Out from Behind Bars: Canadian Ex-Prisoners’ Perspectives on the Transition from Prison to the Community
by Rebecca Greenberg
Abstract
With increasing government investment in the building of prisons, stricter application of lengthy sentencing laws, and the rising cost of incarceration, “Out from Behind Bars: Canadian Ex-Prisoners’ Perspectives on the Transition from Prison to the Community” examines the challenges faced by prisoners as they reintegrate back into the community. Primarily based on the findings of Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher which show that individual characteristics, family relationships, community contexts and state policies form the basis of successful offender reintegration (2003), this paper details interviews with six ex-offenders that confirm these findings while highlighting the importance of education, employment and community support to reduce recidivism and facilitate reintegration. The use of in-depth interviews adds a nuanced and candid perspective while providing a voice to the multiplicity of obstacles and challenges faced by ex-prisoners. The proposed initiatives therefore aim to ease the burden of incarceration currently placed on taxpayers, community members and offenders alike.
First established to repair "a rupturing of the bonds that held civil society together," the original purpose of prison was to "regenerate the lawbreaker (rehabilitation) and pause those who saw the law-breaking (deterrence)" (Stastny and Tyrnauer 1982:12). Yet, despite changes to the physical architecture of prison, amendments to forms of punishment, and large government investments in correctional programs, the prison system continues to demonstrate “inefficacy in either reducing crime or rehabilitating those who pass through its gates” (Stastny and Tyrnauer 1982:205). This raises a simple question: why is the prison system ineffective in fulfilling its purpose? As the Harper Administration continues to direct budgetary funds towards the construction of more prisons - , a budget that has increased by 54% in 2010-2011 and will reach $3.12 billion by 2012-13 , a- a cost-benefit analysis of prison's societal function and role is increasingly imperative (Maynard 2010). According to Correctional Service Canada, it costs over $70,000 annually to house one inmate[1] in a minimum or medium security prison; that figure reaches upwards of $110,000 annually per inmate in a maximum security prison (Basen 2006). With over 14,000 inmates currently housed in Canadian prisons, the cost of incarceration is not only a judicial issue but also a societal issue placed on the shoulders of taxpayers (Correctional Service Canada 2008).
While rates of incarceration increasingly become a locus of societal discomfort, a complementary study looks at the rising rates and underlying causes of recidivism. A recent inquiry by Statistics Canada found a 44% rate of reconviction in the first year after release; 50% of ex-prisoners were also found to reconvict upon completion of their full sentence (time in prison plus parole) (Bonta 2003). Another report by Correctional Service Canada shows that one-third of inmates who complete their full sentence will reconvict in their lifetime (Van Loan 2009). With $1,963.9 million invested in reintegration programs alone, the efficacy of the prison system to rehabilitate inmates and to help them successfully reintegrate into society truly comes into question (Van Loan 2009).
Griffiths, Dandurand and Murdoch highlight that “comprehensive crime prevention programs must include effective measures to prevent recidivism and to stop the cycle of failed adaptation by repeat offenders” (2007:1). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to allow ex-prisoners to identify which services offered by Correctional Service Canada proved most useful during their reintegration to society. The study will also look to identify what services ex-prisoners feel are necessary, but which are currently missing, to facilitate a successful transition back into the community.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Despite the burgeoning issue of an exponentially increasing prison population, "[l]ess attention has been paid to the influence of state policy on prisoners' preparation for release and the pathways of reintegration following release" (Visher and Travis 2003:104). Studying the transition from prison to the community,Visher and Travis highlight four dimensions of successful reintegration: individual characteristics, family relationships, community contexts and state policies (2003). Defined as “finding and holding a job, avoiding use of alcohol and illegal drugs, finding affordable housing, [and] receiving physical and mental health care,” successful reintegration remains an imperative factor in reducing the rate of recidivism (Visher and Travis 2003:103). While individual characteristics and family relationships are influential in the post-release experience, these two factors are mediated on an individual level and therefore established on a case-by-case basis. Elements of successful reintegration not mediated on an exclusively individual level include participation in treatment programs, pre-release preparation, initial housing needs, transitional assistance, family support, employment experiences, social service support and criminal justice supervision (Visher and Travis 2003). Many of these factors overlap with the conclusion of Travis, Solomon and Waul that, “[t]aken together, the employment, health, substance abuse, education, and housing issues of returning inmates present formidable challenges to successful reintegration” (2001:12). Further studies demonstrate the importance of (re) establishing personal relationships, finding suitable accommodation, gaining employment, and participating in post-release programs, such as drug treatment classes, to reduce rates of recidivism (Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, and Peters 2002; Harer 1994; Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999). From the research available, education and employment, preparatory programs, and housing are three common elementsmentioned recurrently as principle determinants of successful reintegration.
The impact of education, defined as vocational training or academic education, is closely linked to the dimension of employment (Travis et al. 2001). Education during and after incarceration has a positive correlation with employment in 85% of documented cases (Stevens 2008). Research shows that employment is the largest concern for prisoners in the pre-release period with 88% of inmates reporting that they need either more job training or more education in order to become employable upon release (Visher 2007). Studies show prisoners experience the highest level of anxiety during the pre-release period; tThe provision of education, however, was found to greatly reduce this stress (Johnson and Toch 1982). Therefore, during the period of incarceration, productive education directed to post-release employment helps to mediate individual levels of stress and anxiety.
Indeterminate of the level of education with which an inmate enters prison, the stigma of incarceration greatly reduces the probability of productive employment upon release. Defined by Uggen, Manza and Thomson as “collateral sanctions,” the stigmaof incarceration “operate[s] as an interconnected system of disadvantage that amplifies disparities in economic and social well-being” (2006:298). For example, formerly incarcerated individuals are legally required to disclose that that they have a criminal record. While advocacy groups, such as the “Ban the Box” campaign in California, condemn this disclosure policy, the immediate discrimination and stigma attached to record disclosure proves a strong barrier to employment (All of Us or None Campaign)[V1] . Second, incarceration leaves a large gap in an individual’s curriculum vitae, one that cannot be easily explained. Third, changes in technology and in the necessary skill sets for employment may render previous education non-transferable, thus yielding previously gained qualifications unmarketable in the current work climate. As a result, incarceration not only stifles prisoners’ overall career trajectory but also their wage trajectoryby proposing limits to employment gains and advancements (Pager 2003).
The difficulty in obtaining employment is directly linked to the risk and probability of recidivism. Multiple studies found that a legitimate job and an adequate source of income upon release greatly lowers rates of recidivism (Johnson and Toch 1982; Travis et al. 2001; Visher 2007). The ability to earn an adequate wage lowers financial stress, thus decreasing the probability of returning to crime. Job prospects are especially imperative for long-term prisoners who face diminishing chances for a stable job and income over the life course (Travis et al. 2001). Legitimate employment not only provides an economic advantage and incentive to not recidivate, but also impacts social ties by facilitating relationships and networks within the immediate community. A steady income affords ex-prisoners the ability to earn and to save money for personal advancement and for social events. Overall, employment increases the sentiment of being a productive part of society, thus integrating the individual into the economic and social dynamics of the community.
