Reports and data recently released suggest that some criminal justice reform strategies are working, and overall rates of incarceration and recidivism have declined, 5,6 which is encouraging. But, approximately one in three Americans has a criminal record,7 and one in 55 adults is under some form of community supervision,8 which further illustrates that the scope of incarceration and reentry in the United States is complex and far-reaching.
For the large number of individuals subject to confinement in the United States, the period of physical custody is only the beginning of a lifetime of challenges. Once released from prison, formerly incarcerated individuals are met with a host of obstacles to successful reentry.
Though it should be noted that “reentry” and “recidivism” are defined and measured by a variety of methods that produce divergent statistics, a widely used estimate asserts that 630,000 individuals reenter society annually from prison,9 another 11 million cycle through jails 10 and another 4.5 million are under some form of court ordered supervision whose status mimics those that are formerly incarcerated.11 The large number of individuals returning each year represent a daunting challenge to our nation’s social and human services infrastructure.
Individuals who return to society from prison each year face myriad challenges, including potential rejection by friends and family; employers and landlords concerned about their criminal history; and difficulty accessing basic elements of life on the outside, such as securing valid identification and accessing public services. Stigma, structural racism, and misinformation often place critical support just out of reach, and guidelines issued by public agencies place formerly incarcerated individuals at the bottom of waiting lists for services that are already in short supply.
These concerns extend to the much larger population returning from jails, as well as to individuals who are not incarcerated but are subject to different forms of community supervision. More than 48,000 legal consequences of being convicted of a crime are identified in the National Inventory of Collateral Consequences of Conviction and are likely to inhibit an individual’s successful reintegration.
Planning effectively for reentry success is impossible without recognizing and accounting for the many confounding factors that contribute to individuals becoming involved with the criminal justice system. Among the societal elements that play a part in poor reentry outcomes are poverty, a lack of investment in education, insufficient health resources, mental health and substance abuse disorders, and systemic racism that has led to higher rates of incarceration for ethnic and racial minorities.
In reference to the confluence of inputs that lead to negative outcomes, University of Texas, Austin, sociology professor William R. Kelly describes a “nearly perfect recidivism machine” in which...
“the decision to not properly fund public health, schools and social welfare agencies has created problems that by default are managed by the criminal justice system. Criminal justice reform means much more than merely reforming the criminal justice system. It requires massive changes to and investment in a variety of collateral institutions.”12
Reentry Ready stakeholders assert firmly that multiple overlapping systems must collaborate to facilitate successful reentry.
Consequences of the high rates of incarceration and the challenges associated with reentry are not limited to those who are directly subject to the system. Society must bear the high fiscal and social costs of the inflated rates of incarceration and recidivism. Though the annual cost of corrections is often cited as $80 billion13, a 2016 Washington University of St. Louis study asserts that this figure drastically underestimates the actual cost of incarceration. According to that study, incarceration’s aggregate cost is close to $1 trillion annually, fueled by related social costs that amount to nearly 6 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States.14
Silos: Incarceration and reentry system agencies have different operational and cultural characteristics that often conflict. Medical care for incarcerated individuals offers an example. Corrections systems operate with entirely separate health providers and funding streams than community-based healthcare systems, making it difficult for returning individuals to reestablish eligibility for benefits and transition to community-based health care. Determining how to transcend the obvious and perceived walls between incarceration and reentry systems and to promote cross-system connections is a challenge. However, well-designed cross-system collaboration improves outcomes for currently and formerly incarcerated individuals wherever the systems intersect.
Benefit eligibility: Public and private funding, and the policies that govern incarceration and reentry systems, include strict rules that hinder cross-system collaboration. For example, rules that limit eligibility for federal student aid for individuals with certain types of convictions, and the misinterpretation of rules regarding felons’ ability to access public housing, hinder the ability of currently and formerly incarcerated individuals to access services and supports that are critical to reentry success. Additionally, individuals are usually not covered by Medicaid while they are incarcerated,17 and eligibility is often not re-established for individuals prior to release.18 This discontinuity of benefits leads to discontinuities of care and can affect short- and long-term health status of formerly incarcerated individuals.
Accountability: Stakeholders note that each system is accountable for a different set of outcomes and to different constituencies. The primary metrics for corrections systems focus on safety and security, rather than on successful preparation for reentry. Technical training programs accountable for placing students into jobs are discouraged from accepting “high risk” reentering individuals who face stigma in the job market. The lack of a common set of outcomes and shared accountability makes systems less willing to invest their limited resources in cross-system collaboration. In contrast, developing shared metrics and shared accountability for achieving them can lead to implementation of mutually beneficial actions that improve reentry outcomes.
Leadership: Stakeholders noted that public officials, as well as business and community leaders, often see the challenges of reentry as primarily a problem for corrections and law enforcement agencies, rather than the concern of the full range of state and local public agencies and private partners that could promote success. This relates to the work of leaders at all levels of government. Even when leaders do commit to work together across systems, maintaining momentum and sustaining commitments over time is problematic, given leadership changes, dynamic political pressure, and shifting public will. Election cycles bring changes of leadership in various appointed and elected positions, making it difficult to build the relationships necessary for deep collaboration. Actors and systems concerned with supporting incarcerated and reentering individuals must work to maintain the momentum of collaboration despite constantly changing leadership and decision-making processes.
