it bears addressing one final time. How we label a phenomenon such as ex-offender reentry is much more than semantics. The search for new ways of labeling an old phenomenon, particularly when it actively seeks the input of those most affected by the problem, serves to create a new context in which to navigate through the troubled waters of the field. Language that is affirming and asset driven opens up possibilities for inclusion of those pushed aside by the experts and expands the resources (indigenous and formal) that can be marshaled to address ex-offender reentry. Affirming and non-stigmatizing language and concepts convey hope and a belief that individuals can change, as opposed to destinies

Further Challenges

177

that are filled with despair. As noted in the introductory chapter, the language used in the reentry discourse has started to change from one of deficits and unavoidable failure to one that offers a future with promise. This shift in language must also find its way into research, scholarship, and the classroom.

Shift in Paradigms from Deficit to Assets No ex-inmate is totally without assets or strengths, because he could not have survived life in the streets and within prisons (Delgado 2001; Vennard and Hedderman 2009). The question then becomes “what are their assets or strengths?” rather than “are there any?” This question goes beyond semantics and strikes at the root of a fundamental belief that exoffenders can and must assume productive roles in society. I believe that the vast majority do not want a life of crime and “drama,” and do not wish to return to the confines and structure of a prison. Our challenge as a society or as members of the helping professions is to provide conditions and opportunities for the manifestations of these talents. This book represents an attempt at illustrating ways of accomplishing this goal. One of the greatest challenges facing health and human service providers seeking to reach ex-inmates and their communities is how to address present and projected needs without losing sight of valuable cultural and community assets in the process. The ability to identify and mobilize assets to meet community needs brings its share of rewards and challenges (Delgado 2007). The shift in thinking about ex-inmates from a deficit to an assets paradigm represents the greatest challenge for the field and the nation. A deficit perspective has permeated thinking about ex-inmates and the communities from which they originated. Thus, it would be incorrect to think of a deficit perspective as separate from how we typically view low-income/low-wealth communities of color in this country. Racism and classism, unfortunately, are alive and well, and simply get exacerbated when the subject involves ex-inmates of color. Consequently, shifting thinking is never easy. However, it will prove particularly challenging in the case of returning ex-inmates. A strengths perspective, as noted in Chapter 2, is only now starting to receive attention in the field of criminal justice. This does not mean that it will see the light of day in a significant way in the near future. Those of us who subscribe to this perspective are swimming against the tide. Nevertheless, it is a swim that must be undertaken. An asset per-

178

Prisoner Reentry at Work

spective is much more than semantics. This paradigm represents a profound shift in identifying what attributes ex-inmates possess that can be tapped in any reentry initiative. Viewing the communities they return to from an assets perspective, for example, opens up possibilities of engaging indigenous institutions, such as small businesses and houses of worship, in activities that can help ex-offenders readjust to life in their communities. Successful readjustment translates into a community benefit, while unsuccessful readjustment translates into a community being further distressed. Consequently, we have much to gain rather than lose by embracing an assets perspective.

All Ex-Offenders Are Not Alike The propensity to group together returning inmates into an ex-inmate category, for the purposes of policy and program development, is quite tempting. After all, these individuals share much in common based on their incarceration experiences. However, the differences within and between ex-offenders of varying racial, ethnic, and gender backgrounds are far greater than their similarities. As a result, recognition of these differences necessitates that program development take into consideration key sociodemographic characteristics, as well as the characteristics and circumstances surrounding the communities they expect to be reintegrated into upon their release.

Interdisciplinary Collaboration We must work together, but can we? It should not come as any great surprise that successful initiatives addressing ex-offender reentry will necessitate extensive and often unprecedented collaboration between professions. The criminal justice field cannot wash its hands of exoffenders simply because they are no longer prisoners. The very nature of their reentry may be viewed as no longer a criminal justice issue and become society’s issue. Fleisher and Krienert (2004) summed up well the importance of collaborative efforts guided by participatory principles: “The solution to poverty is not and will never be found in the suppression of poor people; that only adds to their problems. Solutions can be found if we, the keepers of community resources, work in collaboration with residents

Further Challenges

179

of poor communities. That collaboration should begin by asking these people what they want! It then becomes our obligation to provide it in a way that is suitable to them” (p. 210). It is always much easier to view professional collaboration as a goal. Few people would argue with the virtues of collaboration. It is a clear, measurable statement of what we hope to accomplish by a point in time. The availability of funds from government and foundations encouraging collaboration will go a long way toward fostering partnerships. However, I am not naive enough to think that funding availability or collaboration will erase distrust, different world views, and efforts by certain professions to dictate approaches to ex-inmate reentry. Yet, with proper planning, turf issues and narrow perspectives can be overcome, particularly if communities are involved and play active roles in identifying their needs and how best to address them. In essence, communities may become the ultimate power brokers in these collaborative arrangements.

Complexity of Reentry It would be a serious mistake for the field and government at all levels to underestimate the complexity of this subject. The media has a general tendency to “simplify” a complex problem for public consumption, which does an injustice to the public, because this is not a subject that lends itself to being simplified. To do so is to seriously underestimate the requirements (resources and political will) to successfully address the challenges associated with ex-offender reentry. Hopefully, the reader has developed a deeper understanding and appreciation for the task at hand for this nation as the subject of exoffender reentry starts to increase in visibility at the state and local levels. The subject of criminal behavior is complex and, it stands to reason, so is the subject of reentry. I would go on to argue, and I imagine most readers will agree, that life is quite complex for the ordinary citizen. However, we can multiply life’s complexities several times when it involves the life of a former ex-offender who has numerous challenges that transcend all social spheres. The criminal act that landed the offender in incarceration has a wide ripple effect across a community and a nation, which goes far beyond the costs of imprisoning someone for an extended period of time. The United States leads democratic nations in its incarceration rates, and this

180

Prisoner Reentry at Work

is detrimental to the image that we, as a nation, wish to portray to the world. In fact, in 2009 the United States replaced the former Soviet Union as having the highest incarceration rate in the world. The United States cannot incarcerate its way out of crime in the country. Alternatives to incarceration are needed, and prevention cannot continue to either be ignored or seriously underfunded.

Higher Education and Ex-Offender Reentry There is a general agreement that higher education can and must play an important role in addressing this subject. Swanson, Rohrer, and Crow (2010) specifically raise the need for criminal justice higher education programs to address the topic of ex-offender reentry. The provision of higher education within the nation’s prisons has shown that it can play a critical role in helping inmates leave prison with a level of accomplishment, which translates into a higher probability of success upon release. Mind you, provision of higher education within prisons, even though it holds tremendous promise, is still controversial. The general public may argue that if they have a hard time financially sending their children to college, why are prisoners getting a college education for free? A similar argument has been made about prisoners receiving expensive health services, such as heart and liver transplants, while the general public does not have access to similar health care (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2008). Nevertheless, I doubt seriously that any family in society would tell their son or daughter to get incarcerated in order to obtain a free college education. In essence, the price that inmates pay to get this education is far from free, and there is no one on the outside who would willingly take their place in prison for a college education. The funding invested in providing education will more than pay for itself in cost savings from future imprisonment and the taxes these individuals will pay on their salaries.

The Challenge of Older Adults We can certainly argue that all ex-offender demographic groups are a challenge. However, I believe that older adult ex-offenders will prove to be the biggest challenge for the field because of the unique needs they

Further Challenges

181

present to prison officials and staff, and the immense financial costs associated with them. It stands to reason that this challenging group in prison will continue to have problems upon their release. However, strictly from a financial perspective, it would be a mistake to shift the field toward the release of older adult ex-offenders. A solid argument can be made about releasing older adult ex-offenders (fifty years and older) from prison. The immense costs of putting this group into communities and society can only be expected to increase because of the multiple health and social needs they bring with them (Delgado and Humm-Delgado 2009).

Ex-Offender Research and Evaluation The role and importance of ex-offender community reentry research and evaluation has grown in the past decade as policymakers and funders have increasingly sought evidence of the success of social interventions. We need to acknowledge the rewards and challenges of undertaking evaluation of services focused on ex-offenders of color, who are disproportionately represented in the nation’s prisons. There is a growing trend to enlist the opinions of ex-offenders in the design and implementation of programs that seek to assist them in the transitions from prison to community. A similar perspective is emerging about actively engaging this group in shaping the research process (Richards et al. 2008). The hierarchies of knowledge construction has historically hampered having marginalized groups shape knowledge creation (Presser 2005). The goal of research and evaluation pertaining to ex-offender reentry must seek to pose and answer fundamental questions, as noted by (Meghan 2004): “The process leading to posing questions is itself a questioning advance—a preliminary questioning. Identifying the issues raised is equally important. What strategies should be used, with whom, and at what time in their criminal careers? How can we measure the results? How does all of this fit in with the employment and training needs of our country” (p. xi)? There is a tremendous need for qualitative studies to help develop greater insights into how success is achieved by ex-offenders (Hurry et al. 2006). Development of requisite insights into the world of exoffenders and their journeys back into society will require innovative research models that stress ex-offenders playing active and decision-

182

Prisoner Reentry at Work

making roles throughout all facets of a research undertaking. Macrostructural factors are the easiest to identify. However, the daily struggles at the microlevel often get overlooked because of the nature of the phenomena of racism, classism, and discrimination against exoffenders, and the fact that policymakers and researchers may have little insight into their occurrences. Ex-offenders, however, are quite aware of how microincidents shape their experiences within communities and their readjustment to life outside of prisons and jails. Research on ex-offender community reentry is only now starting to view the ex-offender within a social-ecological context (Morenoff, Harding, and Cooper 2009). This expanded view of the world, however, is fraught with challenges that mirror those of other population groups that have been marginalized in this society. Nevertheless, there is increasing recognition that a narrow perspective focused on ex-offenders, without regard to their environmental circumstances, does little to understand the complexity of the reentry process and its impact on ex-offenders, their families, and communities. There is little question that researchers will increasingly be called upon to develop greater insights into what works and does not work in helping ex-offenders be productive members of their communities and society. This concerted effort, however, will not be without controversy and tension, because so much is riding on allocating scarce resources where they are most needed. Further, tensions will arise as to what role, if any, ex-offenders will play in constructing, implementing, and interpreting findings from the research. Meaningful involvement of exoffenders as researchers represents a fundamental shift in who is entitled to call themselves researchers and in ownership of the vast sums of funding that will be a part of these efforts. Gardner (2010) recommends, as I do, that research be undertaken that taps the voices of those who are incarcerated and that emphasizes the importance of focusing on their wishes to help others and give back to the community upon their release.

Ethical Research Challenges Research involving inmates and ex-offenders has a long tradition in this country, along with the discussion of possible methodological concerns, conflicts of interest, and other ethical considerations (Greenberg 2006). Mobley (2003) criticizes those who do research that further stigmatizes

Further Challenges

183

ex-offenders: “Academics may employ pernicious tactics to garner attention and promote the profession, but they come at the expense of those that have already paid a high price for their transgressions. The law may define ‘outlaw’ social groups in order to demonize and vilify them, but it is shameful for a profession to gain influence by relying upon and perpetuating such harms” (p. 225). Fine and Torre (2006) speak about the value of giving active and meaningful roles to those being researched. Their involvement serves multiple purposes. However, ensuring that the research is meaningful, accurate, and benefits those it professes to benefit stand out as the most obvious reasons for participation. Perez and Treadwell (2009), for example, advocate for the use of a community-based participatory action research paradigm as a means of ensuring that research findings reflect the values and needs of former offenders. Mears et al. (2006) identify a series of challenges facing researchers and evaluators in determining outcomes of reentry efforts due to lack of construct validity and rigorous methodology. Lynch (2006) notes: “Having a brief and catchy name for something complex is essential in the entrepreneurial process, but it can be disastrous in research” (p. 402). Terms such as reentry simply seek to capture a complex phenomenon and, in the process, do a disservice to the field and ex-offenders. The knowledge or wisdom that ex-offenders possess about what it takes to negotiate reentry has generally escaped the attention of experts with formal educational credentials. More recently, the concept of insider knowledge has started to receive attention, emphasizing ways to obtain input or testimony from individuals with experience (life) with correctional systems as inmates, as opposed to educational expertise (formal education). The values present in ex-offenders upon their release can provide important insight into their lives and the ways they perceive their surroundings. Rios and Navarro (2010), for example, apply this concept to gangs. Duran (2009), a former gang member, undertook a five-year ethnographic study of street gangs and found they subscribed to a core set of values: loyalty, courageous response to external threats, promotion and defense of gang status, and stoic response to consequences of gang life. The emergence of the Convict Criminology School, as noted earlier, has been largely in response to serious critiques of past and current research on the subject of prisoners and ex-offenders (Richards and Jones 2004). The client as expert and, in this case, one who is an ex-

184

Prisoner Reentry at Work

offender, has also found its way into therapeutic encounters (Klekar and Ting 2004). Murphy (2005) issues a critical challenge for the research field— and one that will only grow in importance in the coming decade: “Researchers need to quantify the positive ramifications of keeping individuals in the community, keeping them in close relationships with their partners and children, allowing them the opportunity to find and maintain employment, as well as the opportunity for pursuit of education, and simply avoiding the label and associated stigma of ex-con” (p. 35). This challenge will necessitate close collaborative multidisciplinary research, qualitative as well as quantitative methods (Laub and Sampson 2004), and the embrace of innovative approaches, such as that advanced by the Convict Criminology School and partnerships between researchers without incarceration histories and ex-offenders (Bosworth et al. 2005).

The Initiative to Recruit New Students to the Field The helping professions can benefit from a federal initiative to recruit a new generation of students into the field. Social work, for example, historically played an important role in prison reform in the nineteenth century, particularly in getting inmates with severe and persistent mental illness out of alms houses and prisons. However, social workers, with some exceptions, have not been involved with the criminal justice field. Making scholarships available, with the requisite commitment to seek employment in working with ex-offenders, may prove a win-win for the profession and the field. Other professions without significant involvement in the corrections field can also be involved in the exoffender reentry process. Provision of paid field placements or internships can serve as inducements into the criminal justice field. For example, my formal interest in the criminal justice field was sparked by the availability of a two-year federal grant in juvenile justice, which paid for my graduate tuition and provided a financial stipend to cover living costs. The field of ex-offender reentry goes far beyond that of corrections, criminology, and correctional justice. No field can or should own this movement. The consequences of the movement are far too great to relegate to one professional discipline or practice. Ex-offenders touch many different arenas, such as child welfare, education, health, and housing. No one profession can be expected to master the knowledge

Further Challenges

185

base and possess the competencies and political will to make significant contributions. Consequently, a new initiative to recruit a cadre of students to enter this field is very much in need. The corrections field alone does not have the luxury of determining who is capable and acceptable to work in the field. The reentry of ex-offenders requires a team approach consisting of multiple professions and community institution representatives with expertise in communities rather than in prisons. This is not to say that the corrections field needs to step aside. However, it does mean that any effort at comprehensive services cannot be dominated by any one profession.

Innovation as Key to the Solution Clearly, business as usual is not going to succeed in addressing the multiple challenges that ex-offender reentry bring to the nation or its cities. Travis (2007) called for the need for “big ideas” to emerge in the reentry movement. There is clearly a place for innovative approaches, even though such efforts are bound to be resisted on many different levels and will heighten anxiety. The nation’s financial crisis is an excellent backdrop for the introduction of new ways of thinking about reentry. However, it would be foolish to argue that new approaches will save money. They might, but, more importantly, innovation that stresses participatory democratic principles and civic engagement can result in more committed and engaged citizens (Fox 2010). The communities these ex-offenders return to and the cities these communities reside in will also benefit. A more engaged citizenship, a hallmark of any democratic society, will ultimately benefit all of society.

Creating New Problems The development of new initiatives that help prepare ex-offenders for work back in the community brings much progress for ex-offenders, communities, and taxpayers. However, as several states have found in their attempts to cut state budgets, using prisoners for jobs formerly held by civilians may not be well received. The possibility of the state saving money by employing prisoners undermines community businesses that charge for those services, leading to political fallout.

186

Prisoner Reentry at Work

Brown and Severson (2001) identified a number of competitive concerns. In Ocala, Florida, a program that had prisoners mowing grass was terminated, even though this program saved $1.1 million. High unemployment rates caused the Ocala City Council to cancel the prisoner program and hire a private company in hopes that it would create local jobs. Prison-led programs that seek to teach inmates skills will displace individuals currently doing those jobs, causing a political backlash.

A Role for Government The immensity of the challenge cannot solely be handled at the local level, requiring governments at all levels, along with the private sector, to come together in pursuit of a common goal (Joshi, Hawkins, and Novey 2008): “The lack of comprehensive government response to prisoner reentry is influenced by budgetary constraints. Creating new offender programs in prisons as well as in communities would place a significant financial burden on correctional budgets that are already regarded by many as too high” (p. 18). The goal of successful reentry of ex-offenders into their communities requires that government play a significant role but with a host of other players assisting in the process. This responsibility cannot be placed in the private sector. This does not mean that partnerships cannot be developed, but the major portion of funding to support reentry efforts must rest in the hands of government.