However, despite ample evidence linking education and post-release employment, the Harper Administration continues to decrease budgetary allocation for educational programs while increasing funds for correctional preparatory programs. At the beginning of a correctional sentence,each inmate receives a checklist of programs that need to be fulfilled before they are eligible for parole. Designed to “address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community,” the correctional programs are divided into six categories: general crime prevention, violence prevention, family violence prevention, substance abuse, sex offenders, and community-based correctional programs (Research and Reintegration Programs Division 2009). While Correctional Service Canada acknowledges that many of the programs are poorly defined or based on inadequate conceptual models, the Correctional Program Accreditation process (a panel which reviews and demonstrates the effectiveness of programs directed by Correctional Service Canada) attempts to ensure their adequacy in reducing recidivism (Proportion, Fabian and Robinson 2009). Studies found that programs are most effective when they are matched to prisoner risks and needs, when they are well-managed, and when the intervention is supported through post-release supervision” (Travis et al. 2011:72). However, due to the lack of individualization in the programs and the proliferation of blanket initiatives aimed to rehabilitate different types of offenders within the same curriculum, the success of the programs remains tenuous.
Lastly, previous studies point to housing as an indirect factor mediating recidivism due to the relationship between low cost housing and unstable communities (Baldry et al. 2002). If suitable and sustainable housing is not provided, released prisoners often find themselves concentrated in neighborhoods with high rates of homelessness and crime that lack strong social services (Nilsson 2003). This, in turn, creates strong incentives to reconvict.
In addition to government policy, the third dimension, community context, is a strong mediating factor for successful reintegration that lies outside the control of the individual. Although a newly emerging theme of study, there is growing acknowledgement that prisoners need to be immediately directed to support services and resources in the post-release period (Griffiths et al: 2007). Described by Visheras “intangible skills,” the resources and supportprovided by a strong social safetynet improve ex-prisoners’ overall likelihood of successful reintegration (2007:97). Allen and Simonsenplace the responsibility of successful reintegration in the hands of the community in which the prisoner is released (1998). Correctional Service Canada states in its official publication: “[o]ffenders have a better chance of success if they receive supervision, opportunities, training and support within the community to which they must readjust” (Correctional Service Canada 2008). This provides the framework for the current process of reintegration that grants codes, such as conditional passes, work release, and escorted and unescorted temporary absences, to inmates as they near the end of their sentence. The use of codes and passes aims to slowly reintegrate currently incarcerated prisoners within the community so that resources and networks are established upon release. In addition, such resources and services as long term emotional monitoring, emotional support and occasional material support prove integral to the process of successful reintegration (Johnson and Toch 1982). When released offenders feel isolated from the community and blocked from society’s opportunities and freedoms, they are more likely to return to a life of crime (Stevens 2008).
METHOD
I conducted semi-structured interviews with six recently released inmates to discuss their experience pre-release and post-release in relation to the reintegration process. Please refer to Appendix A for the list of interview questions. As the study focused on individual effects of macro-level policies, I chose to use in-depth interviews in order to gain greater understanding of each interviewee’s situation, obtain higher quality and more specific information, and allow for the interviewee’s interpretation of the applicability of policy outcomes (Shelly and Rosenblatt 2011). In addition, use of the in-depth interview method contextually places the issue in relation to the interviewees’ personal experiences and allows interviewees to suggest and evaluate possible solutions, such as more effective programs. The six men were selected based on their current stagein the reintegration process (either living in a half-way house or by themselves), their participation in Montreal Southwest Community Ministries’ “Open Door” program, and my personal rapport with them. All six interviewees were released from prison in the past year; three currently live in a half-way house and three live in their own apartment. Five of them served sentences in federal prison and one served his sentence in a provincial prison. I met the six men through “Open Door,” a reintegration program for currently or formerly incarcerated men based on the principles of restorative justice. I have volunteered there since September of 2008. Having met the interviewees in an informal setting, I established a good relationship with them prior to the interviews. According to Shelly and Rosenblatt’s book Systems Analysis and Design, “[e]stablishing a good rapport with the interviewee is important…if the other person feels comfortable and at ease, you probably will receive more complete and candid answers” (2011). While good rapport with the interviewees allowed for open dialogue and in-depth answers, interviewees were informed that disclosure of their offense and any other information they deemed sensitive was at their discretion. In addition, the questions were formed as unbiased and as apolitical as possible while recognizing the possibility of a “Hawthorne Effect.”
FINDINGS
Findings from the interviews were consistent with previous literature on the reintegration process and the necessary elements for a successful transition from prison to the community. The most important and predominant theme expressed in the interviews was the need for productive employment upon release. All interviewees expressed frustration with the lack of educational and vocational learning opportunities inside prison and the subsequent replacement of previous educational and vocational programs with conditional programs—such as anger management classes, which must be completed before a prisoner becomes eligible for parole. Cody discussed the impact of spending seventeen and half years inside prison doing nothing and, now that he is released, spending more time and money going to school to become employable. He stated that, “[m]oney and employment become a big worry [inside]…you need to come out employable,” but that becomes impossible when there is a lack of either vocational or academic education. At the prison in which George served his sentence, he said a few vocational programs existed but there was a two-year waiting list: “[E]ven if you want to better yourself and learn a trade, forget it, it takes two years to get in.”
All sixmen expressed disappointment at the lack of productive activities inside prison, although the lack of educational and trades programs affected only one of the interviewee’s current employment. ,However, this may have to do with his lack of previous education both academically and vocationally. Despite being employed, all of the interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their work and noted feelings of underemployment. While services such as Le Centre de Main-d’Oeuvre OPEX’82 are available in order to help ex-prisoners build curriculum vitaes with the activities they did while in prison, the men must find employment for themselves. In addition, as all but one interviewee is originally from Quebec, most lacked the necessary French skills that facilitate the process of employment. Nonetheless, all of the interviewees talked about the relationship between academic and vocational skills and recidivism: “If [ex-prisoners] haven’t got the skills to get a job, the minute they don’t have any money…they’re going to be back to breaking the law…There is a revolving door in the system” (Joe).
Upon release, the lack of adequate financial support was highlighted as a large source of stress for the majority of the interviewees. While George is the only interviewee currently unemployed, he, Joe and Cody talked extensively about the lack of government financial support for those living in a halfway house. Each person in a private halfway house is given $42 per week. From this small allowance they are required to purchase a $22 STM (bus/metro) pass and, in some halfway houses, buy toilet paper and personal toiletries as well. However, in a publically sponsored halfway house, parolees receive $98 per week but food is not provided. Again, the three men blamed Correctional Service Canada for putting them in a precarious situation without support: “They put you in a situation where they want you to fuck up. They give you $42, so most people they don’t have money, so what do they do? They go back to crime” (George). Cody also discussed how this lack of financial support stymies the reintegration process by rendering it difficult to both gain an education and rebuild one’s social networks.
In terms of the government Correctional Programs, four sources of tension were repeatedly expressed: the lack of applicability, the lack of focus for the target audience, the repetition of themes and ideas across programs, and the influence of the instructor. Cody and Dennis, both who served a life sentence, spoke of the lack of applicability of the programs in maximum-security prisons. While both said the programs provided valuable information, much of the information (e.g. steps of decompression of anger) were not found useful in the “dog-eat-dog” world of maximum security prison: “They would give you a program but then you go back to a maximum and that program is useless…you still have to live in the pen and some guys don’t give a damn about shit” (Cody). However, Cody did mention a violence prevention program that effectively overcame this issue by correlating the completion of the program with a transfer to a medium security prison where there was less pressure of violence.
