Review of Related Literature

Over 600,000 individuals are released from prison annually and three-quarters of them are rearrested
within five years of their release (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2005). Men and women released from
correctional facilities receive minimal preparation and inadequate assistance and resources, which
makes their re-entry into communities challenging (Visher & Mallik-Kane, 2007). A criminal conviction
limits employment prospects, public housing assistance and social services (Coates, 2015). Even having a
minor criminal record creates substantial barriers and far-reaching collateral consequences. It is
important to transform the current criminal justice system to shift the focus from reincarceration to
successful re-entry into their communities. Socioeconomic factors play an important role in determining
successful re-entry outcomes.

A significant challenge that previously convicted individuals face is re-entry into the labor market.
Released prisoners have difficulty securing and maintaining employment after re-entry since employers
are reluctant to hire people with criminal records (Urban Institute, 2008). In addition to a criminal
record, limited education, the stigma of incarceration and a lack of employment history contribute to
limited employment opportunities (McGrew & Hanks, 2017). Also, most states allow employers to deny
jobs to individuals who were previously arrested but never convicted of a crime (Legal Action Center,
2004). Released prisoners generally find employment and work in low-skill jobs (Urban Institute, 2008)
in food service, wholesale, maintenance or the manufacturing industry. These employment
opportunities provide few benefits and little to no opportunities for upward mobility. Furthermore,
previously convicted individuals who manage to secure a job are employed at lower wages than they
earned before incarceration (Urban Institute, 2008). Offenders also experience obstacles in public and
private job sectors since they are unable to obtain professional and technical licenses (Holzer, Raphael &
Soll 2003). When limited legal employment opportunities and resources are available, individuals who
are re-entering their communities are more likely to reoffend.

Re-entering individuals also face difficulties in finding and securing housing. The high risk of residential
instability can lead some to experience homelessness after release (Fontaine, 2013). Most individuals
leave prison with limited finances to secure an apartment. Additionally, strict housing policies make it
harder for these individuals to be considered as viable candidates for housing. Currently, private market
rental housing associations have policies against renting to people with criminal records (Cortes &
Rogers, 2010). Also, individuals with past drug or felony convictions are ineligible for public housing
(Dougherty, 2012). Studies show that the first month after release is a vulnerable period during which
the risk of becoming homeless and/or recidivism is high (Cortes & Rogers, 2010). In fact, the lack of
stable housing can increase the possibility of being rearrested (Cortes & Rogers, 2010). Providing access
to affordable housing options and lenient policies can help support an individual’s transition back into
their respective communities and is an important factor in recidivism prevention.

Returning individuals also face barriers in accessing public assistance. Majority of states ban individuals
with drug felony convictions from being eligible for federally funded public assistance and food stamps
(Legal Action Center, 2004). The 1996 Federal Welfare Law prohibits individuals convicted of a drug-
related felony from receiving federally funded food stamps or cash assistance. Re-entering individuals
are ineligible even if they have completed their sentence, overcome their addiction or earned a
certificate of rehabilitation (Legal Action Center, 2004). Welfare assistance is an essential transitional
resource for those who face economic hardships after release from prison (O'Brien, 2002). Denying re-
entering individuals from public assistance causes difficulties for them to support themselves as they
leave the criminal justice system and re-enter society. This would increase the likelihood that they will
return to criminal activity and drug use.

The costs of unsuccessful re-entry and reincarceration negatively impacts communities, families and
individuals. Incarceration has disproportionately impacted minorities, primarily young black men, and
individuals with low levels of education (Morenoff and Harding, 2014). A consequence of incarceration is
that relationships with families and the broader community are strained. For communities with high
rates of removal and return of offenders, this further produces immense social and economic
disadvantages (Travis, Solomon & Waul, 2001). Evidence shows that the outcomes of corrections are not
cost-effective and do not justify the costs to communities, families and individuals (Datchi, Barretti &
Thompson, 2016).