The Legal Side of Social Enterprises It is easy to become enthralled with the fundamental premise of social enterprises reaching out to ex-offenders and lose sight of the legal implications for these organizations. These enterprises must contend with immense legal concerns focused on nonprofits and their business ventures, such as tax status and legal protections, in case the organizations are sued for unfair labor practices, for example. As a result, the establishment of pay scales and requirements that participants return part of their incomes to the organization are controversial. The development of legal contracts protecting intellectual rights and guidelines for selling clients’ products through the social enterprise (as

Further Challenges

187

opposed to allowing them to create and sell these products independently) is not restricted to social enterprises. Universities, too, have had to develop procedures and reviews for professor creation of products with commercial potential. These few examples of the legal ramifications for social enterprises highlight how the innovative nature of these establishments has necessitated addressing legal issues that for-profit and human service organizations have not had to contend with.

Conclusion In this book I have raised concerns and sparked a wide range of emotional reactions, as well as hopes for finding innovative solutions to this national concern. The subject matter is clearly not for the faint of heart because it is much easier to ignore the problem, which we, as a nation, have done in the past. However, ignoring ex-offenders and the challenges before us will only make the challenges even greater financially and morally. More specifically, inner cities do not have the option of ignoring a steady stream of former male and female ex-inmates entering their borders. These communities already face a series of challenges in navigating their way through this nation’s economic vicissitudes. The additional burden of ex-offenders will only exacerbate current social, political, and economic conditions. I have made every effort to draw on literature and research from a variety of sources—some conventional and others not. Nevertheless, the solution presented in this book will not work for all returning exoffenders. In fact, some critics of this book may say that only a certain percentage of ex-offenders can be successful in the world of small businesses. I can certainly accept this criticism. One approach cannot possibly meet the challenge of integrating all ex-offenders. It will require multiple strategies. It is my belief that the ultimate solutions to ex-offender reentry challenges will necessitate a variety of initiatives and approaches. It will be like reading a menu at a restaurant with many different items. Exoffenders share many sociodemographic characteristics, particularly in the case of those who are of color and low income/low wealth. In the past, we have approached them as a monolithic group, and that is part of the reason why we have not been successful. Thus, a menu with a wide variety of items to choose from allows for a diversity of tastes and backgrounds. In essence, there is no magic formula that can address the

188

Prisoner Reentry at Work

reentry of all ex-offenders. Each returning ex-offender will need his or her own individualized plan to help readjust to life in the community. Finally, it is my fundamental belief that we as a nation can change our way of thinking about ex-inmates from a deficit perspective to one that is asset driven. What do I mean by this? Namely, ex-offenders have dreams, hopes, and assets that are either waiting to be discovered or rediscovered by them and society or that are simply waiting for an opportunity to be realized.

References

Aday, R. H. (2003). Aging prisoners: Crisis in American corrections. Westport, CT: Praeger. Ahn-Redding, H. (2007). The “million dollar inmate”: The financial and social burden of nonviolent offenders. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Alexander, M. (2010). The new Jim Crow: Mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York: New Press. Alexinas, M. (2008). Working for better outcomes: An inquiry into the rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders through integration in the labour market as part of the criminal justice process. Canterbury, UK: University of Canterbury School of Law. Allard, P., and Mauer, M. (2000). An assessment of activity relating to felon disenfranchisement laws. Washington, DC: The Sentencing Project. Allen, R. S., Phillips, L. L., Lee, L., Cavanaugh, R., and Day, L. (2008). Religious/spirituality and mental health among older male inmates. The Gerontologist, 48, 692–697. Altheide, D. L., and Coyle, M. J. (2006). Smart on crime: The new language for prisoner release. Crime, Media, Culture, 2, 286–303. Anderson, B. (2008). Supportive housing not always welcoming to exprisoners. Washington, DC: Affordable Housing Finance. Anderson-Facile, D. (2009). Basic challenges to prisoner reentry. Sociology Compass, 3 (2), 183–195. Anno, B. J., Graham, C., Lawrence, J. E., and Shansky, R. (2004). Correctional health care: Addressing the needs of elderly, chronically ill, and terminally ill inmates. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Apel, R., and Sweeten, G. (2010). The impact of incarceration on employment during transition to adulthood. Social Problems, 57 (3), 448–479.

189

190

References

Archer, D. N., and Williams, K. S. (2005). Making America “The Land of Second Chances”: Restoring socioeconomic rights for ex-offenders. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 30, 557–623. Archibold, R. C. (2010, March 24). Driven to the financial brink, a state opens the prison doors. New York Times, A1, A14. Arditti, J. A., and Fen, A. L. (2006). Mothers’ reentry into family life following incarceration. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 103–123. Arditti, J. A., and Parkman, T. (2011). Young men’s reentry after incarceration: A developmental paradox. Family Relations, 60 (2), 205–220. Arrigo, B. A., and Takahashi, Y. (2007). Theorizing community reentry for male incarcerates and confined mothers: Lessons learned from housing the homeless. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 46, 133–162. Austin, J., and Handyman, P. L. (2004). The risks and needs of the returning prisoner population. Review of Policy Research, 21, 13–19. Bahr, S. J., Armstrong, A. H., Gibbs, B. G., Harris, P. E. and Fisher, J. K. (2005). The reentry process: How parolees adjust to release from prison. Fathering, 3, 243–265. Baillargeon, J., Giordano, T. P., Rich, J. D., Wu, Z. H., Wells, K., Pollock, B. H., and Paar, D. P. (2009a). Access to antiretroviral therapy following release from prison. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301 (8), 848– 857. Baillargeon, J., Binswanger, I. A., Penn, J. R., Williams, B. A., and Murray, O. J. (2009b). Psychiatric disorders and repeat incarceration: The revolving prison door. American Journal of Psychiatry, 166, 103–109. Ballou, B. R. (2008, March 10). Ex-inmates see a brighter destiny. Boston Globe, B1. Barak, G., Flavin, J., and Leighton, P. (2006). Class, race, gender and crime: The social realities of justice in America, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Barkan, S. F., and Cohn, S. F. (2005). Why Whites favor spending more money to fight crime: The role of racial prejudice. Social Problems, 52, 300–314. Barton, K. (2009). Treatment for individuals with HIV/AIDS following release from prison. Journal of the American Medical Association, 302 (2), 147– 148. Barton, W. H. (2006). Incorporating the strengths perspective into juvenile aftercare. Western Criminology Review, 7, 48–61. Bates, W. D., and Mears, D. P. (2008). Inmate social ties and the transition to society. Crime and Delinquency, 45, 287–321. Bazemore, C., and Stinchcomb, J. (2004). A civic engagement model of reentry: Involving community through service and restorative justice. Federal Probation, 68, 14–24. Bazemore, G., and Karp, D. R. (2005). A civic justice corps: Community services as a means of reintegration. www.cjcj.org/pdf/bazemore.PDF.

References

191

Becerra, H. (2010). LA’s Homeboy Industries lays off most employees. Los Angeles Times, 1. Belenko, S. (2006). Assessing released inmates for substance-abuse-related service needs. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (1), 94–113. Belenko, S., and Peugh, J. (2005). Estimating drug treatment needs among state prison inmates. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 77 (3), 269–281. Bellair, P. E., and Kowalski, B. R. (2011). Low-skill employment opportunity and African American–White difference in recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 48 (2), 176–208. Belluck, P. (2008, July 14). Youthful offenders restoring luster to diners of old. New York Times, A18. Berg, M. T., and Huebner, B. M. (2010). Reentry and the ties that bind: An examination of social ties, employment, and recidivism. Justice Quarterly 28 (2), 382–410. Bergner, D. (2010, March 28). The land of lock and key. New York Times Book Review, 16. Bierens, H. J., and Carvalho, J. R. (2010). Job search, conditional treatment and recidivism: The employment services for ex-offenders program reconsidered. B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis and Policy, 11 (1). Binswanger, I. A., Blatchford, P. J., Lindsay, R. G., and Stern, M. F. (2011). Risk factors for all-cause overdose and early deaths after release from prison in Washington State. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 117 (1), 1–6. Binswanger, I. A., Krueger, P. M., and Steiner, J. F. (2009). Prevalence of chronic medical conditions among jail and prison inmates in the USA compared with the general population. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63 (10), 912–919. Binswanger, I. A., Stern, M. F., Deyo, R. A., Hagerty, P. J., Cheadle, A., Elmore, J. G., and Koespsell, T. O. (2007, January 11). Release from prison—A high risk death for former inmates. New England Journal of Medicine, 356, 157–165. Blackford, M. G. (2003). A history of small business in America, 2nd ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Blackmon, D. A. (2008). Slavery by another name: The re-enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II. New York: Anchor Books. Blakely, E. J., and Bradshaw, T. K. (2002). Planning local economic development: Theory and practice, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Blessing, C., Golden, T. P. and Ruiz-Quintanilla, A. (2008). Community living for inmates. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations. Blitz, C. L., Wolff, N., Pan, K-Y, and Pogorzelski, W. (2005). Gender-specific behavioral health and community release patterns among New Jersey prison inmates: Implications for treatment and community reentry. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1741–1746.

192

References

Bloom, D. (2006). Employment-focused programs for ex-prisoners: What have we learned, what are we learning, and where should we go from here? Ann Arbor, MI: National Poverty Center. Blumstein, A., and Beck, J. A. (2005). Reentry as a transcient state between liberty and recommitment. In J. Travis and C. Visher (eds.), Prisoner reentry and crime in America (pp. 50–79). New York: Cambridge University Press. Blumstein, A., and Nakamura, K. (2009). Redemption in the presence of widespread criminal background checks. Criminology, 47 (2), 327–359. Bonhomme, J., Stephens, T., and Braithwaite, R. (2006). African American males in the United States prison system: Impact on family and community. Journal of Men’s Health and Gender, 3 (4), 223–226. Bossler, A. M. (2004). The employment status dichotomy: Understanding what this means and using it. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 13–38). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Boston Globe (2008, June 24). Editorial. Out of jail, on the rolls. A10. Bosworth, M., Campbell, D., Dmby, B., Ferranti, S. M. and Santos, M. (2005). Doing prison research: Views from the inside. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 249–264. Boyes-Watson, C. (2006). The value of citizen participation in restorative/ community justice: Lessons from Vermont. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 687–692. Boyle, G. (2005). The voice of those who sing. Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality, 5 (1), 79–87. Boyle, G. (2009, August 8). Homeboy Industries: producing hope. www .huffingtonpost.com/fr-gregory-boyle/homeboy-industries-produc_b_254 678.html. Boyle, G. (2010a). Tattoos on the heart: The power of boundless compassion. New York: Free Press. Boyle, G. (2010b). The challenge of serving a diverse Church: Being Christ for others. Catholic Education, 13 (3), 380–391. Braithwaite, K. (2008). Health is a human right, right? American Journal of Public Health, 98 (Suppl.1), S5-S7. Braman, D. (2002). Families and incarceration. In M. Mauer and M. ChesneyLind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 117–135). New York: New Press. Brand, A. L. (2007). Restructuring social and spatial justice in dialectical time. Cambridge, MA: MIT Department of Urban Studies and Planning. Brazzell, D. (2007). Informing and engaging communities through reentry mapping. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Brink, B. (2008, October 20). Medical neglect is the norm in women’s prisons. Ms. Magazine, 23.

References

193

Brisman, A. (2003). Double whammy: Collateral consequences of conviction and imprisonment for sustainable communities and the environment. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 28, 423–465. Brooker, D. J. (2005). Exploring the expectations and attitudes of recently released inmates from the Texas prison system: A focus on familial support in the reentry process. Diss., Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, Texas. Brooks, L. E., Visher, C. A., and Naser, R. L. (2006). Community residents’ perceptions of prisoner reentry in selected Cleveland neighborhoods. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Brown, C. (2011). Vocational psychology and ex-offenders’ reintegration: A call for action. Journal of Career Assessment, 19 (3), 333–341. Brown, G. (2010). The intersectionality of race, gender, and reentry: Challenges for African American women. Issue Brief. Washington, DC: American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. Brown, J. W. (2003). The female inmate. In International Encyclopedia of Justice Studies. www.iejs.com/Corrections/female_inmate.htm. Brown, N., Griffis, R., Hamilton, K., Irish, S., and Kanouse, S. (2007). What makes justice spatial? What makes spaces just?: Three interviews on the concept of spatial justice. Critical Planning: UCLA Journal of Urban Planning, Summer, 7–28. Brown, R., and Severson, K. (2011, February 25). Enlisting prison labor to close budget gaps. New York Times, A14, A16. Brown-Dean, K. L. (2007). Permanent outsiders: Felon disenfranchisement and the breakdown of Black politics. In G. A. Persons (ed.), The expanding boundaries of Black politics (pp. 103–120). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Bui, H. N., and Morash, M. (2010). The impact of network relationships, prison experiences, and internal transformation on women’s success after release. Journal of Offender Counseling Services Rehabilitation, 49 (1), 1–22. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010, June 23). Number of state prisoners declined by almost 3,000 during 2009; federal prison population increased by 6,800. Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Burk, M. L. (2000). Getting back to work: Employment programs for exoffenders. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Burnett, J. H. (2010, May 1). Tough love has made Delancey Street Foundation successful. Miami Herald, 4. Burnett, R., and Maruna, S. (2006). The kindness of prisoners: Strengths-based resettlement in theory and action. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 83– 106. Bushway, S., Stoll, M. A., and Weiman, D. F. (eds.). (2007). Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

194

References

Butterfield, F. (2004, May 4). Repaving the long road out of prison: Rehabilitation is now ‘reentry,’ and it finds favor with lawmakers. New York Times, A18. Butzin, C. A., Martin, S. S., and Inciardi, J. A. (2005). Treatment during transition from prison to community and subsequent illicit drug use. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 28, 351–358. Cain, H. L. (2003). Comment: Housing our criminals: Finding housing for the ex-offender in the twenty first century. Golden Gate University Law Review, 131. Campbell, D. (2006). Assessing the effectiveness of faith-based programs: A local network perspective. Journal of Religion and Spirituality in Social Work, 25, 241–259. Campbell, M. C. (2007). Criminal disenfranchisement in California: A deviant case study. Punishment and Society, 9, 177–199. Carlson, P. M. (2004). Something to lose: A balanced and reality-based rationale for institutional programming. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.). Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 75–83).Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Caverley, S. J. (2006). Older mentally ill inmates: A descriptive study. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 12, 1–7. Centre for Clinical and Academic Workforce Innovation. (2007). A guide to implementing the New Futures Health Trainer role across the criminal justice system. Brayford Pool, Lincoln, England. Chandler, R. K., Fletcher, B. W., and Volkow, N. D. (2009). Treating drug abuse and addiction in the criminal justice system. Journal of the American Medical Society, 301 (2), 183–190. Cheliotis, L. K. (2009). Before the next storm: Some evidence-based reminders about temporary release. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53 (4), 420–432. Chen, M. K., and Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Does prison harden inmates? A discontinuity-based approach. New Haven, CT: Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers, Cowles Foundation, Yale University. Chesney-Lind, M. (2002). Imprisoning women: The unintended victims of mass imprisonment. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 79– 94). New York: New Press. Chin, G. J. (2002). Race, the War on Drugs, and the collateral consequences of criminal conviction. Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, 6, 253–254. Choi, D. Y., and Kiesner, F. (2007). Homeboy Industries: An incubator of hope and businesses. Entrepreneurship: Theory and Practice, 31 (5), 769–786. Christensen, P. (2007). Commentary: Extreme cause-specific mortality in a cohort of adult prisoners—1988 to 2002: A date-linked study. International Journal of Epidemiology, 36, 317–318.