Second, the two men who served time in maximum-security prison cited a lack of focus in the programs’ curricula. Both expressed frustration that many federal programs were originally created and geared towards maximum-security prisoners yet were awarded to “less-threatening” prisoners as awards for good behavior or for “snitching.” Cody mentioned a prison built on a beach in Vancouver (meant to serve as a place for decompression catering to prisoners with long sentences and of the Phoenix Houses (apartment style housing on the prison site meant to help “lifers” reintegrate) as examples of government programs created with good intentions but which were subsequently not awarded to their target population.
Third, all interviewees who were incarcerated in federal prison talked about the repetition of the programs. They said that “the programs all mirror each other,” and therefore fail to serve their purpose because prisoners learn to “easily fake through the system” [V2] (Joe). As the fundamental message of programs repeats, prisoners learn the expected answer that will appease the instructor; each program completed marks one step closer to eligibility for parole. While the interviewees said that some programs held value, they said that the repetitious nature of chosen topics led to an undervaluing of the overall message.
Last, when asked which program was most effective, all of the federal interviewees talked about the influence of the instructor as making the program significant. Joe and Dennis both spoke of the need for instructors who are not burnt out, uptight and uninterested, saying that their most memorable instructor was both actively engaged and truly interested in seeing them succeed. Dennis, for example, talked about an instructor who made the information fun by using the examples in the book (“What do you do if someone bumps you in the bus line?”) and making them applicable to the inmates’ current situation (“What do you do if someone knocks you in the chow line?”)(Dennis). While all expressed a “natural aversion” to programs, they also spoke of their necessity. However, due to the involuntary nature and strict time line of the programs, several of the men simply said “its not that [the programs] are all bad, it’s just that at the time I wasn’t prepared” (Dennis).
All of the interviewees discussed the role of their parole officer and support staff, such as psychologists, in the pre-release and post-release period. Three of the federal prisoners talked about the lack of contact they had with their parole officer while inside prison, recounting that their parole officer would meet with them just once a year for their Security Classification, a routine process of determining eligibility for transfers. While Steve talked about his congenial relationship with his parole officer, the others spoke of the parole officers’ role as simply information gatherers and gatekeepers.
Even more annoyance was expressedat the lack of individual psychological support available. The non-trusting environment of prison was discussed in relation to group therapy sessions in which “you have to trust the [people in your therapy session] not to run through the yard…it’s hard enough to open up one-on-one and here you don’t even like the people” (Joe). Once in the community, however, all five of the federal ex-prisoners commented on the reversal of this relationship. For example, Dennis discussed the resentment he held towards his case manager upon release because “everything felt like a battle.” And, after seeing his case worker just once a year while incarcerated, “[a]ll of a sudden, I’m out, I make it thought the battle grounds, and all of sudden you guys wanna talk about shit… now you guys wanna talk and say ‘oh, see what we’ve done’” (Dennis).
DISCUSSION
The findings from the interviews not only confirm previous studies but also add a nuanced and reflective element to the reintegration process from men involved with the prison system. While none of the men explicitly mentioned the issue of housing, all discussed education, employment and community support. While the Harper Administration continues to modify the current judicial system, several initiatives should be considered if Correctional Service Canada wishes to fulfill its mandate to reduce recidivism.
1. Reinstitute advanced educational programs and vocational skills opportunities.
Education programs beyond a grade ten level, the level currently required within the Correctional Plans policy, and access and availability to vocational programs were repeatedly noted as necessary in both the previous literature and the interviews. Academic programs and vocational skills were repeatedly cited for their role in building self-esteem and self-worth as well as increasing prisoners’ productivity in society upon release. Providing inmates with a means of employment upon release not only lowers pre-release and post-release stress, but also lowers the risk of repeat offending by offering a means to a stable income. Therefore, I have two recommendations. First,reinstitute educational and vocational programs in prisons that are pertinent and applicable to the current job market. Second, create a job bank of employers willing to hire individuals with criminal records.
2. Increase the amount of spending per inmate during the period of incarceration.
This initiative aims to increase funding for access to individual psychological counseling. Increasing the number of psychologists available would allow inmates an honest chance to resolve individual problems and allow a better judgment of each inmate’s overall character and improvement, thereby enhancing the pace of release. This not only reduces the cost of incarceration by shortening the length of overall sentences but also increases the likelihood that prisoners will make a smoother transition to the community and contribute both socially and economically.
3. Make correctional plan programs voluntary, relevant and provided for the target population.
By making the programs voluntary, fewer funds will be spenton prisoners who simply do the programs in order to complete their Correctional Plan. The voluntary nature will help ensure improved quality of programs due to increased available funds for more qualified teachers and resources, enhance the dedication of compliance and involvementby people who choose to take it, and allow “people to sit with their conscious for a while” (Steve). Making them relevant to the current context of prison will improve the programs’ legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, programs need to be available for the target population for whom they were proposed. If programs are awarded to short-term inmates, the long-term inmates will lack the necessary skills to reintegrate and therefore face a higher risk of re-offending. Instead, if aimed and provided for men serving long-term sentences, these programs could help them to decompress and slowly re-learn the skills necessary for successful re-entry into the community.
4. Increase the opportunities for gradual re-integration through transitional programs.
All of the interviewees cited Quebec as the most helpful in the transitional phase through its widespread use of codes. Most of the men discussed how “jail infantilizes you” and how gradual steps are necessary to re-adjust to the “fast” pace of society compared to the slow, uni-directional pace of prison (Cody, Joe). Other provinces should follow Quebec’s lead to introduce initiatives such as the Shopping Program, a program in which prisoners create shopping budgets, visit the supermarket, and prepare meals together. Codes and conditional absences are necessary in order to allow prisoners, especially those serving long-term sentences, to slowly re-acclimate to life outside prison. In addition, transitional programs help prisoners begin to build social networks and employment opportunities while still serving their sentence (Ira). Therefore, by using a gradual, step-by-step reintegration program prior to release, there is an overall reduction in the stress and shock of release, and an increased likelihood of creating social linkages and finding the necessary employment for a successful transition.
5. Increase financial support in the post-release period.
As the findings shows, the punitive amount of financial support provided to individuals in the post-release period inhibits ex-inmates both financially and socially. Individuals often face a situation of desperation, thereby increasing the likelihood of returning to crime. It also limits opportunities for establishing a solid social network. Therefore, providing a reasonable stipend reduces the chances of re-offending and increases opportunities to successfully reintegrate.
6. Increase government funding for community outreach programs.
Programs such as “Open Door” should be more available to men in prison. All of the interviewees said that they learned about the “Open Door” through either previous contact with Peter (the director) or through word-of-mouth. The government should not only increase funding for more programs but also help disseminate information on such programs as part of inmates’ release debriefing. For men such as Ira, “Open Door” has served as his principle source of support, friendship and inspiration; he cites it as his main deterrent for re-offending.
While many changes to the judicial system must occur in order to fulfill the purpose of prison as a rehabilitation process, my six suggestions focus on the third and fourth element of Visher and Travis’ proposed dimensions. The need to implement constructive community networks and productive government policies to support inmates in the reintegration process is necessary both financially and socially. As I stated previously, the less time spent in prison, the less cost society incurs. As Ira said: “It’s cheaper for the community when [Correctional Service Canada] pays for a qualified instructor…than it is for guys to get out and then they re-offend and then [the community] has to pay.” Subsequently,the more employable someone is before release, the more they will productively contribute economically. Socially, successful reintegration will decrease the likelihood of recidivism and the subsequent possible harm to person or property that occurs with crime. As Joe said: “[i]t all hurts society at the end of the day. Someone else gets hurt. It’s a ripple effect.”