There is a necessity for effective strategies, which address the barriers that prevent previously
incarcerated individuals from successfully reintegrating into their communities. Released prisoners are
disadvantaged educationally, economically and socially, which further perpetuates inequality (Vishner
and Travis, 2003). An approach to reducing recidivism and assisting previously incarcerated re-enter
society successfully is prison education and re-entry programming. Many states have responded by
offering an adult education, adult postsecondary education, career and technical education, and special
education (Taliaferro, Pham and Cielinkski, 2016). A focus on pre-release programs, which prepares
individuals to be productive members of their communities, is essential. Providing incarcerated
individuals with job and life skills, education programming, mental health counseling and addiction
treatment will help overcome some of the challenges they face upon re-entering their communities.
Research indicates that inmates who participate in correctional education programs are 43 percent less
likely to re-enter prison (Department of Justice Archives, 2017). In addition, each dollar spent on prison
education saves approximately four dollars on re-incarceration costs (Department of Justice Archives,
2017).

Different efforts can be initiated by policymakers to reduce barriers and improve re-entry of returning
individuals. Individuals are burdened with a criminal record, no matter how minor the offense and face
significant challenges reintegrating into communities. It is important that re-entry preparation begins on
the first day of incarceration and continues without disruption into the community (APA, 2017). Local
governments should support the re-entering population by allocating funds to expand the programs that
assist with the process of re-entry (Bilger, 2016) and provision of medication-assisted treatment (APA,
2017). In order to ensure continuity of care, it is vital to prioritize information sharing between justice
systems, communities, and physical and behavioral health providers (APA, 2017). It is important that
services provided to incarcerated individuals specifically target their individual needs (Mallik-Kane,
2008). Effective re-entry practices recognize the important relationship that must be established
between behavioral, physical and relational health (APA, 2017).

References

APA. (2017). Consensus Workgroup Policy Recommendations to the 115the Congress & Trump
Administration on Behavioral Health Issues in the Criminal Justice System.

Coates, T.N. (2015). The black family in the age of mass incarceration. The Atlantic, 316(3), 82.

Cortes, K., & Rogers, S. (2010). Reentry Housing Options: The Policymakers' Guide. Council of State
Governments.

Datchi, C.C., Barretti, L.M., & Thompson, C.M. (2016). Family services in adult detention centers:
Systemic principles for prisoner reentry. Couple and Family Psychology: Research and Practice, 5(2), 89.

Dougherty, J. (2012). Survey Reveals Barriers to Successful Ex-Offender Re-Entry. ROOCJPC.

Fontaine, J. (2013). Examining housing as a pathway to successful reentry: A demonstration design

process.

Haymond, M. (2014). Should A Criminal Record Come With Collateral Consequences?

Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2003). Employment barriers facing ex-offenders. Urban Institute
Reentry Roundtable, 1-23.

Morenoff, J. D., & Harding, D. J. (2014). Incarceration, prisoner reentry, and communities. Annual review
of sociology, 40, 411-429.

O'Brien, P. (2002). Reducing barriers to employment for women ex-offenders: Mapping the road to
integration. Safer Foundation.
Prendergast, M.L. (2009). Interventions to promote successful re-entry among drug-abusing parolees.
Addiction science & clinical practice, 5(1), 4.

Sexton, T.L. (2016). Incarceration as a family affair: Thinking beyond the individual. Couple and Family
Psychology: Research and Practice, 5(2), 61.

Taliaferro, W., Pham D., Cielinkski A. (2016) From Incarceration to Reentry. CLASP.

Travis, J., Solomon, A.L., & Waul, M. (2001). From prison to home: The dimensions and consequences of
prisoner reentry.

Visher, C.A., & Mallik-Kane, K. (2007). Reentry experiences of men with health problems. In Public
Health Behind Bars (pp. 434-460). Springer New York.

Statement of the Problem

The study will focus on the impact of plea bargaining to drug accused as they immerse themselves to the
community. Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1. How may the demographic profile of the accused be described in terms of:
 age;
 sex;
 civil status; and
 occupation?

2. How may the impact of plea bargaining to the accused as they immerse themselves to the
community be described in terms:
 Labor Market;
 Public Assistance or Services; and
 Personal Aspects?