References

195

Christian, J., Mellow, J., and Thomas, S. (2006). Social and economic implications of family connectedness to prisoners. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 443–452. Christian Science Monitor. (2002, January 14). Help for older ex-prisoners, 1. Clear, T. (2007). Improving communities: How mass incarceration makes neighborhoods worse. New York: Oxford University Press. Clear, T., Rose, D., and Ryder, J. A. (2001). Incarceration and the community: The problem of removing and returning offenders. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 335–351. Clear, T., Rose, D., Waring, E., and Scully, K. (2003). Coercive mobility and crime: A preliminary examination of concentrated incarceration and social disorganization. Justice Quarterly, 20, 33–64. Clear, T., and Sumter, M. (2002). Prisoner, prison, and religion: Religion and adjustment to prison. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 35, 127–159. Cnaan, R. A., Draine, J., Frazier, B., and Sinha, J. W. (2008). Ex-prisoner reentry: An emerging frontier and a social work challenge. Journal of Policy Practice, 7, 178–198. Codd, H. (2008). In the shadow of prison: Families, imprisonment and criminal justice. Portland, OR: Willan Publishing. Cole, D. (2009, November 19). Can our shameful prisons be reformed? New York Review of Books, 55 (18), 1–5. Colgan, B. A. (2007). The presidential politics of prisoner reentry reform. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 110–123. Colimore, E. (2005, June 7). More inmates older, straining health expenses. Philadelphia Inquirer, 6. Collins, D., and O’Neill, D. (2006). Health needs of older prisoners. Lancet, 368, 842. Collins, M. A. (2009). A collaborative model: Cayuga Correctional Facility and St. Margaret’s Church accepting ex-offenders into the pew. New York: Union Theological Seminary. Collins-Molden, J. (2009). Unlocking doors for the locked-out: How can community colleges help demolish barriers, build bridges, and transition male ex-offenders into the workforce. Chicago: National-Louis University. Colson, C. (2004). Foreword. In P. Nolan and C. Colson. When prisoners return: Why we should care and how you and your church can help (pp. xi– xiii). Landowne, VA: Prison Fellowship. Committee on Psychiatry and the Community. Group for Advancement of Psychiatry. (2009). Jailing is failing people with mental illness. Psychiatric Services, 60 (3), 723. Constantine, R., Andel, R., Petrila, J., Becker, M., Roberts, J., Teague, G., Boaz, T., and Howe, A. (2010). Characteristics and experiences of adults with a serious mental illness who are involved in the criminal justice system. Psychiatric Services, 61 (5), 451–457.

196

References

Contardo, J., and Tolbert, M. (2008). Prison postsecondary education: Bridging learning from incarceration to the community. New York: John Jay Prisoner Reentry Institute. Conte, C. (2008, July 28). Small business in U.S. history. http://www.america .gov. Cooper, M., Sabol, W. J., and West, H. C. (2009). Prisoners in 2008 (NCJ 228417). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Correctional Association of New York. (2000). Health care in New York state prison: A report of findings and recommendations by the prison visiting committee of the Correctional Association. New York. Cose, E. (2006, April 24). The dawn of a new movement. www.msnbc.msn .com/id/12334540/site/newsweek. Coulton, C. (2005). The place of community in social work practice research: Conceptual and methodological developments. Social Work Research, 29, 73–86. Crawley, E. (2004). Release and resettlement: The perspectives of older prisoners. Crime and Justice Studies, 56, 32–33. Crawley, E. (2005). Institutional thoughtlessness in prisons and its impact on day-to-day prison lives of elderly men. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 350–363. Crutchfield, R. D. (2007). Abandon felon disenfranchisement policies. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 707–715. Dale, C. V. (2002). No fault eviction of public housing tenants for illegal drug use: A legal analysis of Department of Housing and Urban Development v. Rucker. CRS Report for Congress. Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC. D’Amico, J. (2007). “Ask and you will receive”: Creating faith-based programs for former inmates. Corrections Today, December, 1–5. Darke, S. (2008). From the can to the coffin: Deaths among recently released prisoners. Addiction, 10, 256–257. Davey, M. (2010, September 19). Touching off debate, Missouri tells judges costs of sentences. New York Times, 1, 4. Davis, L. M., and Pacchianna, S. (2004). Health profile of the state prison population and returning offenders: Public health challenges. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10, 303–321. Decker, S. H. (2007). The relationship between the street and prison. Criminology and Public Policy, 6, 183–186. Delancey Street Foundation. (1999a). Program database. San Francisco, CA. Delancey Street Foundation. (1999b). Learning new skills. San Francisco, CA. Delancey Street Foundation. (2007). How we work. San Francisco, CA. Delancey Street Foundation. (2010a). Delancey Street, San Francisco. San Francisco, CA. Delancey Street Foundation. (2010b). What we believe. San Francisco, CA.

References

197

Delancey Street Foundation. (2010c). Frequently asked questions. San Francisco, CA. Delgado, M. (2000). Community social work practice in an urban context: The potential of a capacity enhancement paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press. Delgado, M. (2001). Where are all of the young men and women of color? Capacity-enhancement practice in correctional supervision. New York: Columbia University Press. Delgado, M. (2004). Social youth entrepreneurship: The potential for youth and community transformation. Westport, CT: Praeger. Delgado, M. (2007). Social work practice with Latinos: A cultural assets paradigm. New York: Oxford University Press. Delgado, M. (2011). Latino small businesses and the American dream: Community social work practice and economic and social development. New York: Columbia University Press. Delgado, M. (In press). Social justice and the crisis of obesity in urban America: The potential for the social work profession. New York: Columbia University Press. Delgado, M., and Humm-Delgado, D. (2009). Health and health care in the nation’s prisons: Issues, challenges, and policies. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Delgado, M., and Santiago, J. (1998). Botanical shops in a Puerto Rican/ Dominican community in New England: Implications for health and human services. Social Work, 43 (3), 183–186. Demeo, M. J., and Ochoa, S. A. (2003). Diminished voting power in the Latino community: The impact of felony disenfranchisement laws in ten targeted states. Los Angeles, CA: Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund. Derlega, V. J., Winstead, B. A., and Brockington, J. E. (2008). AIDS stigma among inmates and staff in a USA state prison. International Journal of STD and AIDS, 19 (3), 259–263. Dhami, M. K. (2005). Prisoner disenfranchisement policy: A threat to democracy? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 5 (1), 235–247. Draine, J., Wolff, N., Jacoby, J. E., Hartwell, S., and Ducios, C. (2005). Understanding community reentry of former prisoners with mental illness: A conceptual model to guide new research. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 23 (5), 689–707. Ducksworth, J. (2010). The prisoner reentry industry? Dialectical Anthropology, 34 (4), 557–561. Dumas, L. (1994). Reintegrating Black male ex-inmates into community, family, and the church through ministry. Chicago: McCormick Theological Seminary. Duran, R. J. (2009). The core ideals of the Mexican American gang living the presentation of defiance. Aztlan: A Journal of Chicano Studies, 34 (2), 99–134.

198

References

Dyb, E. (2009). Imprisonment: A major gateway to homelessness. Housing Studies, 24 (6), 809–824. Eber, G. B. (2009). Using the constitution to improve prisoner health. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (9), 1541–1542. Eckholm, E. (2006, August 12). Help for the hardest part of prison: Staying out. New York Times, A19 Eckholm, E. (2008a, April 8). U.S. shifting prison focus to reentry into society. New York Times, A23. Eckholm, E. (2008b, May 17). New tack on straying parolees offers a hand instead of cuffs. New York Times, A16. Eckholm, E. (2009, July 5). With high numbers of prisoners comes a tide of troubled children. New York Times, 13, 17. Edwards, K. A. (2000). Stigmatizing the stigmatized: A note on the mentally ill prison inmate. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44 (4), 480–489. Ekstrand, L. E. (2001, July 20). Prisoner released: Reintegration of offenders into communities. Testimony before the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives. Washington, DC: GAO-01-966T Fagan, J., West, V., and Holland, J. (2003). Reciprocal effects of crime and incarceration in New York City neighborhoods. Columbia Law School: Public Law and Legal Paper Working Group, Paper No. 03-54. Fahey, J., Roberts, C., and Engel, L. (2006). Employment of ex-offenders: Employer perspectives. Criminal Justice Institute, i–34. Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Falk, A., Walkowitz, G., and Wirth, W. (2008). Do ex-offenders face discrimination in the labor market? Because of expected inferior reciprocity? www.uni-graz.at/socialpolitik/papers/Walkowitz.pdf. Farmer, P. (2002). The house of the dead: Tuberculosis and incarceration. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 239–257). New York: New Press. Fazel, S., Bains, P., and Doll, H. (2006). Substance abuse and dependence in prisoners: A systematic review. Addictions, 101 (2), 181–191. Fazel, S., Hope, T., O’Donnell, I., and Jacoby, R. (2004). Unmet treatment needs of older prisoners: A primary care survey. Age and Ageing, 33, 396–398. Ferguson, K. M. (2007). Implementing a social enterprise intervention with homeless, street-living youths in Los Angeles. Social Work, 52 (2), 103–112. Feuer, A. (2002, June 27). For ex-convicts, a bed, a view, a new outlook: Call it the Castle, or just call it home. New York Times, A18. Fine, M., and Torre, M. E. (2006). Intimate details. Action Research, 4, 253–269. Finlay, K. (2008). Effect of employer access to criminal history data on the labor market outcomes of ex-offenders and non-offenders. National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 13935.

References

199

Finn, R. (2011, April 3). Unbound, holding the keys to a castle. New York Times, 22. Flanigan, J. (2008, March 20). A budding conglomerate is really a home for exgang members. New York Times, C5. Fleisher, M. S., and Krienert, J. L. (2004). Drug selling: A rational choice. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 192–210).Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Fox, K. J. (2010). Second chances: A comparison of civic engagement in offender reentry programs. Criminal Justice Review, 35 (3), 335–353. Freeman, R. (2003) Can we close the revolving door? Recidivism vs. employment of ex-offenders in the US. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University National Bureau of Economic Research. Fremon, C. (2004). G-Dog and the homeboys: Father Greg Boyle and the gangs of East Los Angeles. Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. Freudenberg, N., Daniels, J., Crum, M., Perkins, T., and Richie, B. E. (2005). Coming home from jail: The social and health consequences of community reentry for women, male adolescents and their families and communities. American Journal of Public Health, 95 (10), 1725–1736. Gaiter, J. L., Potter, R. H., and O’Leary, A. (2006). Disproportionate rates of incarceration contribute to health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 96 (10), 1148–1149. Gallagher, E. M. (2001). Elders in prison: Health and well-being of older inmates. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 24 (2–3), 325–333. Gardner, J. (2010). Beyond “making it” or not: Future talk by incarcerated young men. Urban Education, 45 (1), 75–102. Garland, B., Wodahl, E. J., and Mayfield, J. (2011). Prisoner reentry in a small metropolitan community: Obstacles and policy recommendations. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22 (1), 90–110. Gates, G. G., and Kendig, N. (2003). Skill sets and health care needs of released offenders. In J. Travis and M. Waul (eds.), Prisoners once removed: The impact of incarceration and reentry on children, families, and communities (pp. 105–153). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Geller, A., and Curtis, M. A. (2011). A sort of homecoming: Incarceration and the housing security of urban men. Social Science Research, 40 (4), 1196– 1213. General Accountability Office. (2001). Prisoner releases: Trends and information on reintegration programs. Washington, DC. Gibson, C., Robertson, D., and Daniels, A. (2009). African American women on the possibilities of a relationship with an ex-offender. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37 (4), 328–332. Gideon, L. (2010). Substance abusing inmates: Experiences of recovering drug addicts on their way back home. New York: Springer.

200

References

Giguere, R., and Dundes, L. (2002). Help wanted: A survey of employer concerns about hiring ex-convicts. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 13 (4), 396–408. Giles, M., and Le, A. T. (2009). Investment in human capital during incarceration and employment prospects for prisoners. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labour. Glaze, L. E., and James, D. J. (2006). Mental health problems of prison and jail inmates (NCJ 213600). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Goldsmith, S., and Eimicke, W. B. (2008). Moving men into the mainstream: Best practices in prisoner reentry assistance. Civic Bulletin, 51, 1–12. Golembeski, C., and Fullilove, R. (2005). Criminal (in)justice in the city and its associated health consequences. American Journal of Public Health, 95 (10), 1701–1706. Goodman, P. (2008). “It’s just Black, White, or Hispanic”: An observational study of racializing moves in California’s segregated prison reception centers. Law and Society Review, 43 (4), 735–770. Grant, A. (1999). Elderly inmates: Issues for Australia. Australian Institute of Criminology: Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 115, 1–6. Gray, J. P. (2007). Policy options for the future. In J. E. Lessenger and G. F. Roper (eds.), Drug courts: A new approach to treatment and rehabilitation (pp. 414–428). New York: Springer. Green, F. (2009, January 5). Virginia inmates grow old behind bars. Media General News Service. www.wsls.com/sls/news/state_regional/article /Virginia_inmates_grow_old_behind_bars/24147. Greenberg, D. F. (2006). Criminological research and crime control policy: Not a marriage made in heaven. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 203–212. Greenhouse, S. (2011, January 25). Job placement, with a record: States help find work (and hope) for ex-convicts. New York Times, B1, B4. Gregory, K. (2008, April 19). Teaching ex-offenders about their voting rights. Philadelphia Inquirer, B1. Greiger, B. (2006). The case for treating ex-offenders as a suspect class. California Law Review, 94, 1191–1245. Griffiths, C. T., Dandurand, Y., and Murdoch, D. (2007). The social reintegration of offenders and crime prevention. Ottawa, Canada: The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy. Griswold, E. A., and Pearson, J. (2005). Turning offenders into responsible parents and child support payers. Family Court Review, 43, 358–371. Gubler, T., and Petersilia, J. (2006). Elderly prisoners are literally dying for reform. Palo Alto, CA: California Sentencing and Corrections Policy Series, Stanford Criminal Justice Center Working Papers. Gunnison, E., and Helfgott, J. B. (2011). Factors that hinder offender reentry success: A view from community corrections officers. International

References

201

Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (2), 287– 304. Haas, S. M., and Hamilton, C. A. (2007). Use of core correctional practices in offender reentry: The delivery of transitional services and prisoner preparedness. Charleston, WV: Mountain State Correctional Justice Research Services. Hairston, C. F. (ed.). (2008). Coming home from prison: Family matters. Columbus, OH: Institute for Excellence in Justice. Hale, J. F., Brewer, A. M., and Ferguson, W. (2008). Correctional health primary care: Research and educational opportunities. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14, 278–289. Hallett, M. (2011). Reentry to what? Theorizing prisoner reentry in the jobless future. Critical Criminology, 1 (1), 1–16. Hals, K. (2003). From locked up to locked out: Creating and implementing post-release housing for ex-prisoners. Seattle, WA: AIDS Housing of Washington. Halter, M. (1995). New migrants in the marketplace: Boston’s ethnic entrepreneurs. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Hammett, T. M., Roberts, C., and Kennedy, S. (2001). Health-related issues in prisoner reentry. Crime and Delinquency, 47 (3), 390–409. Hampden-Turner, C. (1976). Sane asylum: Inside the Delancey Street Foundation. San Francisco, CA: San Francisco Book Company. Hannon, L., and DeFina, R. (2010). The state of the economy and the relationship between prisoner reentry and crime. Social Problems, 57 (4), 611–629. Harding, A., and Harding, J. (2006). Inclusion and exclusion in re-housing of former prisoners. Probation Journal, 53, 137–153. Harding, D. J. (2003). Jean Valjean’s dilemma: The management of ex-convict identity in the search for employment. Deviant Behavior, 24, 571–595. Harman, J. S., Smith, V. E., and Egan, L. C. (2007). The impact of incarceration on intimate relationship. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 794–815. Harris, K. (2006). Holding offenders accountable: Why reentry matters. Prosecutor, 40, 32–34, 36–37. Harris, P. M., and Keller, K. S. (2005). Ex-offenders need not apply: The criminal background check in hiring decisions. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 21, 6–31. Harrison, B., and Schehr, R. S. (2004). Offenders and post-release jobs: Variables influencing success and failure. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39, 35–59. Hartfree, Y., Dearden, C., and Pound, E. (2008). High hopes: Supporting exprisoners in their lives after prison. Research Report, Great Britain Department of Work and Pensions, 509.

202

References

Hartwell, S. (ed.). (2005). The organizational response to persons with mental illness involvement with the criminal justice system. San Diego, CA: Elsevier. Hartwell, S. (2010). Ex-inmates with psychiatric disabilities returning to the community from correctional custody: The forensic transition team approach after a decade. In T. I. K. Youn (ed.), New approaches to social problems treatment. Research in social problems and public policy, volume 17, (pp. 263–283). Emerald Group. Harvey, D. (2009). Social justice and the city, rev. ed. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Haslewood-Pocsik, I., Brown, S., and Spencer, J. (2008). A not so well-lit path: Employers’ perceptions on employing ex-offenders. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 47 (1), 18–30. Hawkins, A. S., O’Keefe, A. M., and James, X. (2010). Health care access and utilization among ex-offenders in Baltimore: Implications for policy. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 21 (2), 649–665. Hay, A. M. (1995). Concepts of equity, fairness and justice in geographical studies. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 20, 500–508. Hayes, M. O. (2008). The lived experiences of mothering after prison: The preliminary study. Journal of Forensic Nursing, 4, 61–67. Heller, W. (2006). Poverty: The most challenging condition of prisoner release. Georgetown Journal of Poverty Law and Policy, 13, 219–249. Henderson, M. L., and Hanley, D. (2006). Planning for quality: A strategy for reentry initiatives. Western Criminology Review, 7, 62–78. Henderson, T.-N. Y. (2005). New frontiers in fair lending: Confronting lending discrimination against ex-offenders. New York University Law Review, 80, 1237–1271. Henry, J. S. (2008). Closing the legal services gap in prisoner reentry programs. Criminal Justice Studies, 21, 15–25. Heroux, P. (2009). Reincarceration in Philadelphia: All discharged inmates from 2000–2006. [email protected]. Herrschaft, B. A., Veysey, B. M., Tubman-Carbone, H. R., and Christian, J. (2009). Gender differences in the transformation narrative: Implications for revised reentry strategies for female offenders. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48 (6), 463–482. Hidalgo, E. (2006, March 17). Homeboy Industries breaks ground for new bakery. The-Tidings.com. http://www.the-tidings.com/2006/0317/homeboy .htm. Higgins, D., and Severson, M. E. (2009). Community reentry and older adult offenders. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 52 (8), 784–802.