Society on the whole cannot continue to passively observe, practicing blissful ignorance to incarceration and reintegration. As Correctional Service Canada’s budget continues to grow exponentially and the Canadian government’s new laws, such as the recently proposed The Safe Streets and Communities Act, continue to target disadvantaged populations and impose minimum sentences for minor offences, it is time to address both the sources of crime and the causes of recidivism. “If crime is a good alternative, they’ll go back. So you have to give these individuals a better choice; t. Through programs, through education. If they know they can have a better life, they won’t reoffend” (George). We are all responsible to help those previously deemed unsuitable for society to return once again into the community successfully, smoothly and productively.
REFERENCES
All of Us or None Campaign. 2008. “Ban the Box.” Retrieved Oct 25, 2012. (http://www.allofusornone.org/campaigns/ban-the-box).
Allen, H.E. and C.E. Simonsen. 1998. Corrections in America: An Introduction (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baldry, E., D. McDonnell, P. Maplestone, and M. Peters. 2002. Ex-prisoners and Accommodation: What Bearing do Different Forms of Housing Have on Social Reintegration and Ex-prisoners? Paper presented at the Housing, Crime, and Stronger Communities Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne, May 6-7, 2002.
Basen, Ira. 2006. “Doing the crime and doing the time.” CBC.ca Reality Check. Retrieved Oct 18, 2011.
(http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/realitycheck/crimetime.html).
Bonta, James. 2003. The Recidivism of Federal Offenders. Vol 8 No 4. Public Safety Canada.
Cody. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 22.
Correctional Service Canada. 2008. Protecting Society Through Community Corrections.
Dennis. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 28.
George. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 28.
Griffiths, Curt T., Yvon Dandurand and Danielle Murdoch. 2007. The Social Reintegration of Offenders and Crime Prevention. Ottawa: The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.
Harer, M. D. 1994. Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releases in 1987. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.
Ira. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, November 3.
Joe. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 24.
Johnson, Robert and Hans Toch. 1982. The Pains of Imprisonment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Maynard, Robyn. “Building Prisons, Creating Prisoners.” The Dominion, Dec 17 2010. Retrieved Oct 16, 2011
Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: Post Incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Nilsson, A.2003. "Living Conditions, Social Exclusion, and Recidivism among Prison Inmates." Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 4(1), 57-83.
Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Sociology Journal 108 (5): 937-75. Retrieved Nov 2, 2011
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf).
Proportion, Frank J., Elizabeth A. Fabian and David Robinson. 2009. Focusing on Successful Reintegration: Cognitive Skills Training for Offenders. Ottawa.
Research and Reintegration Programs Division. 2009. Correctional Program Descriptions. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada. Statistics Branch, Correctional Service Canada.
Shelly, Gary B. and Harry J. Rosenblatt. 2011. Systems Analysis and Design. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Stastny, Charles and Gabrielle Tyrnauer. 1982. Who Rules the Joint? Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Steve. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 24.
Stevens, Dennis J. 2008. Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming: Education Programming for Offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
“The In-Depth Interview.” Prairie Research Associates. Retrieved Nov 3, 2011.
(http://www.pra.ca/resources/pages/files/technotes/indepth_e.pdf).
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prison Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.
Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza and Melissa Thompson. 2006. “Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 606: 281-310. (Retrieved from Sage Publications on Nov 1, 2011).
Van Loan, Peter. 2009. Minister’s Message. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Visher, Christy A. 2007. “Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons about Prison Reentry.” Federal Sentencing Reporting 20 (2): 93-102. (Retrieved from JSTOR on Nov 2, 2011).
Visher, Christy A. and Jeremy Travis. 2003. “Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:89-113. (Retrieved from JSTOR Oct 19, 2011).
APPENDIX A
1. Give yourself an introduction.
2. What should I know about prison?
3. While you were inside, did you keep in contact with your friends and family?
4. Did you serve your sentence in a provincial or federal jail? What are the differences?
5. Can you tell me about the differences in prison systems between Quebec and other provinces?
6. Were there any education or vocational programs available to you while you were in prison?
7. Do you think correctional programs or education or vocational programs are more useful?
8. What programs were available in prison to help ease your transition back into the community?
a. What program(s) did you find most effective?
b. What program(s) did you find least effective?
c. Why do you think the program(s) were effective or ineffective?
9. What programs do you think would have been useful (but which were not provided) for preparing you for reintegration?
10. What steps does the government take to prepare you for reintegration at the end of your sentence?
11. What steps did you personally take to prepare yourself for reintegration?
12. How long have you been out in the community?
13. What was the first thing you did when you were first released?
14. What was your biggest “culture shock” when you were first released?
15. Where are you currently living?
16. Are you or have you lived in a halfway house?
a. Are there any programs available in the halfway house to help ease your transition from prison to the community?
b. What programs do you wish were available through the halfway house?
17. Are you currently employed?
a. Where do you currently work?
b. How did you find this job?
18. What are your biggest hurdles in the reintegration progress?
19. What steps have you taken, now that you’re back in the community, to ease the transition?
20. Did you have any support from family and friends during initial reintegration? Do they (and how) continue to support you?
21. COSA circles have shown up to an 80% reduction in recidivism rates. Should COSA circles (which currently are only offered to sex offenders) be extended to all offenders?
22. If you were in charge of Correctional Service Canada, what is one “big change” that you would make to the current correctional system?
23. Do you think there is an alternative to prison?
24. Is there anything else you would like to add?
[1] The word “inmate” and “prisoner” are used interchangeably throughout this paper. However, it should be noted, that incarcerated individuals prefer to be referred to as “prisoner.” According to several interviewees, “inmate” has the connotation of being supervised and observed, as in a psychiatric hospital; prisoners do not feel this label accurately describes their position in the criminal system.
[V1]Is this sourcing? Or is it supposed to mean something else?
[V2]I don’t quite get the cause and effect or how programs mirroring each other would cause prisoners to fake their way through the system
Rebecca Greenberg
An unlikely career path in prison justice began while working at a Jewish deli during a long summer living in the suburbs of Philadelphia. While the majority of deli’s staff was eligible for Medicare, the entire kitchen staff was hired from a work-release program that linked transitioning prisoners with jobs - but paid them near-slave wages. The injustice of the situation led to an interest in prison reform issues, an interest that was augmented by (accidentally) becoming involved with a community-based restorative justice organization during her first year at McGill. These experiences led to an academic interest in crime and social deviance; a sociology degree was the next logical step. After three and a half blissful, albeit slightly chilly, years in Montreal, Rebecca currently lives in New York City and works for an alternative-to-incarceration organization called the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES).
by Rebecca Greenberg
Abstract
With increasing government investment in the building of prisons, stricter application of lengthy sentencing laws, and the rising cost of incarceration, “Out from Behind Bars: Canadian Ex-Prisoners’ Perspectives on the Transition from Prison to the Community” examines the challenges faced by prisoners as they reintegrate back into the community. Primarily based on the findings of Jeremy Travis and Christy Visher which show that individual characteristics, family relationships, community contexts and state policies form the basis of successful offender reintegration (2003), this paper details interviews with six ex-offenders that confirm these findings while highlighting the importance of education, employment and community support to reduce recidivism and facilitate reintegration. The use of in-depth interviews adds a nuanced and candid perspective while providing a voice to the multiplicity of obstacles and challenges faced by ex-prisoners. The proposed initiatives therefore aim to ease the burden of incarceration currently placed on taxpayers, community members and offenders alike.