References

203

Hirsch, A. E., Dietrich, S. M., Landau, R., Schneider, P. D., Ackelberg, I., Bernstein-Baker, J., and Honenstein, J. (2002). Every door closed: Barriers facing parents with criminal records. Ch. 3 (pp. 45–55). Hirschfield, P. J. (2008). Preparing for prison? The criminalization of school discipline in the USA. Theoretical Criminology, 12 (1), 79–101. Hirschfield, P. J., and Piquero, A. R. (2010). Normalization and legitimization: Modeling stigmatizing attitudes toward ex-offenders. Criminology, 48 (1), 27–55. Hochstetter, A., DeLisi, M., and Pratt, T. C. (2008). Social support and feelings of hostility among released inmates. Crime and Delinquency, 54, (4), 588– 607. Holifield, R. (2001). Defining environmental justice and environmental racism. Urban Geography, 22, 78–90. Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., and Stoll, M. A. (2002). Can employers play a more positive role in prisoner reentry? Working discussion paper for the Urban Institute’s Reentry Roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., and Stoll, M.A. (2004). The effect of an applicant’s criminal history on employer hiring decisions and screening practices: Evidence from Los Angeles. Ann Arbor, MI: National Poverty Center Working Series, University of Michigan. Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., and Stoll, M. A. (2006). Employers in the boom: How did the hiring of less-skilled workers change during the 1990s? Review of Economics and Statistics, 68, 283–299. Homeboy Industries. (2010a). Homegirl Café and Catering. www.homeboy -industries.org/homegirl-cafe.php. Homeboy Industries. (2010b). Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery. www .homeboy-industries.org/homeboy-silkscreen.php. Homeboy Industries. (2010c). Community service. http://www.homeboy -industries.org/community-service.php. Homeboy Industries. (2010d). Mental Health Services, including Substance Abuse Counseling and Intervention Programs. www.homeboy-industries.org /mental-health-counseling.php. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26, 65–87. Horton, A. (2011). Heroin users: The need for improved treatment for incarcerated women. Social Work in Public Health, 26 (1), 176–188. Houston, Sr., K. T. (2008). The church’s return policy: Equipping the church to minister to ex-offenders. Dayton, OH: United Theological Seminary. Howerton, A., Burnetts, R., Bying, R., and Campbell, J. (2009). The consolation of going back to prison: What “revolving door” prisoners think of their prospects. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48 (5), 439–467.

204

References

Hudson, A. L., Nyamathi, A., Bhattacharya, D., Marlow, E., Shoptaw, S., Marfisee, M., and Leake, B. (2011). Impact of prison status on HIV-related risk behaviors. AIDS and Behavior, 15 (2), 340–346. Hurry, J., Brazier, L., Parker, M., and Wilson, A. (2006). Rapid evidence assessment of interventions that promote employment for offenders. London: National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy, University of London. Illinois Criminal Justice Authority. (2007). Community reentry challenges daunt ex-offender quest for a fresh start. Illinois Research Brief, 2, 1–4. Iwata, E. (2005, July 7). Homeboy Industries goes gang-busters. USA Today, 1. Jackson, D. Z. (2008, March 15). Prisoners of sentencing politics. Boston Globe, A11. Jacobi, J. (2005, October 1). Prison health, public health, obligations and opportunities. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 31 (4), 447. Jacobs, A. (2008a, April 27). Crime-ridden Newark tries getting jobs for exconvicts, but finds success elusive. New York Times, 26. Jacobs, A. (2008b, April 27). Seeking the key to employment for ex-cons. New York Times, A20. Johnson, B. R. (2004). Religious programs and recidivism among former inmates in prison fellowship programs: A long-term follow-up study. Justice Quarterly, 21, 329–354. Johnson, B. R. (2008). Not by government nor faith alone: Rethinking prisoner reentry. Waco, TX: Baylor University. Johnson, R. (2008, September 29). A survival guide for ex-inmates. Times Union (Albany, NY), 1. Jones, C. (2007, December 14). Upon release from prison, some can feel lost: States try to keep ex-inmates free by giving them “better chance to succeed.” USA Today, 5A. Jones, J., and Flynn, E. (2008). Cops and corrections: Reentry collaborations for public safety. Corrections Today, 70 (2), 26–29. Jones, L. N., and Brewster, L. E. (2005). Help! My loved one is in prison. Washington, DC: Conquest Books. Jones, M. (2005). To examine successful models of social enterprise that can be promoted across Australia: Research conducted across the UK and USA during March–June 2005. Paddington, New South Wales, Australia: Social Academy. Jonnson, P. (2003, September 5). As prisoners age, should they go free? Christian Science Monitor, 1. Jordan, A. (2006). Tapping the power of social networks: Understanding the role of social networks in strengthening families and transforming communities. Baltimore, MD: Annie E. Casey Foundation. Jordan, M. (2009, February 14). Homeboy Industries. Wall Street Journal, 1.

References

205

Jordan-Zachery, J. S. (2008). A declaration of war: An analysis of how the invisibility of Black women makes them targets of the War on Drugs. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, 29, 231–259. Joshi, P., Hawkins, S., and Novey, J. (2008). Innovations in effective compassion. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International. Jucovy, L. (2006). Just out: Early lessons from the Ready4Work Prisoners Reentry Institute. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Karus, D., Raveis, V. H., Ratcliffe, M., Rosenfeld, H. A., and Higginson, I. J. (2007). Health status and service needs of male inmates seriously ill with HIV/AIDS at two large urban jails. American Journal of Men’s Health, 1 (3), 213–228. Katel, P. (2009). Prisoner reentry: Can aid to ex-inmates significantly reduce recidivism? CQ Researcher, 19 (42), 1–33. Katvin, C. H., Barnett, B., Lockwood, S., Nally, J., Swain, K., Boyle, C., Hughes, J. W., Fillmore, J., Jamison, P., and Born, D. (eds.). (2009). Facilitating employment for persons who are ex-offenders. Anderson, IN: Support and Employment Consultation and Training Center of Aspire Indiana Behavioral Health Systems. Keegan, S., and Solomon, A. L. (2004). Prisoner reentry in Virginia. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Kelly, L. S. (2010). Reentry programs, from an anti-conventional ex-offender. Dialectical Anthropology, 34 (4), 491–495. Kenemore, T. K., and Roldan, I. (2006). Staying straight: Lessons from exoffenders. Clinical Social Work Journal, 34, 1, 5–21. Kennedy, S. S., and Garcia, C. (2006). Research report and preliminary recommendations: Ex-offender transitional employment project Workforce, Inc. Purdue: Indiana University, School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Kerbs, J. J., and Jolley, J. M. (2008). A commentary on age segregation for older prisoners. Critical Justice Review, 34 (1), 119–139. Kethineni, S., and Falcone, D. H. (2007). Employment and ex-offenders in the United States: Effects of legal and extra legal factors. Probation Journal, 54, 36–51. King, R. S. (2008). Expanding the vote: State felony disenfranchisement. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project. King, R. S., and Mauer, M. (2004). The vanishing Black electorate: Felony disenfranchisement in Atlanta, Georgia. Washington, DC: Sentencing Project. Klekar, R. F., and Ting, D. I. (2004). Using a collaborative approach with criminal justice clients: A promising narrative. Journal of Systematic Therapies, 23, 64–77. Krannich, R. L. (2008). Best jobs for ex-offenders: 101 opportunities to jumpstart your new life. Manassas Park, VA: Impact Publication.

206

References

Krienert, J. L. (2005). Bridging the gap between prison and community employment: An initial assessment of current information. Criminal Justice Studies, 18, 293–303. Krienert, J. L., and Fleisher, M. S. (2004). Economic rehabilitation: A reassessment of the link between employment and crime. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 39–56). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Krisberg, B., and Marchionna, S. (2006). Attitudes of US voters toward prisoner rehabilitation and reentry policies. Focus: Views from the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, April, 1–6. Kroeger, B. (2004, March 20). When a dissertation makes a difference: A young sociologist whose prison studies had a broad impact. New York Times, A15. Kroop, F., McHugh, R. K., Lincoln, M., Hien, D., and Miele, G. M. (2007). Substance abuse treatment on entry, retention, and outcome in women: A review of the literature. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 86 (1), 1–21. Kubrin, C. E., and Stewart, E. A. (2006). Predicting who re-offends: The neglected role of neighborhood context in recidivism studies. Criminology, 44, 165–197. Kulkami, S. P., Baldwin, S., Lightstone, A. S., Gilberg, L., and Diamant, A. L. (2010). Is incarceration a contributor to health disparities?: Access to care of the formerly incarcerated adults. Journal of Community Health, 35 (3), 268–274. Kurlychek, M. (2010). Transforming attitudinal change into behavioral change: The missing link. Criminology and Public Policy, 9 (1), 119–125. Kurlychek, M., and Kempinen, C. (2006). Beyond boot camp: The impact of after- care on offender reentry. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 363–388. Kushel, M. B., Hahn, J. A., Evans, J. L., Bangsberg, D. R., and Moss, A. R. (2005). Revolving doors: Imprisonment among the homeless and marginally housed population. American Journal of Public Health, 95, 1747–1752. Laub, J. H., and Sampson, R. J. (2004). Strategies for bridging the quantitative and qualitative divide: Studying crime over the life course. Research in Human Development, 1, 81–99. La Vigne, N. G., Brooks, L. E., and Shollenberger, T. L. (2009). Women on the outside: Understanding the experiences of female prisoners returning to Houston, Texas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. La Vigne, N. G., and Cowan, J. (2005). Mapping prisoner reentry: An action research guidebook. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. La Vigne, N. G, Mamalian, C., Travis, J., and Visher, J. (2003). A portrait of reentry in Illinois. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

References

207

La Vigne, N. G., Solomon, A. L., Beckman, K., and Johnson, K. D. (2006). Prisoner reentry and community policing: Strategies for enhancing public safety. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Justice Policy Center. La Vigne, N. G., and Thomson, G. L. (2003). A portrait of prisoner reentry in Ohio. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. La Vigne, N. G., Wolf, S. J., and Jametta, J. (2004). Voices of experience: Focus group findings on prisoner reentry in the State of Rhode Island. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Leadbeater, C. (2007). Social enterprises and social innovation: Strategies for the next ten years. London: Office of the Third Sector. LeBet, T. P., Burnett, R., Maruna, S., and Bushway, S. (2008). The ‘chicken and egg’ of subjective and social factors in desistance from crime. European Journal of Criminology, 5, 131–159. Lee, E. K. (2010). The centerpiece to real reform? Political, legal, and social barriers to reentry in California. Hastings Race and Poverty Journal, 7, 243. Legal Action Center. (2004). A report by the Legal Action Center. New York City. Leinwand, D. (2007, July 23). Ex-cons’ sentences don’t always end with release: Criminal record can limit aid, opportunities after prison. USA Today, 3A. Lengyel, T. E. (2006). Spreading the pain: The social costs of incarcerating parents. New York: Healing the Divide. Lerman, R. I. (2010). Expanding apprenticeships: A way to enhance skills and careers. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Leverentz, A. (2006). The love of a good man? Romantic relationships as a source of support or hindrance for female ex-offenders. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 43, 459–488. Leverentz, A. (2010). People, places, and things: How female ex-prisoners negotiate their neighborhood context. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 39 (6), 646–681. Lichtenberger, E., and Ogle, T. (2008). Utilizing post-release outcome information to measure the effectiveness of correctional education programs. Washington, DC: US Department of Education. Liptak, A. (2011, May 24). Justices order California to cut prison crowding. New York Times, A1, A3. Loeb, S. J., and Dagga, A. A. (2006). Health-related research on older inmates: An integrative review. Research in Nursing and Health, 29, 556–565. London, A. S., and Myers, N. A. (2006). Race, incarceration, and health: A lifecourse approach. Research on Aging, 28, 409–422. London, A. S., and Parker, W. M. (2009). Incarceration and living arrangements: Findings from the National Health and Social Life Survey. Journal of Family Issues, 30 (6), 787–812. Lopez, M. H., and Livingston, G. (2009). Hispanics and the criminal justice system: Low confidence, high exposure. Washington, DC: Pew Hispanic Center.

208

References

Los Angeles Times. (2010a). Father Boyle’s story sticks on L.A. http://projects .latimes.com/mapping-la/neighborhoods/neighborhood/boyle-heights. Los Angeles Times. (2010b). What price hope? http://articles.latimes.com/2010 /sep/15/local/la-me-homeboy-industries–20100914. Louis, E. (2006, November 10). What N.Y. owes ex-cons—and their neighbors. New York Daily News, 49. Lowenkamp, C. T., and Latessa, E. J. (2005). Developing successful: Reentry programs: Lessons learned from the “what works” research. Corrections Today, 67, 72–77. Lucken, K., and Ponte, L. M. (2008). A just measure of forgiveness: Reforming occupational licensing regulations for ex-offenders using BFOQ analysis. Law and Policy, 30, 46–72. Lynch, J. (2006). Prisoner reentry: Beyond program evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 401–412. Lynch, J., and Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner reentry in perspective. Crime Policy Report. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Lynch, J., and Skinner, S. (2004). Resettling mentally ill offenders. Criminal Justice Matters, 56, 26–27. Lyons, T. (2010). Recovery capital, drug policy and the cycle of incarceration. Practicing Anthropology, 32 (2), 41–44. Mack, S. C., and Osiris, K. (2007). Successful reentry, one case at a time. Corrections Today, 69, 50–55. Mallik-Kane, K., and Visher, C. A. (2008). Health and prisoner reentry: How physical, mental, and substance abuse conditions shape the process of reintegration. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Manza, J., and Uggen, C. (2006). Locked out: Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. New York: Oxford University Press. Marbley, A. F., and Ferguson, R. (2004). Putting back together our communities of color: A systematic model for rehabilitation. Journal of African American Studies, 7, 75–86. Marbley, A. F., and Ferguson, R. (2005). Responding to prisoner reentry, recidivism, and incarceration of inmates of color. Journal of Black Studies, 35, 633–649. Marin, J. L. (2008). Latinos/as and US prisons: Trends and challenges. Latino Studies, 6, 11–34. Marquart, J. W., Merianos, D. E., and Doucet, G. (2000). The health-related concerns of older prisoners: Implications for policy. Ageing and Society, 20, 79–96. Marquez, N. (2010). Social enterprises: A for-profit approach to filling the gap in international environmental policy. Bologna Center Journal of International Affairs, 13 (1), 1–9. Martin, Y. (2008). Y ahora que?: New York City Latino/as coping mechanisms: Prison reentry and recidivism. Latino Studies, 6, 220–228.

References

209

Martinez, A. (2004, September 22). Hispanics in business: Small businesses boom, but little boardroom presence. Cable News Network, transcript no. 092203cb.105. http://web.lexis-nexis.com/universe/document?_m=18c50 594b88a4b. Martinez, D. J. (2006). Informal helping mechanisms: Conceptual issues in family support of reentry of former prisoners. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 44, 23–37. Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Maruna, S., and Immarigeon, R. (eds.). (2004). After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration. Devon, England: Willan Publishing. Maruna, S., Immarigeon, R., and LaBel, T. P. (2004). Ex-offender reintegration: Theory and practice. In S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 3–26). Devon, England: Willan Publishing. Maruna, S., and Roy, K. (2007). Amputation or reconstruction? Notes on the concept of “knifing” off and desistance from crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 23, 104–124. Maruna, S., Wilson, L., and Curran, K. (2006). Why God is often found behind bars: Prison conversion and the crisis of self-narrative. Research in Human Development, 3, 161–184. Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners (NCJ 221740). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Massoglia, M. (2008a). Incarceration, health, and racial disparities in health. Law and Society Review, 42, 275–306. Massoglia, M. (2008b). Incarceration as exposure: The prison, infectious disease, and other stress-related illnesses. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 49 (1), 56–71. Massoglia, M., and Schnitter, J. (2009). No real release. Contexts, 8, 38–42. Mathis, H., and Schoenly, L. (2008). Healthcare behind bars: What you need to know. Nurse Practitioner, 33, 34–41. Mauer, M. (2002). Mass incarceration and the disappearing voters. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 50–58). New York: New Press. Mauer, M. (2006). Race to incarcerate. New York: New Press. Mauer, M. (2011a). The challenge of implementing research-based policies. Criminology and Public Policy, 10 (1), 69–76. Mauer, M. (2011b). Addressing the political environment shaping mass incarceration. Criminology and Public Policy, 10 (3), 699–705. Mauer, M., and Chesney-Lind, M. (eds.). (2002). Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment. New York: New Press. Mazzella, D. (2009, February 11). Consultant says communities not ready for influx of ex-offenders. Daily Advance (Elizabeth City, NC), 1.

210

References

McCaffrey, S. (2007, September 29). Prisons face growing population of elderly inmates. North County Times (Hardwick, Ga.), 1. McGarrell, E. F., Hipple, N. K., and Banks, D. (2003). Community meetings as a tool in inmate reentry. Justice Research and Policy, 5, (1) 5–32. McKean, L., and Ransford, C. (2004). Current strategies for reducing recidivism. Chicago: Center for Impact Research. McNeill, F. (2006). A desistance paradigm for offender management. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 6, 39–62. Mead, L. M. (2010). Can we put poor men to work? Economic Analysis, 30 (3), 48–52. Mears, D. P. (2007). Faith-based reentry programs: Cause for concern or showing promise? Corrections Today, 69, 30–33. Mears, D. P., Roman, C. G., Wolff, A., and Buck, J. (2006). Faith-based efforts to improve prisoner reentry: Assessing the logic and evidence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 351–367. Medina, J. (2011, May 25). Prison symbolizes Supreme Court ruling. New York Times, A13, A14. Meghan, J. (2004). The correctional dilemma: Employment and social reintegration. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.). Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. vii– xv). Walnut Grove, CA: Alta Mira Press. Mellow, J. (2007). Written health informational needs for reentry. In R. B. Grefinger (ed.), Public health behind bars (pp. 265–279). New York: Springer. Mellow, J., and Greifinger, R. (2008). The evolving standard of decency: Postrelease planning? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14 (1), 21–30. Mesurier, N. L. (2007). Older people and the penal system. GR: Generations Review: Newsletter of the British Society of Gerontology, 17, 1–3. Milford, M. (2006, March 26). Inmates grow old, health costs rise: Delaware spending has tripled in past decade. News Journal (Delaware), 1. Miller, D. C. (2009). Faith-based organizations welcome women back home into the community: Changing lives, restoring families, and building communities. Family and Community Health, 32 (4), 298–308. Mills, A., and Codd, H. (2008). Prisoners’ families and offender management: Mobilizing social capital. Probation Journal, 55, 9–24. Minc, A., Butler, T., and Gahan, G. (2009). The Jailbreak Health Project— incorporating a unique programme for prisoners. International Journal of Drug Policy, 18, 444–446. Mobley, A. (2003). Convict criminology: The two-legged data dilemma. In J. I. Ross and S. C. Richards (eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 209–225). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Mondesire, J. W. (2001). Felon disenfranchisement: The modern day poll tax. Political and Civil Rights Law Review, Spring, 435–441.

References

211

Moore, S. (2008, September 4). States restore voting rights for ex-cons, but issue remains politically sensitive. New York Times, A20. Moore, S. (2009a, February 10). Court panel orders California to reduce prison population by 55,000 in 3 years. New York Times, A12. Moore, S. (2009b, February 11). The prison overcrowding fix. New York Times, A15. Moore, S. (2009c, March 3). Study shows high cost of criminal corrections. New York Times, A13. Moore, S. (2009d, April 16). Decline in Blacks in state prisons for drugs. New York Times, A11. Moore, S. (2009e, August 5). Federal judges order California prisons to reduce inmate population by a quarter. New York Times, A10. Morani, N. M., Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M. and Bratton, S. (2011). A description of the self-identified needs, service expectations, and social outcomes of participants of a prisoner-reentry program. Prison Journal, 91 (3), 347– 365. Morenoff, J., Harding, D. J., and Cooper, A. (2009). The neighborhood context of prisoner reentry. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Morgan, R. D., Steffan, J., Shaw, L. B., and Wilson, S. (2007). Needs for and barriers to correctional mental health. Psychiatric Services, 58 (9), 1181– 1186. Moss, T. W., Short, J. G., Payne, T. G., and Lumpkin, G. T. (2011). Dual identities in social ventures: An exploratory study. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, 35 (4), 805–830. Murphy, D. S. (2003). Aspirin ain’t gonna help the kind of pain I’m in: Health care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. In J. I. Ross and S. C. Richards (eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 247–266). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Murphy, D. S. (2005). Health care in the Federal Bureau of Prisons: Fact or fiction. Californian Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 23–37. Murphy, D. S., Fuleihan, B., Richards, S. C., and Jones, R. S. (2011). The electronic “Scarlet Letter”: Criminal backgrounding and a perpetual spoiled identity. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 50 (3), 101–118. Musick, M., and Wilson, J. (2007). Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Muwakkil, S. (2003, April 29). Throwing away the key: Our nation’s penal system has abandoned all pretense of penitence or any notion of rehabilitation. CommonDreams.org Newsletter. www.commondreams.org /views03/0429-08.htm. Naser, R. L., and La Vigne, N. G. (2006). Family support in the prisoner reentry process: Expectations and realties. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 43, 93–106. National Council of La Raza. (2005). They all come home: Breaking the cycle between prison and the community. Washington, DC.

212

References

Newbold, G. (2003). Rehabilitating criminals: It ain’t that easy. In J. I. Ross and S. C. Richards (eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 150–169). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. New York State Bar Association. (2006). Reentry and reintegration: The road to public safety. Albany, NY. New York Times. (2007, October 6). Editorial. Out of prison and deep in debt. A26. New York Times. (2008, March 10). Prison nation. A20. New York Times. (2011, May 24). Editorial. California’s prison crisis: The Supreme Court finds overcrowding cruel and dangerous. 24. Nixon, V., Clough, P. T., Staples, D., Peterkin, Y., Zimmerman, P. J., Voight, C., and Pica, S. (2008). Life capacity beyond reentry: A critical examination of racism and prisoner reentry in the U.S. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 2 (1), 21–43. Norrie, J. (2008, May 3). Japan tremor as geriatrics lead crime wave. New York: Global Action on Aging. O’Brien, P. (2002). Reducing barriers to employment for women ex-offenders: Mapping the road to reintegration. Chicago: Safer Foundation. O’Brien, P., and Young, D. S. (2006). Challenges for formerly incarcerated women: A holistic approach to assessment. Families in Society, 87 (3), 359–366. Oh, A. E., and Umemto, K. (2005). Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders: From incarceration to reentry. Amerasia Journal, 31, 43–60. Oliver, B. (2010). My sentence is over but will my punishment ever end? Dialectical Anthropology, 34 (4), 447–451. Onishi, N. (2007, November 3). As Japan ages, prisons adapt to going gray. New York Times, A1, A9. Osher, F., Steadman, H. J., and Barr, H. (2002). A best practice approach to community reentry from jails for inmates with co-occurring disorders: The APIC Model. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services and Center for Substance Abuse Treatment, SAMHSA. Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108, 937–975. Pager, D. (2006). Evidence-based policy for successful prisoner reentry. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 505–514. Pager, D. (2007). Two strikes and you’re out: The intensification of racial and criminal stigma. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in postindustrial America (pp. 151–173). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pager, D. (2009). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pager, D., and Western, B. (2005). Discrimination in low-wage labor markets: Evidence from an experimental audit study in New York City. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.

References

213

Pager, D., Western, B., and Bonikowski, B. (2009). Discrimination in a lowwage labor market: A field experiment. Bonn, Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor. Patillo, M., Weiman, D., and Western, B. (eds.). (2004). Imprisoning America: The social effects of mass incarceration. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Patterson, R. F., and Greifinger, R. B. (2004). Insiders as outsiders: Race, gender, and cultural considerations affecting health outcome after release to the community. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10, 437– 455. Pearlman, J. (2007, August 31). Court gives vote back to some inmates: The nation. Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), 9. Peck, J., and Theodore, N. (2006). Carceral Chicago: Making the ex-offender employability crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 32, 251–281. Perez, L. M., and Treadwell, H. M. (2009). Determining what we stand for will guide what we do: Community priorities, ethical research paradigms, and research with vulnerable populations. American Journal of Public Health, 99, 201–204. Perkinson, R. (2010). Texas tough: The rise of America’s prison empire. New York: Henry Holt. Peters, J. W. (2009, March 26). New York set to end drug laws requiring prisons. New York Times, A1, A21. Petersilia, J. (2003). When prisoners come home: Parole and prisoner reentry. New York: Oxford University Press. Petersilia, J. (2004). What works in prisoner reentry? Reviewing and questioning the evidence. Federal Probation, 68, 4–8. Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67, 66. Pettit, B., and Lyons, C. (2007). Status and the stigma of incarceration: The labor-market effects of incarceration by race, class, and criminal involvement. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry?: The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 203–226). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Pew Center on the States. (2008a). One in 100: Behind bars in America 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Center on the States. (2008b). Getting in sync: State-local partnerships for public safety. Public Safety Policy Brief, 6, 1–8. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Pew Center on the States. (2009). One in 31: The long reach of American corrections. Washington, DC: Pew Charitable Trusts. Phillips, L. A., and Lindsay, M. (2011). Prison to society: A mixed methods analysis of coping with reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55 (1), 136–154.

214

References

Piehl, A. M. (2009). Preparing prisoners for employment: The power of small rewards. Civic Report (57). Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Piehl, A. M., LoBuglio, S. F., and Freeman, R. B. (2003). Prospects for prisoner reentry. Working Paper No. 125. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute. Pinard, M. (2006). An integrated perspective on the collateral consequences of criminal convictions and reentry issues faced by formerly incarcerated individuals. Boston University Law Review, 86 (3), 623–690. Pinard, M. (2007). A reentry-centered vision of criminal justice. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 103–109. Pinard, M., and Thompson, A. C. (2005). Offender reentry and the collateral consequences of criminal conviction: An introduction. New York University Review of Law and Social Change, 30, 585–622. Pogorzelski, W., Wolff, N., Pan, K.-Y., and Blitz, C. L. (2005). Behavioral health problems, ex-offender reentry policies, and the “Second Chance Act.” American Journal of Public Health, 95 (10), 1718–1724. Popkin, S. J., Cunningham, M. K., and Burt, M. (2005). Public health transformation of the hard-to-house. Housing Policy Debate, 15 (1), 1–24. Presser, L. (2005). Negotiating power and narrative in reentry: Implications for feminist methodology. Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 30, 2067–2090. Prince, J. D., Akincigil, A., and Bromet, E. (2007). Incarceration rates of persons with first admission psychosis. Psychiatric Services, 58 (9), 1173–1180. Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program. (2009). The PEP story. www.prison entrepreneurship.org/who/story.aspx. Pryor, F. L. (2005). Industries behind bars: An economic perspective on the production of goods and services by U.S. prison industries. Review of Industrial Organizations, 27 (1), 1–16. Pryor, M. (2010). The unintended effects of prisoner reentry policy and the marginalizations of urban communities. Humanities, Social Science and Law, 34 (4), 513–517. Pudup, M. B. (2007). It takes a garden: Cultivating citizen-subjects in organized garden projects. Geoforum, 39, 1228–1240. Puryear, A.N.E.G., Rogloff, M.-S., Lee, R. Z., et al. (2008). Sampling minority business owners and their families: The understudied entrepreneurial experience. Journal of Small Business Management, 46 (4), 422–453. Putnam Magazine. (2007, December). Brewster’s second chance manse, 30. Pycroft, A., and Gough, D. (eds.). (2010). Multi-agency working in criminal justice: Control and care in contemporary correctional practice. Portland, OR: Policy Press. Rand Research Brief. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What are the public health challenges. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

References

215

Raphael, S. (2004). The socioeconomic status of Black males: The increasing importance of incarceration. Berkeley, CA: Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California. Raphael, S. (2007). The impact of incarceration on the employment outcomes of former inmates: Policy options for fostering self-sufficiency and an assessment of the cost-effectiveness of current corrections policy. Berkeley, CA: Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California. Raphael, S. (2011). Incarceration and prisoner reentry in the United States. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 635 (1), 192–215. Rarick, E., and Kahan, R. M. (2009). On prison kiosks, inmates learn job search skills. Corrections Today, 71 (4), 56–58. Reentry Coalition. (2004). Memorandum on the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated people upon reentry into the community. Washington, DC: National Coalition of La Raza. Rees, A. (2010). Dual diagnosis issues and implications for criminal justice partnerships. In A. Pycroft and D. Cough (eds.), Multi-agency working in criminal justice: Control and care in contemporary practice (pp. 201– 215). Bristol, England: Policy Press. Reiman, J. (2005). Liberal and Republican arguments against the disenfranchisement of felons. Criminal Justice Ethics, Spring/Summer, 1–16. Reisig, M. D., Bates, W. D., Hay, C., and Wang, X. (2007). The effect of racial inequality on Black male recidivism. Justice Quarterly, 24, 408–434. Rengert, G. F. (1989). Spatial justice and criminal victimization. Justice Quarterly, 6, 543–564. Rhine, S. S. (2009). Criminalization of housing: A revolving door that results in boarded up doors in low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore, Maryland. University of Maryland Law Journal of Race, Religion, Gender and Class, 9, 333–371. Rhodes, J. (2008). Ex-offenders, social ties and the routes into employment. Internet Journal of Criminology, 1–19. http://www.internetjournalof criminology.com/Rhodes%20-%20Ex-offenders%20and%20Employment .pdf. Riccardi, N. (2009, September 13). Budgets tight, states seeking to reduce prison populations. Boston Globe, A22. Rich, J. D., Holmes, L., Salas, C., Macalino, G., Davis, D., Ryczek, J., and Flanigan, T. (2001). Successful linkage of medical care and community services for HIV-positive offenders being released from prison. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 279–289. Richards, S. C., Austin, J., and Jones, R. S. (2004). Thinking about prison release and the budget crisis in the blue grass state. Critical Criminology: An International Journal, 12 (3), 243–363.

216

References

Richards, S. C., Faggiani, D., Roffers, J., Hendrickson, R., and Krueger, J. (2008). Convict criminology: Voices from prison. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisciplinary Global Contexts, 2, 121–136. Richards, S. C., and Jones, R. S. (2004). Beating the perpetual incarceration machine: Overcoming structural impediments to reentry. In S. Maruna and R. Immarigeon (eds.), After crime and punishment: Pathways to offender reintegration (pp. 201–232). Devon, England: Willan Publishing. Richards, S. C., and Ross, J. I. (2001). The new school of Convict Criminology. Social Justice, 28 (1), 177–190. Richards, S. C., and Ross, J. I. (2003). Convict perspective on the classification of prisoners. Criminology and Public Policy, 2 (2), 243–252. Richards, S. C., and Ross, J. I. (2004). The new school of Convict Criminology. Journal of Prisoners on Prisons, 13 (1), 11–26. Richardson, C. (2006, May 8). Readying inmates 4 work. New York Daily News, 22. Richie, B. E. (2001). Challenges incarcerated women face as they return to their communities: Findings from life history interviews. Crime and Delinquency, 47 (3), 368–389. Richie, B. E. (2002). The social impact of mass incarceration on women. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 136–149). New York: New Press. Richie, B. E., Freudenberg, N., and Page, J. (2001). Reintegrating women leaving jail into urban communities: A description of model program. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 78(2), 290–303. Rikard, R. V., and Rosenberg, E. (2007). Aging inmates: A convergence of trends in the American criminal justice system. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 13, 150–162. Rios, V. M., and Navarro, K. (2010). Insider gang knowledge: The case for nonpolice gang experts in the courtroom. Critical Criminology, 18 (1), 21–39. Roberts, C., Kennedy, S., and Hammett, T. M. (2004). Linkages between inprison and community-based health services. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10, 333–368. Robinson, J. (2008). Think outside the cell: An entrepreneur’s guide for the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated. New York: Resilience Multimedia. Rodriguez, J. A., and Sava, W. (2006). Images of America: Latinos in Milwaukee. Chicago: Arcadia. Rodriguez, N., and Brown, B. (2003). Preventing homelessness among people leaving prison. Issues Brief, VERA Institute of New York. Roman, C. G. (2006). A roof is not enough: Successful prisoner reintegration requires experimentation and collaboration. Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 161–168.