First established to repair "a rupturing of the bonds that held civil society together," the original purpose of prison was to "regenerate the lawbreaker (rehabilitation) and pause those who saw the law-breaking (deterrence)" (Stastny and Tyrnauer 1982:12). Yet, despite changes to the physical architecture of prison, amendments to forms of punishment, and large government investments in correctional programs, the prison system continues to demonstrate “inefficacy in either reducing crime or rehabilitating those who pass through its gates” (Stastny and Tyrnauer 1982:205). This raises a simple question: why is the prison system ineffective in fulfilling its purpose? As the Harper Administration continues to direct budgetary funds towards the construction of more prisons - , a budget that has increased by 54% in 2010-2011 and will reach $3.12 billion by 2012-13 , a- a cost-benefit analysis of prison's societal function and role is increasingly imperative (Maynard 2010). According to Correctional Service Canada, it costs over $70,000 annually to house one inmate[1] in a minimum or medium security prison; that figure reaches upwards of $110,000 annually per inmate in a maximum security prison (Basen 2006). With over 14,000 inmates currently housed in Canadian prisons, the cost of incarceration is not only a judicial issue but also a societal issue placed on the shoulders of taxpayers (Correctional Service Canada 2008).
While rates of incarceration increasingly become a locus of societal discomfort, a complementary study looks at the rising rates and underlying causes of recidivism. A recent inquiry by Statistics Canada found a 44% rate of reconviction in the first year after release; 50% of ex-prisoners were also found to reconvict upon completion of their full sentence (time in prison plus parole) (Bonta 2003). Another report by Correctional Service Canada shows that one-third of inmates who complete their full sentence will reconvict in their lifetime (Van Loan 2009). With $1,963.9 million invested in reintegration programs alone, the efficacy of the prison system to rehabilitate inmates and to help them successfully reintegrate into society truly comes into question (Van Loan 2009).
Griffiths, Dandurand and Murdoch highlight that “comprehensive crime prevention programs must include effective measures to prevent recidivism and to stop the cycle of failed adaptation by repeat offenders” (2007:1). Therefore, the purpose of this study is to allow ex-prisoners to identify which services offered by Correctional Service Canada proved most useful during their reintegration to society. The study will also look to identify what services ex-prisoners feel are necessary, but which are currently missing, to facilitate a successful transition back into the community.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Despite the burgeoning issue of an exponentially increasing prison population, "[l]ess attention has been paid to the influence of state policy on prisoners' preparation for release and the pathways of reintegration following release" (Visher and Travis 2003:104). Studying the transition from prison to the community,Visher and Travis highlight four dimensions of successful reintegration: individual characteristics, family relationships, community contexts and state policies (2003). Defined as “finding and holding a job, avoiding use of alcohol and illegal drugs, finding affordable housing, [and] receiving physical and mental health care,” successful reintegration remains an imperative factor in reducing the rate of recidivism (Visher and Travis 2003:103). While individual characteristics and family relationships are influential in the post-release experience, these two factors are mediated on an individual level and therefore established on a case-by-case basis. Elements of successful reintegration not mediated on an exclusively individual level include participation in treatment programs, pre-release preparation, initial housing needs, transitional assistance, family support, employment experiences, social service support and criminal justice supervision (Visher and Travis 2003). Many of these factors overlap with the conclusion of Travis, Solomon and Waul that, “[t]aken together, the employment, health, substance abuse, education, and housing issues of returning inmates present formidable challenges to successful reintegration” (2001:12). Further studies demonstrate the importance of (re) establishing personal relationships, finding suitable accommodation, gaining employment, and participating in post-release programs, such as drug treatment classes, to reduce rates of recidivism (Baldry, McDonnell, Maplestone, and Peters 2002; Harer 1994; Nelson, Deess, and Allen 1999). From the research available, education and employment, preparatory programs, and housing are three common elementsmentioned recurrently as principle determinants of successful reintegration.
The impact of education, defined as vocational training or academic education, is closely linked to the dimension of employment (Travis et al. 2001). Education during and after incarceration has a positive correlation with employment in 85% of documented cases (Stevens 2008). Research shows that employment is the largest concern for prisoners in the pre-release period with 88% of inmates reporting that they need either more job training or more education in order to become employable upon release (Visher 2007). Studies show prisoners experience the highest level of anxiety during the pre-release period; tThe provision of education, however, was found to greatly reduce this stress (Johnson and Toch 1982). Therefore, during the period of incarceration, productive education directed to post-release employment helps to mediate individual levels of stress and anxiety.
Indeterminate of the level of education with which an inmate enters prison, the stigma of incarceration greatly reduces the probability of productive employment upon release. Defined by Uggen, Manza and Thomson as “collateral sanctions,” the stigmaof incarceration “operate[s] as an interconnected system of disadvantage that amplifies disparities in economic and social well-being” (2006:298). For example, formerly incarcerated individuals are legally required to disclose that that they have a criminal record. While advocacy groups, such as the “Ban the Box” campaign in California, condemn this disclosure policy, the immediate discrimination and stigma attached to record disclosure proves a strong barrier to employment (All of Us or None Campaign)[V1] . Second, incarceration leaves a large gap in an individual’s curriculum vitae, one that cannot be easily explained. Third, changes in technology and in the necessary skill sets for employment may render previous education non-transferable, thus yielding previously gained qualifications unmarketable in the current work climate. As a result, incarceration not only stifles prisoners’ overall career trajectory but also their wage trajectoryby proposing limits to employment gains and advancements (Pager 2003).
The difficulty in obtaining employment is directly linked to the risk and probability of recidivism. Multiple studies found that a legitimate job and an adequate source of income upon release greatly lowers rates of recidivism (Johnson and Toch 1982; Travis et al. 2001; Visher 2007). The ability to earn an adequate wage lowers financial stress, thus decreasing the probability of returning to crime. Job prospects are especially imperative for long-term prisoners who face diminishing chances for a stable job and income over the life course (Travis et al. 2001). Legitimate employment not only provides an economic advantage and incentive to not recidivate, but also impacts social ties by facilitating relationships and networks within the immediate community. A steady income affords ex-prisoners the ability to earn and to save money for personal advancement and for social events. Overall, employment increases the sentiment of being a productive part of society, thus integrating the individual into the economic and social dynamics of the community.
However, despite ample evidence linking education and post-release employment, the Harper Administration continues to decrease budgetary allocation for educational programs while increasing funds for correctional preparatory programs. At the beginning of a correctional sentence,each inmate receives a checklist of programs that need to be fulfilled before they are eligible for parole. Designed to “address the needs of offenders and contribute to their successful reintegration into the community,” the correctional programs are divided into six categories: general crime prevention, violence prevention, family violence prevention, substance abuse, sex offenders, and community-based correctional programs (Research and Reintegration Programs Division 2009). While Correctional Service Canada acknowledges that many of the programs are poorly defined or based on inadequate conceptual models, the Correctional Program Accreditation process (a panel which reviews and demonstrates the effectiveness of programs directed by Correctional Service Canada) attempts to ensure their adequacy in reducing recidivism (Proportion, Fabian and Robinson 2009). Studies found that programs are most effective when they are matched to prisoner risks and needs, when they are well-managed, and when the intervention is supported through post-release supervision” (Travis et al. 2011:72). However, due to the lack of individualization in the programs and the proliferation of blanket initiatives aimed to rehabilitate different types of offenders within the same curriculum, the success of the programs remains tenuous.