References

217

Roman, C. G., Kane, M. J., and Giridharadas, R. (2006). The housing landscape for returning prisoners in the District of Columbia. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Roots, R. (2004). When the past is a prison: The hardening plight of the American ex-convict. Justice Policy Journal, 3, 1–29. Rose, C. D., Reed, S. O., and Richards, S. C. (2005). Inviting convicts to college: A free college preparatory program for prisoners. Offender Programs Report, 8 (6), 91–93. Rose, C. D., Reschenberg, K., and Richards, S. C. (2010). Inviting convicts to college. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 (4), 1–16. Rose, D. R., and Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441–479. Rosen, D. L., Schoenbach, V. J., and Wohl, D. A. (2008). All-cause and causespecific mortality among men released from state prison, 1980–2005. American Journal of Public Health, 98 (12), 2278–2284. Rosenberg, T. (2011, January 21). Removing the roadblocks to rehabilitation. New York Times, A.25. Ross, J. I., and Richards, S. C. (2002). Behind bars: Surviving prison. New York: Alpha/Penguin. Ross, J. I., and Richards, S. C. (2009). Behind bars: Rejoining society after prison. New York: Alpha/Penguin. Ross, J. I., and Richards, S. C. (eds.). (2003a). Convict criminology. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Ross, J. I., and Richards, S. C. (2003b). What is the new school of Convict Criminology? In J. I. Ross and S. C. Richards (eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 1–36). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Rotter, M., McQuistion, H. L., Broner, N., and Steinbacher, M. (2005). The impact of the “incarceration culture” on reentry for adults with mental illness: A training and group treatment model. Psychiatric Services, 56 (2), 265–267. Roy, K. M., and McAdam, D. P. (2006). Second chance as transformative stories in human development: An introduction. Research in Human Development, 3, 77–80. Rubinstein, G., and Muhammad, D. (2002). Welfare and housing—denial of benefits to drug offenders. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 37–49). New York: New Press. Ruddell, R., and Winfree Jr., L. T. (2006). Setting aside criminal convictions in Canada: A successful approach to offender reentry. Prison Journal, 86 (4), 452–469. Russell, J. (2008, January 6). Serving up 2nd chances, for diners, teens. Boston Globe, 23.

218

References

San Francisco Examiner. (1973, September 28). Ex-cons form credit union. 24. Saylor, W. G., and Gaes, G. G. (2004). Effect of prison industry and vocational training on postrelease outcome: Does race matter? In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fisher (eds.), From crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 75–83). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Schmitt, J., and Warner, K. (2011). Ex-offenders and the labor market. Journal of Labor and Society, 14 (1), 87–109. Schneider, M. L. (2010). From criminal confinement to social confinement: Helping ex-offenders obtain public housing with a certificate of rehabilitation. New England Journal on Criminal and Civil Confinement. 36, 335–358. Schwartz, J. (2010a, March 17). Report finds states holding fewer prisoners. New York Times, A15. Schwartz, J. (2010b, December 6). Guilty of violating dress code, in any case. New York Times, A16. Schwartz, J. (2010c, December 6). Extreme makeover: Criminal court edition. New York Times, A16. Scott, G. (2004). “It’s a sucker’s outfit”: How urban gangs enable and impede the reintegration of ex-convicts. Ethnography, 5 (1), 107–140. Scroggins, J. R., and Malley, S. (2010). Reentry and the (unmet) needs of women. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 49 (2), 146–163. Seiter, R. P., and Seiter, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime and Delinquency, 49, 360–388. Sengupta, S. (2000, November 3). Felony costs voting rights for a lifetime in 9 states. New York Times, A18. Shapiro, C. (2007). Families: A critical resource for New Jersey’s prison reentry strategy. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute of Social Justice. Shilton, M. K., Lindsay, M., and Vail, P. (2005). Reentry employment: Making business a partner. Washington, DC: Center for Community Corrections. Shinkfield, A. J. and Graffam, J. (2009). Community reintegration of ex-prisoners: Type and degree in variables influencing successful reintegration. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 53, 29–42. Shivy, V. A., Wu, J. J., Moon, A. E., Mann, S. C., Holland, J. G., and Eacho, C. (2007). Ex-offenders reentering the workforce. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 54 (4), 466–473. Silbert, M. (1984). Delancey Street Foundation: A process of mutual restitution. In A. Gartner and F. Riessman (eds.), The self-help revolution (pp. 1–5). New York: Human Sciences Press. Skinner, C. (2010). Clients or offenders? The case for clarity of purpose in multi-agency working. In A. Pycroft and D. Cough (eds.), Multi-agency

References

219

working in criminal justice: Control and care in contemporary practice (pp. 35–49). Bristol, England: Policy Press. Smith, E., and Hattery, A. (2011). Can social networks assist reentry felons to overcome barriers to reentry and reduce recidivism? Sociation Today, 9 (1), 1, 1–10. Smith, N. E., and Jones, C. (2008). Monitoring trends in re-offending among offenders released from prisons. Crime and Justice Bulletin: Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice, 117, 1–12. Smyth, M. (2007). Cross-sector collaboration in reentry: Building infrastructure for change. New York: Bronx Defenders. Social Exclusion Unit. (2002). Reducing re-offending by ex-prisoners. London, England: HMG Cabinet Office. Soja, E. W. (2010). Seeking spatial justice. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Solomon, A. L. (2008). Prisoner reentry: Taking stock and moving forward. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Solomon, A. L., Johnson, K. D., Travis, J., and McBride, E. C. (2004). From prison to work: The employment dimensions of prisoner reentry: A report of the reentry roundtable. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Sonfield, M. C. (1992, June). From inmate to entrepreneur: A preliminary analysis. Proceedings, Small Business Institute Directors Association National Conference, 39–44. Washington, DC. Sonfield, M. C. (2008). Entrepreneurship and prisoner reentry: The development of a concept. Small Business Institute Research Review, 35 (4), 193–200. Spaulding, A. C., Seals, R. M., Page, M. J., Brzozowski, A. K., Rhodes, W., and Hammett, T. M. (2009). HIV/AIDS among inmates of releases from US correctional facilities, 2006: Declining share of epidemic but persistent public health opportunity. Plos One, 4 (11), e7558. Spjeldnes, S., and Goodkind, S. (2009). Gender differences and offender reentry: A review of the literature. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 48 (4), 314–335. Stageman, D. (2010). Entry, revisited. Dialectical Anthropology, 34 (4), 441–446. Steadman, H. J., Osher, F. C., Robbins, P. C., Brian, C., and Samuels, S. (2009). Prevalence of serious mental illness among jail inmates. Psychiatric Services, 60 (6), 761–765. Steinhauer, J. (2009, March 25). To trim costs, states relax hard lines on prisons. New York Times, A1, A16. Sterns, A. A., Lax, G., Sed, C., Keohane, P., and Sterns, R. S. (2008). The growing wave of older prisoners: A national survey of older prisoners’ health, mental health and programming. Corrections Today, 70, 70–72, 74–76. Stiber, C. Z. (2005). Discriminatory intent requirement: The “Separate but Equal” doctrine of the twenty-first century—A critical examination of

220

References

felon disenfranchisement laws and related government practices in the United States. (2005). Gonzaga Law Review, 41, 347–373. Stier, K. (2009, March 6). Another by-product of the recession: ex-convicts. Time. http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1883575,00.html. Stone, C. (1999). Race, crime, and the administration of justice. National Institute of Justice Journal, April, 26–33. Streeter, K. (2005, October 2). She helps to break bread in a tough California neighborhood: Gang women bond in LA café. Boston Globe, A24. Sumter, M. (2006). Faith-based prison programs. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 523–528. Sung, H-E. (2011). From diversion to reentry: Recidivism risks among graduates of an alternative to incarceration program. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 22 (2), 219–234. Swanson, C. G., Rohrer, G., and Crow, M. S. (2010). Is criminal justice education ready for reentry? Journal of Criminal Justice Education, 21 (1), 60–76. Sykes, B. L., and Piquero, A. R. (2009). Structuring and recreating inequality: Health testing policies, race, and the criminal justice system. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 623 (1), 214– 227. Tarlow, M., and Nelson, M. (2007). The time is now: Immediate work for people coming home from prison as a strategy to reduce their reincarceration and restore their place in the community. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 138–140. Taxman, F. S. (2005). Brick walls facing reentry offenders. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 29, 5–18. Taxman, F. S., Byrne, J. M., and Pattavina, A. (2005). Racial disparity and the legitimacy of the criminal justice system: Exploring consequences for deterrence. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Undervalued, 16, 57– 77. Taxman, F. S., Perdoni, M. L., and Harrison, L. D. (2007). Drug treatment services for adult offenders: The state of the state. Journal of Substance Abuse, 32 (3), 239–254. Taxman, F. S., Young, D., and Byrne, J. M. (2003). Transforming offender reentry into public safety: Lessons from OJP’s reentry partnership initiative. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 101–128. Thacher, D. (2008, May 27). “Separating the wheat from the chaff”: The signaling role of prisoner reentry programs. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Law and Society Association, Montreal, Canada. Thomas, J. C., Levandowski, B. A., Isler, M. R., Torrone, E., and Wilson, G. (2007). Incarceration and sexually transmitted infections: A neighborhood perspective. Journal of Urban Health, 85 (1), 9–99.

References

221

Thomas, J. C., and Torrone, E. A. (2006). Incarceration as forced migration: Effects on selected community health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 96, 1762–1765. Thomas, J. C., Torrone, E. A., and Browning, C. R. (2009). Neighborhood factors affecting rates of sexually transmitted diseases in Chicago. Journal of Urban Health, 87 (1), 102–122. Thomas, K. (2002). Racial justice: Moral or political? National Black Law Journal, 17, 222–225. Thompson, A. (2004). Navigating the hidden obstacles to ex-offender reentry. Boston College Law Review, 45 (2), 255–306. Thompson, A. (2008). Releasing prisoners, redeeming communities: Reentry, race and politics. New York: New York University Press. Tompkins, D. (2005). Reentry programs for women inmates. National Institute of Justice Journal, 252, 2–7. Toussaint-Comeau, M. (2008). Strategies for improving economic mobility of workers: A conference report. Profitwise News and Views, September, 1– 10. Travis, J. (2002). Invisible punishment: An instrument of social exclusion. In M. Mauer and M. Chesney-Lind (eds.), Invisible punishment: The collateral consequences of mass imprisonment (pp. 15–36). New York: New Press. Travis, J. (2005). But they all come back: Facing the challenges of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press. Travis, J. (2007). Reflections on the reentry movement. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 20, 84–87. Travis, J., Keegan, S., Cadora, E., Solomon, A., and Swartz, C. (2004). A portrait of prisoner reentry in New Jersey. Newark, NJ: New Jersey Institute for Social Justice. Travis, J., and Petersilia, J. (2001). Reentry reconsidered: A new look at an old question. Crime and Delinquency, 47, 291–313. Travis, J., Solomon, A. L., and Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Travis, J., and Visher, C. (eds.). (2005). Prisoner reentry and crime in America. New York: Cambridge University Press. Tremblay, P., and Pare, P. P. (2003). Crime and destiny: Patterns in serious offenders’ mortality rates. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 45, 299–326. Tripodi, S. J., Kim, J. S., and Bender, K. (2010). Is employment associated with reduced recidivism? The complex relationship between employment and crime. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 54 (5), 708–720.

222

References

Tromanhauser, E. (2003). Comments and reflections on forty years in the American criminal justice system. In J. I. Ross and S. C. Richards (eds.), Convict criminology (pp. 81–94). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Tschopp, M. K., Perkins, D. V., Hart-Katuin, C., Born, D. L., and Holt, S. L. (2007). Employment barriers and strategies for individuals with psychiatric disabilities and criminal histories. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 26, 175–187. Turner, J. (2007, December 20). Housing program to put more ex-cons in country. News Tribune, 4. Turner, S., and Petersilia, J. (1996). Work release in Washington: Effects on recidivism and corrections cost. The Prison Journal, 76 (2), 138–164. Tyler, J. H., and Kling, J. R. (2007). Prison-based education and reentry into the mainstream labor market. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 227–256). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Uggen, C., and Manza, J. (2005). Disenfranchisement and the civic reintegration of convicted felons. In C. Mele and T. Miller (eds.), Civil penalties, social consequences (pp. 65–83). New York: Routledge. Uggen, C., and Staff, J. (2004). Work as a turning point for criminal offenders. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 141–166). Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Uggen, C., Thompson, M., and Manza, J. (2000). Crime, class and reintegration: The scope and social distribution of America’s criminal class. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Uggen, C., and Wakefield, S. (2007). What have we learned from longitudinal studies of work and crime? In A. M. Liberman (ed.), The long view of crime: A synthesis of longitudinal research (pp. 191–219). New York: Springer. United Nations. (2008). Prisoner reentry: Response to the periodic report of the United States to the United Nation’s Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination. New York. Urban Institute. (2006). Cleveland prisoners’ experiences returning home. Washington, DC. VanDeCarr, P. (2007). Call to action: How programs in three cities responded to the prisoner reentry crisis. Philadelphia, PA: Public/Private Ventures. Van der Westhuizen, A. E. M., and Lombard, A. (2005). A model for community corrections residential centers in South Africa from a social work perspective. Acta Criminologion, 18, 101–109. Van Wormer, K. (2010). Working with female offenders: A gender-sensitive approach. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Van Wormer, S. C., Chadha, J., and Jaggers, J. W. (2009). Older adult inmates: The challenge for social work. Social Work, 54 (2), 117–124.

References

223

Varghese, F. D., Hardin, E. E., and Bauer, R. L. (2009). Factors influencing the employability of Latinos: The role of ethnicity, criminal history, and qualifications. Race and Social Problems, 1 (3), 171–187. Vaughn, B. B. (2006). A treatise: A call to action: A turnaround in the Black community. Lulu.com. Venkatesh, S. (2008). Gang Leader for a Day. New York: Penguin. Vennard, J., and Hedderman, C. (2009). Helping offenders into employment: How far is voluntary sector expertise valued in a contracting-out environment. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 9 (2), 225–245. Visher, C., Debus, S., and Yahner, J. (2008). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of releasees in three states. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Visher, C., Debus-Sherrill, S. A., and Yahner, J. (2010). Employment after prison: A longitudinal study of former prisoners. Justice Quarterly, 28 (5), 698–718. Visher, C., and Farrell, J. (2005). Chicago communities and prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Visher, C., and Kachnowski, V. (2007). Finding work on the outside: Results from the “Returning Home” Project in Chicago. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 80–113). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Visher, C., La Vigne, N. G., and Travis, J. (2004). Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Visher, C., Palmer, T., and Roman, C. G. (2007). Cleveland stakeholders’ perceptions of prisoner reentry. Washington, DC: Urban Institute, Justice Policy Center. Visher, C., and Travis, J. (2003). Transitions from prison to community: Understanding individual pathways. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 89–113. Visher, C., Winterfield, L., and Coggeshall, M. B. (2005). Ex-offender employment programs and recidivism: A meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 1, 295–316. Wacquant, L. (2005). Race as civic felony. International Social Science Journal, 57 (183), 127–142. Walker, L. (2010). “His mam, my dad, my girlfriend, loads of people used to bring him up”: The value of social support for (ex) offender fathering. Child and Family Social Work, 15 (2), 238–247. Walker, N. E., Senger, J. M., Villarruel, F. A., and Arboleda, A. M. (2007). Lost opportunities: The reentry of Latinos in the United States criminal justice system. Washington, DC: National Council of La Raza. Walsh, N. (2010). Baltimore behind bars: How to reduce the jail population, save money and improve public safety. Washington, DC: Justice Policy Institute. Wang, X., Mears, D. P., and Bales, W. D. (2010). Race-specific employment contexts and recidivism. Criminology, 48 (4), 1171–1211.

224

References

Ward, T., and Maruna, S. (2007). Reintegration of rehabilitation: Making people happy. Oxford, UK: Routledge. Watson, D. W., Tsai, W., Chu, V. S., Williams III, E., Mouttapa, M., Asghar, A., and Shaw, M. E. (2008). The role of faith-based organizations in exoffender reentry. California Journal of Health Promotion, 6 (2), 25–35 Watson, J., Solomon, A. L., La Vigne, N. G., and Travis, J. (2004). Portrait of prisoner reentry in Texas. Washington, DC: Urban Institute. Weaver, B., and McNeill, F. (2007). Giving up crime: Directions for policy. Glasgow, Scotland: Scottish Centre for Criminal Justice. Webster, C. M., and Doob, A. N. (2008). America in a larger world: The future of the penal harm movement. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 473–487. Weiman, D. F. (2007). Barriers to prisoners’ reentry into the labor market and the social costs of recidivism. Social Research: An International Quarterly of Social Sciences, 74, 575–611. Weiman, D. F., Stoll, M. A., and Bushway, S. (2007). The regime of mass incarceration: A labor-market perspective. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 29–79). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Weisberg, R. (2010). The not-so-golden state of sentencing and corrections: California’s lessons for the nation. Justice Research and Policy, 12 (1), 133–168. Wells, L. (2008). The effects of a criminal history and race on the willingness to hire ex-offenders in the labor market. Milwaukee, WI: Cardinal Strich University. Welsh, B. C. (2004). Monetary costs and benefits of correctional treatment programs: Implications for offender reentry. Federal Probation, 68, 9–13. Welsh, W. N. (2006). The need for a comprehensive approach to program planning, development, and evaluation. Criminology and Public Policy, 5, 603–614. Werth, R., and Sumner, J. (2005). Inside California’s prisons and beyond: A snapshot of in-prison and reentry programs. Irvine, CA: UC Irvine Center for Evidence-Based Corrections. Western, B. (2003). Lawful reentry. American Prospect, December, 54–56. Western, B. (2007). The panel system and the labor market. In S. Bushway, M. A. Stoll, and D. F. Weiman (eds.), Barriers to reentry? The labor market for released prisoners in post-industrial America (pp. 335–359). New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Western, B. (2008). From prison to work: A proposal for a national prisoner reentry program. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute. Western, B., and Pettit, B. (2002). Beyond crime and punishment: Prisons and inequality. Contexts, 1, 37–43.