Lastly, previous studies point to housing as an indirect factor mediating recidivism due to the relationship between low cost housing and unstable communities (Baldry et al. 2002). If suitable and sustainable housing is not provided, released prisoners often find themselves concentrated in neighborhoods with high rates of homelessness and crime that lack strong social services (Nilsson 2003). This, in turn, creates strong incentives to reconvict.
In addition to government policy, the third dimension, community context, is a strong mediating factor for successful reintegration that lies outside the control of the individual. Although a newly emerging theme of study, there is growing acknowledgement that prisoners need to be immediately directed to support services and resources in the post-release period (Griffiths et al: 2007). Described by Visheras “intangible skills,” the resources and supportprovided by a strong social safetynet improve ex-prisoners’ overall likelihood of successful reintegration (2007:97). Allen and Simonsenplace the responsibility of successful reintegration in the hands of the community in which the prisoner is released (1998). Correctional Service Canada states in its official publication: “[o]ffenders have a better chance of success if they receive supervision, opportunities, training and support within the community to which they must readjust” (Correctional Service Canada 2008). This provides the framework for the current process of reintegration that grants codes, such as conditional passes, work release, and escorted and unescorted temporary absences, to inmates as they near the end of their sentence. The use of codes and passes aims to slowly reintegrate currently incarcerated prisoners within the community so that resources and networks are established upon release. In addition, such resources and services as long term emotional monitoring, emotional support and occasional material support prove integral to the process of successful reintegration (Johnson and Toch 1982). When released offenders feel isolated from the community and blocked from society’s opportunities and freedoms, they are more likely to return to a life of crime (Stevens 2008).
METHOD
I conducted semi-structured interviews with six recently released inmates to discuss their experience pre-release and post-release in relation to the reintegration process. Please refer to Appendix A for the list of interview questions. As the study focused on individual effects of macro-level policies, I chose to use in-depth interviews in order to gain greater understanding of each interviewee’s situation, obtain higher quality and more specific information, and allow for the interviewee’s interpretation of the applicability of policy outcomes (Shelly and Rosenblatt 2011). In addition, use of the in-depth interview method contextually places the issue in relation to the interviewees’ personal experiences and allows interviewees to suggest and evaluate possible solutions, such as more effective programs. The six men were selected based on their current stagein the reintegration process (either living in a half-way house or by themselves), their participation in Montreal Southwest Community Ministries’ “Open Door” program, and my personal rapport with them. All six interviewees were released from prison in the past year; three currently live in a half-way house and three live in their own apartment. Five of them served sentences in federal prison and one served his sentence in a provincial prison. I met the six men through “Open Door,” a reintegration program for currently or formerly incarcerated men based on the principles of restorative justice. I have volunteered there since September of 2008. Having met the interviewees in an informal setting, I established a good relationship with them prior to the interviews. According to Shelly and Rosenblatt’s book Systems Analysis and Design, “[e]stablishing a good rapport with the interviewee is important…if the other person feels comfortable and at ease, you probably will receive more complete and candid answers” (2011). While good rapport with the interviewees allowed for open dialogue and in-depth answers, interviewees were informed that disclosure of their offense and any other information they deemed sensitive was at their discretion. In addition, the questions were formed as unbiased and as apolitical as possible while recognizing the possibility of a “Hawthorne Effect.”
FINDINGS
Findings from the interviews were consistent with previous literature on the reintegration process and the necessary elements for a successful transition from prison to the community. The most important and predominant theme expressed in the interviews was the need for productive employment upon release. All interviewees expressed frustration with the lack of educational and vocational learning opportunities inside prison and the subsequent replacement of previous educational and vocational programs with conditional programs—such as anger management classes, which must be completed before a prisoner becomes eligible for parole. Cody discussed the impact of spending seventeen and half years inside prison doing nothing and, now that he is released, spending more time and money going to school to become employable. He stated that, “[m]oney and employment become a big worry [inside]…you need to come out employable,” but that becomes impossible when there is a lack of either vocational or academic education. At the prison in which George served his sentence, he said a few vocational programs existed but there was a two-year waiting list: “[E]ven if you want to better yourself and learn a trade, forget it, it takes two years to get in.”
All sixmen expressed disappointment at the lack of productive activities inside prison, although the lack of educational and trades programs affected only one of the interviewee’s current employment. ,However, this may have to do with his lack of previous education both academically and vocationally. Despite being employed, all of the interviewees expressed dissatisfaction with their work and noted feelings of underemployment. While services such as Le Centre de Main-d’Oeuvre OPEX’82 are available in order to help ex-prisoners build curriculum vitaes with the activities they did while in prison, the men must find employment for themselves. In addition, as all but one interviewee is originally from Quebec, most lacked the necessary French skills that facilitate the process of employment. Nonetheless, all of the interviewees talked about the relationship between academic and vocational skills and recidivism: “If [ex-prisoners] haven’t got the skills to get a job, the minute they don’t have any money…they’re going to be back to breaking the law…There is a revolving door in the system” (Joe).
Upon release, the lack of adequate financial support was highlighted as a large source of stress for the majority of the interviewees. While George is the only interviewee currently unemployed, he, Joe and Cody talked extensively about the lack of government financial support for those living in a halfway house. Each person in a private halfway house is given $42 per week. From this small allowance they are required to purchase a $22 STM (bus/metro) pass and, in some halfway houses, buy toilet paper and personal toiletries as well. However, in a publically sponsored halfway house, parolees receive $98 per week but food is not provided. Again, the three men blamed Correctional Service Canada for putting them in a precarious situation without support: “They put you in a situation where they want you to fuck up. They give you $42, so most people they don’t have money, so what do they do? They go back to crime” (George). Cody also discussed how this lack of financial support stymies the reintegration process by rendering it difficult to both gain an education and rebuild one’s social networks.
In terms of the government Correctional Programs, four sources of tension were repeatedly expressed: the lack of applicability, the lack of focus for the target audience, the repetition of themes and ideas across programs, and the influence of the instructor. Cody and Dennis, both who served a life sentence, spoke of the lack of applicability of the programs in maximum-security prisons. While both said the programs provided valuable information, much of the information (e.g. steps of decompression of anger) were not found useful in the “dog-eat-dog” world of maximum security prison: “They would give you a program but then you go back to a maximum and that program is useless…you still have to live in the pen and some guys don’t give a damn about shit” (Cody). However, Cody did mention a violence prevention program that effectively overcame this issue by correlating the completion of the program with a transfer to a medium security prison where there was less pressure of violence.
Second, the two men who served time in maximum-security prison cited a lack of focus in the programs’ curricula. Both expressed frustration that many federal programs were originally created and geared towards maximum-security prisoners yet were awarded to “less-threatening” prisoners as awards for good behavior or for “snitching.” Cody mentioned a prison built on a beach in Vancouver (meant to serve as a place for decompression catering to prisoners with long sentences and of the Phoenix Houses (apartment style housing on the prison site meant to help “lifers” reintegrate) as examples of government programs created with good intentions but which were subsequently not awarded to their target population.
Third, all interviewees who were incarcerated in federal prison talked about the repetition of the programs. They said that “the programs all mirror each other,” and therefore fail to serve their purpose because prisoners learn to “easily fake through the system” [V2] (Joe). As the fundamental message of programs repeats, prisoners learn the expected answer that will appease the instructor; each program completed marks one step closer to eligibility for parole. While the interviewees said that some programs held value, they said that the repetitious nature of chosen topics led to an undervaluing of the overall message.
Last, when asked which program was most effective, all of the federal interviewees talked about the influence of the instructor as making the program significant. Joe and Dennis both spoke of the need for instructors who are not burnt out, uptight and uninterested, saying that their most memorable instructor was both actively engaged and truly interested in seeing them succeed. Dennis, for example, talked about an instructor who made the information fun by using the examples in the book (“What do you do if someone bumps you in the bus line?”) and making them applicable to the inmates’ current situation (“What do you do if someone knocks you in the chow line?”)(Dennis). While all expressed a “natural aversion” to programs, they also spoke of their necessity. However, due to the involuntary nature and strict time line of the programs, several of the men simply said “its not that [the programs] are all bad, it’s just that at the time I wasn’t prepared” (Dennis).
All of the interviewees discussed the role of their parole officer and support staff, such as psychologists, in the pre-release and post-release period. Three of the federal prisoners talked about the lack of contact they had with their parole officer while inside prison, recounting that their parole officer would meet with them just once a year for their Security Classification, a routine process of determining eligibility for transfers. While Steve talked about his congenial relationship with his parole officer, the others spoke of the parole officers’ role as simply information gatherers and gatekeepers.
Even more annoyance was expressedat the lack of individual psychological support available. The non-trusting environment of prison was discussed in relation to group therapy sessions in which “you have to trust the [people in your therapy session] not to run through the yard…it’s hard enough to open up one-on-one and here you don’t even like the people” (Joe). Once in the community, however, all five of the federal ex-prisoners commented on the reversal of this relationship. For example, Dennis discussed the resentment he held towards his case manager upon release because “everything felt like a battle.” And, after seeing his case worker just once a year while incarcerated, “[a]ll of a sudden, I’m out, I make it thought the battle grounds, and all of sudden you guys wanna talk about shit… now you guys wanna talk and say ‘oh, see what we’ve done’” (Dennis).
DISCUSSION
The findings from the interviews not only confirm previous studies but also add a nuanced and reflective element to the reintegration process from men involved with the prison system. While none of the men explicitly mentioned the issue of housing, all discussed education, employment and community support. While the Harper Administration continues to modify the current judicial system, several initiatives should be considered if Correctional Service Canada wishes to fulfill its mandate to reduce recidivism.
1. Reinstitute advanced educational programs and vocational skills opportunities.
Education programs beyond a grade ten level, the level currently required within the Correctional Plans policy, and access and availability to vocational programs were repeatedly noted as necessary in both the previous literature and the interviews. Academic programs and vocational skills were repeatedly cited for their role in building self-esteem and self-worth as well as increasing prisoners’ productivity in society upon release. Providing inmates with a means of employment upon release not only lowers pre-release and post-release stress, but also lowers the risk of repeat offending by offering a means to a stable income. Therefore, I have two recommendations. First,reinstitute educational and vocational programs in prisons that are pertinent and applicable to the current job market. Second, create a job bank of employers willing to hire individuals with criminal records.
2. Increase the amount of spending per inmate during the period of incarceration.
This initiative aims to increase funding for access to individual psychological counseling. Increasing the number of psychologists available would allow inmates an honest chance to resolve individual problems and allow a better judgment of each inmate’s overall character and improvement, thereby enhancing the pace of release. This not only reduces the cost of incarceration by shortening the length of overall sentences but also increases the likelihood that prisoners will make a smoother transition to the community and contribute both socially and economically.
3. Make correctional plan programs voluntary, relevant and provided for the target population.
By making the programs voluntary, fewer funds will be spenton prisoners who simply do the programs in order to complete their Correctional Plan. The voluntary nature will help ensure improved quality of programs due to increased available funds for more qualified teachers and resources, enhance the dedication of compliance and involvementby people who choose to take it, and allow “people to sit with their conscious for a while” (Steve). Making them relevant to the current context of prison will improve the programs’ legitimacy and credibility. Most importantly, programs need to be available for the target population for whom they were proposed. If programs are awarded to short-term inmates, the long-term inmates will lack the necessary skills to reintegrate and therefore face a higher risk of re-offending. Instead, if aimed and provided for men serving long-term sentences, these programs could help them to decompress and slowly re-learn the skills necessary for successful re-entry into the community.
4. Increase the opportunities for gradual re-integration through transitional programs.
All of the interviewees cited Quebec as the most helpful in the transitional phase through its widespread use of codes. Most of the men discussed how “jail infantilizes you” and how gradual steps are necessary to re-adjust to the “fast” pace of society compared to the slow, uni-directional pace of prison (Cody, Joe). Other provinces should follow Quebec’s lead to introduce initiatives such as the Shopping Program, a program in which prisoners create shopping budgets, visit the supermarket, and prepare meals together. Codes and conditional absences are necessary in order to allow prisoners, especially those serving long-term sentences, to slowly re-acclimate to life outside prison. In addition, transitional programs help prisoners begin to build social networks and employment opportunities while still serving their sentence (Ira). Therefore, by using a gradual, step-by-step reintegration program prior to release, there is an overall reduction in the stress and shock of release, and an increased likelihood of creating social linkages and finding the necessary employment for a successful transition.
5. Increase financial support in the post-release period.
As the findings shows, the punitive amount of financial support provided to individuals in the post-release period inhibits ex-inmates both financially and socially. Individuals often face a situation of desperation, thereby increasing the likelihood of returning to crime. It also limits opportunities for establishing a solid social network. Therefore, providing a reasonable stipend reduces the chances of re-offending and increases opportunities to successfully reintegrate.
6. Increase government funding for community outreach programs.
Programs such as “Open Door” should be more available to men in prison. All of the interviewees said that they learned about the “Open Door” through either previous contact with Peter (the director) or through word-of-mouth. The government should not only increase funding for more programs but also help disseminate information on such programs as part of inmates’ release debriefing. For men such as Ira, “Open Door” has served as his principle source of support, friendship and inspiration; he cites it as his main deterrent for re-offending.
While many changes to the judicial system must occur in order to fulfill the purpose of prison as a rehabilitation process, my six suggestions focus on the third and fourth element of Visher and Travis’ proposed dimensions. The need to implement constructive community networks and productive government policies to support inmates in the reintegration process is necessary both financially and socially. As I stated previously, the less time spent in prison, the less cost society incurs. As Ira said: “It’s cheaper for the community when [Correctional Service Canada] pays for a qualified instructor…than it is for guys to get out and then they re-offend and then [the community] has to pay.” Subsequently,the more employable someone is before release, the more they will productively contribute economically. Socially, successful reintegration will decrease the likelihood of recidivism and the subsequent possible harm to person or property that occurs with crime. As Joe said: “[i]t all hurts society at the end of the day. Someone else gets hurt. It’s a ripple effect.”