References

225

Western, B., and Wildeman, C. (2009). The Black family and mass incarceration. Annals of the Academy of Political and Social Science, 621 (1), 221–242. Wheaton, S. (2010, December 13). Inmates in Georgia prisons use contraband phones to coordinate protest. New York Times, A13, A16. White, N. A. (2004). Finding ways to get paid: Social networks and illegitimate work. In J. L. Krienert and M. S. Fleisher (eds.), Crime and employment: Critical issues in crime reduction for corrections (pp. 177–191).Walnut Creek, CA: Alta Mira Press. Whittemore, H. (1992, March 15). Hitting bottom can be the beginning. Parade Magazine, 4–6. Wilhite, A., and Allen, W. D. (2006). Crime, protection, and incarceration. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 67, 481–494. Wilkinson, R. A. (2005). Engaging communities: An essential ingredient to offender reentry. Corrections Today, 67, 86–89. Williams, B., and Abraldes, R. (2007). Growing older: Challenges of prisoner reentry for the aging population. In R. B. Greifinger (ed.), Public health behind bars (pp. 56–72). New York: Springer. Williams, J. L. (2008). The aging inmate population: Southern states outlook. Washington, DC: Council of State Governments. Williams, K. A. (2007). Employing ex-offenders: Shifting the evaluation of workplace risks and opportunities from employers to corrections. UCLA Law Review, 55, 522–558. Willmott, D., and Olphen, J. V. (2005). Challenging the health impacts of incarceration: The role for community health workers. California Journal of Health Promotion, 3, 38–48. Wilper, A. P., Woolhandler, S., Boyd, W., Lesser, K. E., McCormick, D., Bor, D. H., and Himmelstein, D. V. (2009). The health and health care of US prisoners: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Public Health, 99 (4), 666–672. Wilson, W. J. (1987). Disadvantaged: The Inner-City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Winnick, T. A., and Bodkin, M. (2008). Anticipated stigma and stigma management among those to be labeled “ex-con.” Deviant Behavior, 29, 295–333. Winter, S. J. (2008). Improving the quality of health care delivery in a corrections setting. Journal of Correctional Health Care, 14, 168–182. Wodahl, E. J. (2006). The challenges of prisoner reentry from a rural perspective. Western Criminology Review, 7, 32–47. Wolff, N. (2005). Community reintegration of prisoners with mental illness: A social investment perspective. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 28, 43–58.

226

References

Wolff, N., and Draine, J. (2004). Dynamics of social capital of prisoners and community reentry: Ties that bind? Journal of Correctional Health Care, 10, 457–490. Wood, D. B. (2007, October 9). Fresh bread, fresh start for ex-gang members. Christian Science Monitor, 1. Wormith, J. S., Althouse, R., Simpson, M., Reitzel, L. R., Fagon, T. J., and Morgan, R. D. (2007). The rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders: The current landscape and some future directions for correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34 (7), 879–892. Yates, M. T. (2010). After Pell Grants: The neoliberal assault on prisoners. Policy Futures in Education, 8 (1), 61–70. Young, S., and Hill, L. (2009). Uncounted votes: Informal voting in the House of Representatives as a marker of political exclusion in Australia. Australian Journal of Politics and History, 55 (1), 64–79. Zang, S. X., Roberts, R. E. L., and Callanan, V. J. (2006). Preventing parolees from returning to prison through community-based re-integration. Crime and Delinquency, 52 (4), 551–571. Zgoba, K. M., Haugebrook, S., and Jenkins, K. (2008). The influence of GED obtainment on inmate release outcome. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 375–387.

Index

Aborigine population: voter disenfranchisement, 49 Accidental death, 75–76 Advertising: Delancey Street Foundation, 158 African Americans/blacks: consequences of “get tough on crime” policies, 39–40; Delancey Street Foundation council, 151; discrimination and employment, 106; employability factors, 100; employers’ reluctance to hire, 114; formal education and employment, 108–109; genderbased challenges of reentry, 82; health decline and death after release, 76–77; importance of community-based interventions, 6; incarceration rates and health disparities, 70–71; lack of lowskill employment, 96; prisons as urban labor market, 14; psychosis among black inmates, 74; racial and ethnic profile of prisoners, 37; slavery and voter disenfranchisement, 48–49;

women reconnecting with released partners, 63 Aftercare, 9 Age: Boyle Heights neighborhood, 121; challenges for older adults, 85–87; disparity between returning prisoner and nonprison population, 35; health decline and death after release, 76; profile of prisoners, 38 Agricultural programs, 90, 129 Alabama: prison populations, 41; small businesses addressing reentry, 115; voter disenfranchisement, 51–52 Antidiscrimination laws, 108 Arizona: prison populations, 41 Asset perspective of ex-offenders, 17–19, 177–178 Australia: financial management of ex-offenders, 61; health status after release, 79; incarceration and voting rights, 49 Background checks, 102–103, 106, 108, 114

227

228

Index

Badge of honor, imprisonment as, 46 Bakery, Homeboy, 120, 126 Basic human needs: Delancey Street vision and goals, 147–148; gangs providing, 118 Best Jobs for Ex-Offenders: 101 Opportunities to Jump-Start Your New Life (Krannich), 91 Blue collar jobs, 106 Bookstore, 157 Boyle, Greg, 26, 119, 122, 123, 126, 128, 134, 141–142 Boyle Heights, Los Angeles, 120– 121 Brown v. Plata, 32 Bush, George W., 60 Business owners, ex-offenders as: Robinson, Joseph, 19 California: Delancey Street Foundation, 148–149, 156–159; faith-based organizations, 65; homelessness and recidivism, 53; prison populations, 41; release population, 39; scale of reentry programs, 32. See also Homeboy/Homegirl Industries Call-backs for jobs, 107 Canada: incarceration rates, 97; pardoning practices, 112–113; voter disenfranchisement, 51 Case management system, 131–132 Case studies. See Delancey Street Foundation; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries The Castle: accessible housing, 61 Categorizing ex-offenders, 178 Catering: Delancey Street Foundation, 149, 157, 161; Homegirl Café and Catering, 128– 129 Century Correctional Institute, 90 Child care jobs, 106

Children: gender-based challenges of reentry, 82; women’s dual responsibilities, 84–85; women’s stigma of incarceration, 47 Christmas tree sales and decorating, 161 Chronic medical conditions, 69, 84 The Church’s Returns Policy: Equipping the Church to Minister to Ex-offenders (Houston), 66 Citizens for Responsible Justice, 61 Citizenship: community impact of voter disenfranchisement, 48 Civic engagement, 18 Civic risk, 11 Civil rights movement, 175 Client system, 62–63 Clients, ex-offenders as, 8 Clinton administration, 10 Clothing styles, 47 Collaboration: communities and criminal justice system, 33; interdisciplinary, 178–179; small business involvement in employment, 114–115 Collateral consequences of conviction, 45, 47 Collateral consequences of mental illness, 74 Communications tools, 105–106 Communities and community-based interventions: benefits of gainful employment, 95; Boyle Heights, 120–121; coping with mass deprisonalization, 44–45; Delancey Street Foundation, 148–150, 156, 163–164; drug treatment for women, 84; education and costs, 33; health disparity between returning prisoner and nonprison population, 34–35; history of the reentry movement, 10–11; housing ex-offenders, 52–55; housing markets, 59; importance

Index

to people of color, 6; improving Latinos’ reentry success, 38; legal impediments to employment, 103; modeling the Delancey experience, 166; prison experience as stigma or pride, 47; reentry movement role, 15–19; rural sector reentry, 42; small businesses addressing health and social issues, 21–23; smallbusiness ownership, 20; spatial justice, 12, 13–15; voter disenfranchisement, 48. See also Delancey Street Foundation; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries; Urban communities Community knowledge, 170 Community service: Delancey Street Foundation, 156 Complexity of reentry, 179–180 Comprehensive approach to reentry efforts, 168 Congress, US: Housing Act, 55 Connecticut: antidiscrimination laws, 108 Construction: Delancey Street Foundation, 156–157 Consulting firms, 18 Consumers, ex-offenders as, 8 Convict Criminology School, 8, 175, 183–184 Convicts, ex-offenders as, 8 Correctional Association of New York, 37 Costs: community costs of incarceration and reentry, 33; deprisonalization movement, 40; long-term benefits of funding health care, 77; older adults, 181. See also Financial burden of prisons; Funding Counseling, employment, 132–133 Counseling, mental health, 73, 74– 75, 133–134

229

Credit and financial services, 101, 103–104, 157–158 Crime: crime rates, 112; employment success and, 97–98. See also Recidivism Criminal history data: banking and credit, 103; Canada’s pardoning practice, 112–113; employers’ access to, 101–107 Crossroads Café, Bookstore, and Art Gallery, 157 Cultural work: small businesses addressing community health and social issues, 22; spatial justice, 11–12 Customer discomfort with exoffenders, 105 Daily living needs and skills, 58–66; Delancey Street Foundation participants, 154–155; family and social support, 62–64; finances, 61–62; health care issues, 66–79; housing, 58–61; spiritual and religious needs, 64–66; successful reentry programs, 57 Death of ex-offenders, 75–77, 127 Debt, 61–62 Delancey Catering, 149 Delancey Coach, 159 Delancey Moving and Trucking Service, 158–159 Delancey Street Credit Union, 157– 158 Delancey Street Foundation: businesses and services operated by, 153–161; community, 148– 150; conceptualization of, 146; continuity of leadership, 165–166; evaluation of outcomes, 161–162; ex-offenders increasing community social capital, 15; funding streams, 152; goals of, 156; historical origins of, 147–

230

Index

148; lessons learned, 163–166; mission statement and operating principles, 150–152; origins and leadership of, 26; participant profiles, 152–153 Delancey Street Restaurant, 156–157 Delaware: small businesses addressing reentry, 115 Delores Mission Church, 119 Democracy: voter disenfranchisement, 48, 49–50, 51 Demographics: Boyle Heights neighborhood, 121; Delancey Street Foundation participants, 152–153; health status disparities, 71; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries participants, 124; inmate profile, release and resettling patterns, 35– 45; prison release trends, 39–45; profile of inmates, 36–39; returning population, 34; successful employment and recidivism, 96; voter disenfranchisement, 50 De-prisonalization movement, 40 Disabled ex-offenders: Homeboy/Homegirl Industries participant, 124–125; housing challenges, 60 Disabled individuals: Delancey Street Paratransit service, 159 Discrimination: antidiscrimination laws, 108; employment success and, 92, 104–105, 106–116; gang membership as response to, 118; housing, 54, 60. See also African Americans/blacks; Latinos; Race Disenfranchisement, 45–47; voter disenfranchisement, 47–52 Dissipation phase (Delancey Street Foundation), 155–156 Domestic violence, 134 Driver’s license restrictions, 51 Driving skills, 158–159 Drug use. See Substance abuse

Drug-related crimes: housing barriers, 54; racial and ethnic profile of prisoners, 37 Dually diagnosed illnesses, 72, 80 “Each one, teach one” system, 154– 155, 164–165 Early release programs, 3, 39, 86–87 East Los Angeles Skills Center, 142 Economic crisis and recession: consequences for reentry, 1–2; deprisonalization movement and, 42; impact on Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 138; impact on incarceration costs, 31–32; limiting employment options, 14 Economic impediments to reintegration, 101 Education: community education on reentry, 33; corrections field, 184– 185; declining participation in prison programs, 79; Delancey Street Foundation, 150–151, 155, 162; drug use providing business skills, 99–100; ex-offenders’ entrepreneurship, 19; formal education/training and employment, 108–110; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries training, 127, 132–133, 142; inmates protesting for, 89; prisons providing, 2, 109–110; skill enhancement strategies, 105–106; skill-building programs for employment, 96–97; success of prison industries, 97; women’s employable skills, 84–85. See also Higher education Educational attainment: disenfranchisement of exoffenders, 46–47; as obstacle to employment, 2; profile of prisoners, 38 Eighth Amendment, 73

Index

Elections: race and voting errors, 49– 50; small business symbols, 20; voter disenfranchisement and irregularities in 2000, 51 Element-of-the-crime inquiries, 108 Emotional support, 62–64 Employers: attitudes and behaviors toward hiring ex-offenders, 98, 113–114; evaluating ex-offenders in the workplace, 10–108 Employment: costs savings for prison systems, 90; discrimination and, 106–116; driver’s license restrictions, 51; economic recession limiting options, 1–2; educational attainment and, 38; ex-offenders increasing social capital, 15, 145–146; ex-offenders taking civilian jobs, 185–186; formal education/training and, 108–110; geographical siting of reentry, 91–92; homelessness and, 58; incarceration reducing opportunities, 91; in-prison programs and postrelease initiatives, 110–114; legal impediments to, 101–106; mindset of ex-offenders compromising, 56; quality of, 113; recidivism and, 95–100; small businesses, 114–116; techniques for securing, 92–93; women’s childcare responsibilities, 84–85; women’s employable skills, 83. See also Small businesses Enfranchisement, 45–47 England. See United Kingdom Entrepreneurship: inmates’ propensity measurement, 99–100; Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program, 17; small business aspects of social enterprises, 19– 21 Environmental programs, 142

231

Equal Credit Opportunity Act, 103– 104 Equity, 11 Ethical research, 182–184 Ethnic groups: community impact of voter disenfranchisement, 48; profile of inmates, 36–39. See also African Americans/blacks; Latinos; Race Eviction, 55 Executives: similarity to inmates, 17 Ex-inmate reentry, 7 Facilitating Employment for Persons Who Are Ex-offenders (Katvin et. al.), 91 Fact-specific inquiries, 108 Fair lending guidelines, 103–104 Fairness, 11 Faith-based initiatives, 64–66 Families of ex-offenders: connectedness and support for exoffenders, 62–64; Delancey Street Foundation principles, 151, 153; financial management, 62; finding employment, 93; gender-based challenges of reentry, 82; housing challenges, 55, 60; role in mental illness, 74–75; successful employment, 96; women forming social networks, 81–82 Farming programs, 90, 129 Fifteenth Amendment rights, 48 Film screening, 161 Financial burden of prisons: costs of recidivism, 98–99; deprisonalization movement, 41; funding gaps providing training opportunities, 90; government role in reentry programs, 186; health care, 68; older adults, 86; social and economic factors, 1–3. See also Costs; Funding Financial crisis. See Economic crisis and recession

232

Index

Financial management, 61–62 Florida: agricultural programs, 90; ex-offenders taking civilian jobs, 186; prison populations, 41; voter disenfranchisement, 51 Food service: Delancey Street Foundation, 149, 156–157; Homegirl Café, 128–129 Former prisoners, 8 Fortune Society, 61 France: incarceration rates, 97 Funding: challenges of, 145; costs of reentry initiatives, 28; Delancey Street Foundation, 152; small business incentives, 168–169; 2008 funding for reentry programs, 32. See also Costs; Financial burden of prisons Furniture making, 160 Gaddy, Dennis, 18 Gang involvement: business skills, 99; detrimental consequences for reentry process, 118; values, 183. See also Homeboy/Homegirl Industries Gang Leader for a Day (Venkatesh), 99 Gates, Henry Louis, 109 GED (General Educational Development), 38, 108, 110, 161 Gender: disparity between returning prisoner and nonprison population, 35; health status after release, 77; racial and ethnic profile of prisoners, 37; stigma of prison experience, 47; substance abuse in women, 78. See also Women Geographical siting of reentry: Delancey Street Foundation, 148– 149; disenfranchisement, 46; employment success and, 91–92

Georgia: prison protest for better conditions, 89 Germany: incarceration rates, 97 “Get-tough on crime” policies, 3, 14, 39–40 Giving back, 151 Goals of reentry, 31 Gonorrhea, 68 Government role in reentry, 186 Graffiti removal, 127 A Guide to Facilitating Employment for Persons with Mental Illness Who Are Ex-offenders (Katvin et. al.), 91 Handcrafts, 126–127, 128, 160 Hard skills, 104–105 Hawaii: housing access, 61 Health conditions in prisons, 69 Health issues: asset perspective of ex-offenders, 177–178; criticality in reentry, 57; Delancey Street Foundation, 153; disparity between returning prisoner and nonprison population, 34–35; health care initiatives, 79–80; Health Link for women, 85; HIV/AIDS, 68, 69–70; housing challenges and disabilities, 60; medical care for women, 84; mental health, 72–77; older adults, 86; overcrowding in prisons, 41; physical health, 66–72; reentry and health needs, 66–79; substance abuse, 68, 77–79 Health Link, 85 Health programs: small businesses addressing social issues, 22 Health trainers, ex-offenders as, 18 Healthcare coverage, 70, 80 Helping professions, 21, 35–36, 167– 168 Hepatitis, 68

Index

High school diploma, 108, 110 Higher education, 109, 155, 180, 187 High-profile health care needs, 68 Historical overview, 10–11 HIV/AIDS, 68, 69–70 Homeboy Bakery, 120, 126 Homeboy Graffiti Removal Services, 127 Homeboy Maintenance Services, 127 Homeboy Merchandise, 127–128 Homeboy Press, 130 Homeboy Review, 130 Homeboy Silkscreen and Embroidery, 126–127, 128 Homeboy/Homegirl Industries: bridging and bonding social capital, 141; businesses and services operated by, 125–130; challenges and lessons, 137–142; funding streams, 122–123; gang roots of, 118–119; historical origins of, 119–120; impact and outcomes, 135–137; mission statement and operating principles, 121–122; origins and leadership of, 26; participant profile, 123–125; participants’ physical appearance and stereotypes, 140; social services offered by, 131–135; successful aspects, 139–140; succession of leadership, 141–142 Homegirl Café and Catering, 128– 129 Homelessness, 52–55, 153, 162 Homicide, 75–76 Housing: daily living skills, 58–61; health concerns and, 80; homelessness, 52–55, 153, 162 Housing Act (1988), 55 Housing and Urban Development, Department of (HUD), 54–55

233

Housing markets, 59 Housing rights, 52–55 Houston, K.T., 66 HUD v. Rucker, 55 Human Rights Watch, 50 Humanitarian concerns, 90 Immigrants: Delancey Street Foundation origins, 147 Incarceration movement, 6 Incarceration rates, 97, 112; health disparities and, 70–71 Income supplements, 94 Indiana: preparing ex-offenders for employment, 91 Infectious diseases, demographic disparities, 71–72 Informal knowledge, 170 Inmates, ex-offenders as, 8 Inner-city communities. See Urban communities Innovation, need for: addressing multiple challenges, 185; Delancey Street Foundation, 146; helping professions, 21; participatory, 4–5 Insider knowledge, 183 Insider perspective, 8 Iran: voter disenfranchisement, 51 Japan: incarceration rates, 97 Job skills, legitimate and illegitimate, 100 “Jobs for a Future” program, 120 “Joe the Plumber,” 20 Joyce Foundation (Chicago), 98 Just Like That music group, 129– 130 Justice, 11 Justice, Bureau of, 69, 72 Justice, US Department of, 67–68 Kinship networks, 60

234

Index

Labor market: spatial siting of labor markets, 14 Landscaping services, 127, 160–161 Language of reentry, 7–9, 176–177; merits and limitations of, 12 Language proficiency, reentry success and, 38 Latinos: Boyle Heights neighborhood, 120–121; Delancey Street Foundation council, 151; discrimination and employment, 106; importance of communitybased interventions, 6; prejudice against African American prisoners, 14; racial and ethnic profile of prisoners, 37, 38; small businesses addressing health and social issues, 22. See also Homeboy/Homegirl Industries Leadership of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 141–142 Leap, Jorga, 137, 140 Learned helplessness, 145, 164–165 Learning disabilities, 67 Legal impediments to reintegration, 100–106 Legal issues associated with reentry, 186–187 Legal liability, 105 Legal services, 133 Licenses, professional, 101 Limousine service, 159 Literacy, 48, 153 Long-term commitments to reentry programs, 170 Louisiana: prison populations, 41 Low-profile health care needs, 68 Low-wage groups: spatial justice, 14 Maher, John, 26, 147–148, 158 Making Good: How Ex-convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives (Maruna), 27 Marijuana possession: voter disenfranchisement, 51

Marriage, 63 Maruna, Shadd, 27 Maryland: importance of employment success, 92–93; Open Door Study, 115; preparing inmates for employment, 56; prison populations, 41; urban reentry population, 43 Massachusetts: Delancey Street Foundation, 148, 150; housing access, 61 McKinney Act, 55 Media: de-prisonalization movement, 40; Homeboy Press, 130; perception of offenders, 12 Medical issues. See Health issues Mental health, 72–77; health care initiatives, 80; high-profile health care needs, 68; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries counseling services, 133–134; housing barriers, 54; religious and spiritual support, 66; selfperceptions of mental health needs, 73–74; stigma of being an ex-offender, 46; women, 84 Mental health deinstitutionalization movement, 41–42 Mental illness: employment access for persons with, 91; postrelease programs, 111; substance abuse and, 74, 78; successful employment and recidivism, 96 Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus infections, 68 Michigan: prison populations, 41 Middle Ages: voter disenfranchisement, 47 Midlife physical health, 71 The “Million Dollar Inmate”: The Financial and Social Burden of Nonviolent Offenders (AhnRedding), 28, 90 Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 22 Mind-set of ex-offenders, 55–57

Index

Miner Sentence Completion Scale— Form T, 99 Mississippi: prison populations, 41 Missouri: costs of incarceration, 3 Mobilization of social connections, 63 Moreno, Luis, 122 Mortality rate of ex-offenders, 75–77 Moving company: Delancey Street Foundation, 158–159 Music programs, 129–130 Mutual restitution, 151 National Public Radio (NPR), 124 Native Americans: Delancey Street Foundation council, 151 Nature of the crime: profile of prisoners, 38–39 Negative work credentials, 106–107 Neoconservatives: prisoner education, 109 Nevada: voter disenfranchisement, 52 New Mexico: Delancey Street Foundation, 148, 158–159, 160 New York: accessible housing, 61; antidiscrimination laws, 108; Delancey Street Foundation, 148, 149–150; ex-inmate unemployment rate, 93–94; Health Link for women, 85; homelessness and recidivism, 53; inmate release statistics, 43–44 New York Times, 40, 41, 42, 61–62 North Carolina: Delancey Street Foundation, 148, 149, 160–161 Offender, 8 Ohio: urban reentry population, 43 Older adults: Delancey Street Paratransit service, 159; reentry challenges, 85–87; unique needs of, 180–181. See also Age Open Door Study, 115 Overcrowding of prisons, 32, 41

235

Paradigm of reentry, 10–11, 177–178 Paratransit service, 159 Pardoning practices (Canada), 112– 113 Parental role of ex-offenders, 62–63 Parole, release without, 44 Participatory democracy, 170 Partnerships: cross-agency and crosscommunity, 17; developing trust in community-ex-offender partnerships, 33; interdisciplinary collaboration, 178–179; practitioners and academics, 24 Patient care jobs, 106 Patients, ex-offenders as, 8 Peer-to-peer counselors, 134 Penal Harm Movement, 39–40 Pennsylvania: economic status of reentry communities, 43; prison populations, 41; voter reenfranchisement, 50 People skills, 104–105, 128 Personal appearance, 155–156 Personal safety, 84 Physical abuse, 72, 84, 134 Physical appearance of ex-offenders, 140, 155–156 Physical health, 66–72, 86 Policymaking: “get-tough on crime” clashing with rising costs, 3–4; international policies, 111–112; language used in, 7 Political participation: Delancey Street Foundation values, 151 Political work: spatial justice, 11–12 Post-release, 9 Power 106 FM radio (Los Angeles), 126–127 Presidential election, 20 Printing service, 160 “Prison Nation” article, 42 Prison population: de-prisonalization movement, 40–41 Prison reform, 1–2 Prison release trends, 39–45

236

Index

Prisoner Entrepreneurship Program, 17 Prisonization, 56 Privatization of prisons, 67 Probation violation: unemployment connection, 93–94 Process, reentry as, 32 Produce growing programs, 90, 129 Profile of inmates, 36–39 Prostitution, 68 Protests, inmate, 89 Psychiatric medication, 69 Psychological support, 62–64 Psychotropic medication, 73 Public health, 71–72 Public housing, 58–59 Public opinion: prisoner rehabilitation and community reentry, 23 Public safety concerns, 2, 98–99 Putnam Magazine, 150 Quakers, 110 Quality of health care, 73 Race: city and rural reentry differences, 42; community impact of voter disenfranchisement, 48–49; criminal justice and people of color, 5–6; demographics of the returning population, 34; discrimination and employment, 2, 92, 106; disenfranchisement of ex-offenders, 46–47; formal education and training, 109–110; helping professions, 21; homelessness and, 59; postrelease employment projects, 111; profile of inmates, 36–39; racism and criminal justice literature, 176; racism increasing reentry challenges, 44; voter disenfranchisement and, 50–51.

See also African Americans/ blacks; Latinos Recession. See Economic crisis and recession Recidivism and reincarceration: Canada’s pardoning practice, 112– 113; Delancey Street Foundation success, 162; demographics of, 32; disenfranchisement, 46; employment decreasing probability of, 90, 95–100; faithbased programs, 65; homelessness and, 52–55, 59; importance of community in reducing, 16; innercity concentration, 14; mental health problems, 72; older adults, 85–87; Pennsylvania communities, 43; prison costs, 3; profile of prisoners, 38; social adaptation for inmates, 56; special population groups, 80–81; training and preparation for life, 44; unemployment and, 92; women’s healthcare delivery and, 85 Reciprocity: Delancey Street Foundation principles, 165– 166 Reconnection, 9 Recruiting students, 184–185 Reentry brokers, 173–175 Reentry support, 9 Rehabilitation: Canada’s pardoning program, 112; connotations, 8; as goal of justice system, 111; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries’ roots, 119–120; importance in reentry process, 33; political shift from punishment to, 100; prisons providing, 2; reentry concept, 9. See also Delancey Street Foundation; Homeboy/ Homegirl Industries Relationships, importance to women, 82

Index

Release trends and statistics, 39–45, 116 Religious Education Congress, 128 Religious needs, 64–66, 75, 118–120 Renal disease, 68 Reno, Janet, 10 Research and evaluation, 181–182 Researchers, ex-offenders as, 175 Resettlement, 9 Resocialization, 56–57 Resources: allocation and prioritization of, 100; gang membership providing, 118; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries funding streams, 122–123, 138– 139; social connections, 63. See also Funding Restitution, 133, 151 Retributive justice, 11 Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry (Urban Institute study), 53–54 Robinson, Joseph, 19 Rodriguez, Ruben, 126 Rohr, Catherine, 17 Role models, ex-offenders as, 14–15 Roman history: voter disenfranchisement, 47 Rural sector: Delancey Street New Mexico, 148, 149, 158–159, 160; prisoner reentry perspective, 42 San Francisco State University, 155 San Juan Pueblo, New Mexico, 148, 149 Sane Asylum: Inside the Delancey Street Foundation (HampdenTurner), 155 Sauvé v. Canada, 51 School of Convict Criminology, 8, 175 Screening room, 161 Second Chance Act (2008), 60, 109, 111

237

Self respect, 151 Self-esteem, 95, 151, 154, 155, 162 Self-help programs: employment, 91. See also Delancey Street Foundation Self-knowledge, 170 Senior citizen transport service, 159 Sentence lengths, 112 Sentencing Project, 50 Service-oriented infrastructure, 115 Setting aside a criminal record, 112 Sexual abuse, 72, 84 Sexually transmitted diseases, 68 Shelter Plus Care Program, 55 Silbert, Mimi, 147–148, 153, 162, 165–166 Silk-screening skills, 126–127 Skill-building, 96, 103, 115, 132–133 Slavery, 48 Small Business Assistance Administration, 103 Small businesses: Delancey Street Foundation, 146, 153–161; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 122, 125–130; policy implications, 167–168; potential employers, 114–116; social enterprises’ grounding in, 19–21; social issues and, 21–23; success of Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 136; tax credits, stipends, and incentives for, 168–169 Smart on crime, 7 Social brokering, 105–106 Social capital, 63; ex-offenders increasing, 15; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 141 Social enterprises: addressing community health and social issues, 22–23; defining, 20; employment programs, 115–116; helping professions, 21; marshaling ex-offenders’

238

Index

strengths, 18; potential for, 169– 170; small business aspects of, 19–21; small enterprises, 21–23. See also Delancey Street Foundation; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries Social investment, cost of reentry programs and, 28 Social networking: finding employment, 93; older adults, 86; women’s formation of, 81–82 Social services: Delancey Street Foundation, 146, 153–161; Homeboy/Homegirl Industries, 131–135, 139 Social skills, 154–155 Social support, 62–64; spiritual and religious needs, 64–66 Socialization of ex-offenders: employment preparation, 56; women, 81–82 Socioeconomic status: city and rural reentry differences, 42–44; demographics of the returning population, 34; homelessness and, 52–53, 59; profile of prisoners, 37; unemployment and crime, 67; unemployment rate and, 94 Sociopolitical aspects of reentry, 4 Soft skills, 104–105 South Africa: voter disenfranchisement, 51 Spatial justice, 11–15 Special population groups, 68. See also Older adults; Women Spiritual needs, 64–66, 75 State prison systems: budget gaps providing unique training opportunities, 90; deprisonalization movement, 40–41; financial burden, 3 Status, importance to men, 82 Stigma attached to ex-offenders, 46– 47, 103, 182–183

Stipends for small businesses, 168– 169 Strategic initiatives, 142 Strengths of ex-offenders, 17–19 Stress, exposure to, 71 Substance abuse, 77–79; business skills correlating to, 99–100; Delancey Street Foundation principles, 150–151; high-profile health care needs, 68; infectious diseases, 71; mental illness and, 72, 74, 78; success of reentry initiatives, 94; women, 83, 84 Suicide, 68, 75–76 Support networks, 62–64 Support programs: age and recidivism, 38 Supreme Court, US: California’s overcrowding, 41; cruel and unusual treatment of prisoners, 32; family members’ evictions, 55 Surrogate prison, community as, 42 Tattoo removal service, 135 Tattoos, 125, 140 Tax credits, 168–169 Technology: Homeboy Press, 130 Tennessee: housing access, 61 Territorial justice, 11 Texas: HIV/AIDS treatment, 70; inmate release statistics, 43; prison populations, 41; scale of reentry programs, 32; women and drug use, 83 Therapeutic rebiographing, 74 Thinking Outside the Cell: An Entrepreneur’s Guide for the Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated (Robinson), 19 A Time to Change, 50 Transient state, reentry as, 32 Transitional care, 9 Transitional employment, 103, 104– 105 Transitional housing, 61

Index

Transitional jobs programs, 98 Trauma, 84 Travis, Jeremy, 10 The Truly Disadvantaged: The InnerCity, the Underclass, and Public Policy (Wilson), 12 Ukraine: voter disenfranchisement, 51 Unemployment trends, 92–94 United Kingdom: community engagement of ex-offenders, 18; homelessness and recidivism, 53, 54; incarceration rates, 97; personal employment support, 98 Urban communities: employment success and, 91–92; health disparities, 71–72; housing barriers, 54; spatial justice, 11–15. See also Communities and community-based interventions Urban Institute, 53–54, 83 Values, 183 Village, Delancey Street Foundation building as, 163–164 Virginia: inmate release statistics, 43 Visitation, 64 Vocational training, 79, 109 Voter initiatives, 47–52 Voting rights, 48–52, 100–101; Delancey Street Foundation values, 151

239

Voucher programs: housing, 61 War on crime, 6–7 War on Drugs, 6–7, 83 War on the poor, 7 War on women, 7 War veterans, 33 Washington: public housing challenges, 61 Website: Delancey Street Foundation, 164 White non-Latinos: Delancey Street Foundation council, 151; discrimination and employment, 106–107; racial and ethnic profile of prisoners, 37 White-collar crimes: voter disenfranchisement, 51 Wilson, William Julius, 12 Wisconsin: antidiscrimination laws, 108 Women: Delancey Street Foundation council, 151–152; gender-based reentry challenges, 81–85; neglecting health needs, 71; reconnecting with released partners, 63. See also Gender Work ethic, 151 Work experience, 96, 103 Work-release programs, 93 Ya ‘Stuvo Tattoo Removal, 135

About the Book

Convicted offenders need jobs when they leave prison—but few people want to hire them. Spotlighting this thorny issue, Melvin Delgado explores the potential role of business enterprises in providing work to former prisoners and helping them to reconnect with their home communities. Delgado documents the unconventional approaches of nonprofit businesses that deliberately and exclusively hire former inmates. He finds that employers can play a multifaceted role in helping ex-convicts to face life “on the outside.” Beyond wages, for example, employers can offer skill training, mentoring, and social support. As he evaluates the successes and failures reflected in his case studies, he provides a window on the complex interplay of social, economic, and institutional factors that can encourage—or prevent—a successful reentry process. Melvin Delgado is professor of social work at Boston University.

241