Society on the whole cannot continue to passively observe, practicing blissful ignorance to incarceration and reintegration. As Correctional Service Canada’s budget continues to grow exponentially and the Canadian government’s new laws, such as the recently proposed The Safe Streets and Communities Act, continue to target disadvantaged populations and impose minimum sentences for minor offences, it is time to address both the sources of crime and the causes of recidivism. “If crime is a good alternative, they’ll go back. So you have to give these individuals a better choice; t. Through programs, through education. If they know they can have a better life, they won’t reoffend” (George). We are all responsible to help those previously deemed unsuitable for society to return once again into the community successfully, smoothly and productively.
REFERENCES
All of Us or None Campaign. 2008. “Ban the Box.” Retrieved Oct 25, 2012. (http://www.allofusornone.org/campaigns/ban-the-box).
Allen, H.E. and C.E. Simonsen. 1998. Corrections in America: An Introduction (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baldry, E., D. McDonnell, P. Maplestone, and M. Peters. 2002. Ex-prisoners and Accommodation: What Bearing do Different Forms of Housing Have on Social Reintegration and Ex-prisoners? Paper presented at the Housing, Crime, and Stronger Communities Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, Melbourne, May 6-7, 2002.
Basen, Ira. 2006. “Doing the crime and doing the time.” CBC.ca Reality Check. Retrieved Oct 18, 2011.
(http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2006/realitycheck/crimetime.html).
Bonta, James. 2003. The Recidivism of Federal Offenders. Vol 8 No 4. Public Safety Canada.
Cody. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 22.
Correctional Service Canada. 2008. Protecting Society Through Community Corrections.
Dennis. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 28.
George. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 28.
Griffiths, Curt T., Yvon Dandurand and Danielle Murdoch. 2007. The Social Reintegration of Offenders and Crime Prevention. Ottawa: The International Centre for Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy.
Harer, M. D. 1994. Recidivism Among Federal Prison Releases in 1987. Washington, DC: Federal Bureau of Prisons, Office of Research and Evaluation.
Ira. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, November 3.
Joe. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 24.
Johnson, Robert and Hans Toch. 1982. The Pains of Imprisonment. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Maynard, Robyn. “Building Prisons, Creating Prisoners.” The Dominion, Dec 17 2010. Retrieved Oct 16, 2011
Nelson, Marta, Perry Deess, and Charlotte Allen. 1999. The First Month Out: Post Incarceration Experiences in New York City. New York: Vera Institute of Justice.
Nilsson, A.2003. "Living Conditions, Social Exclusion, and Recidivism among Prison Inmates." Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention, 4(1), 57-83.
Pager, Devah. 2003. “The Mark of a Criminal Record.” American Sociology Journal 108 (5): 937-75. Retrieved Nov 2, 2011
(http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/pager_ajs.pdf).
Proportion, Frank J., Elizabeth A. Fabian and David Robinson. 2009. Focusing on Successful Reintegration: Cognitive Skills Training for Offenders. Ottawa.
Research and Reintegration Programs Division. 2009. Correctional Program Descriptions. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada. Statistics Branch, Correctional Service Canada.
Shelly, Gary B. and Harry J. Rosenblatt. 2011. Systems Analysis and Design. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Stastny, Charles and Gabrielle Tyrnauer. 1982. Who Rules the Joint? Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Steve. 2011. Interview by author, Montreal, QC, October 24.
Stevens, Dennis J. 2008. Compendium 2000 on Effective Correctional Programming: Education Programming for Offenders. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
“The In-Depth Interview.” Prairie Research Associates. Retrieved Nov 3, 2011.
(http://www.pra.ca/resources/pages/files/technotes/indepth_e.pdf).
Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon, and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prison Reentry. Washington, D.C.: Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center.
Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza and Melissa Thompson. 2006. “Citizenship, Democracy, and the Civic Reintegration of Criminal Offenders.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 606: 281-310. (Retrieved from Sage Publications on Nov 1, 2011).
Van Loan, Peter. 2009. Minister’s Message. Ottawa: Correctional Service Canada.
Visher, Christy A. 2007. “Returning Home: Emerging Findings and Policy Lessons about Prison Reentry.” Federal Sentencing Reporting 20 (2): 93-102. (Retrieved from JSTOR on Nov 2, 2011).
Visher, Christy A. and Jeremy Travis. 2003. “Transitions from Prison to Community: Understanding Individual Pathways.” Annual Review of Sociology 29:89-113. (Retrieved from JSTOR Oct 19, 2011).
APPENDIX A
1. Give yourself an introduction.
2. What should I know about prison?
3. While you were inside, did you keep in contact with your friends and family?
4. Did you serve your sentence in a provincial or federal jail? What are the differences?
5. Can you tell me about the differences in prison systems between Quebec and other provinces?
6. Were there any education or vocational programs available to you while you were in prison?
7. Do you think correctional programs or education or vocational programs are more useful?
8. What programs were available in prison to help ease your transition back into the community?
a. What program(s) did you find most effective?
b. What program(s) did you find least effective?
c. Why do you think the program(s) were effective or ineffective?
9. What programs do you think would have been useful (but which were not provided) for preparing you for reintegration?
10. What steps does the government take to prepare you for reintegration at the end of your sentence?
11. What steps did you personally take to prepare yourself for reintegration?
12. How long have you been out in the community?
13. What was the first thing you did when you were first released?
14. What was your biggest “culture shock” when you were first released?
15. Where are you currently living?
16. Are you or have you lived in a halfway house?
a. Are there any programs available in the halfway house to help ease your transition from prison to the community?
b. What programs do you wish were available through the halfway house?
17. Are you currently employed?
a. Where do you currently work?
b. How did you find this job?
18. What are your biggest hurdles in the reintegration progress?
19. What steps have you taken, now that you’re back in the community, to ease the transition?
20. Did you have any support from family and friends during initial reintegration? Do they (and how) continue to support you?
21. COSA circles have shown up to an 80% reduction in recidivism rates. Should COSA circles (which currently are only offered to sex offenders) be extended to all offenders?
22. If you were in charge of Correctional Service Canada, what is one “big change” that you would make to the current correctional system?
23. Do you think there is an alternative to prison?
24. Is there anything else you would like to add?
[1] The word “inmate” and “prisoner” are used interchangeably throughout this paper. However, it should be noted, that incarcerated individuals prefer to be referred to as “prisoner.” According to several interviewees, “inmate” has the connotation of being supervised and observed, as in a psychiatric hospital; prisoners do not feel this label accurately describes their position in the criminal system.
[V1]Is this sourcing? Or is it supposed to mean something else?
[V2]I don’t quite get the cause and effect or how programs mirroring each other would cause prisoners to fake their way through the system
Rebecca Greenberg
An unlikely career path in prison justice began while working at a Jewish deli during a long summer living in the suburbs of Philadelphia. While the majority of deli’s staff was eligible for Medicare, the entire kitchen staff was hired from a work-release program that linked transitioning prisoners with jobs - but paid them near-slave wages. The injustice of the situation led to an interest in prison reform issues, an interest that was augmented by (accidentally) becoming involved with a community-based restorative justice organization during her first year at McGill. These experiences led to an academic interest in crime and social deviance; a sociology degree was the next logical step. After three and a half blissful, albeit slightly chilly, years in Montreal, Rebecca currently lives in New York City and works for an alternative-to-incarceration organization called the Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services (CASES).