Ex-Offenders In The United States Correctional System

Abstract
Since it’s establishment in sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the United States Correctional System has evolved from its initial intent to house offenders before their trial/ public punishment, to housing offenders as a form of punishment to rehabilitating them while withholding them in state’s custody. However, at least over the last two decades United State’s federal and local officials have implanted laws and utilized systems that considerably impede the success of an ex-offender’s reentry into society. This essay will analyze the broad range of roadblocks faced by ex-offenders, the legislative origin of these issues, and prospective solutions that can cease the increasing percentage of recidivism nationally.

Introduction
Although employment and housing programs exists for offenders under community correctional supervision, they do not guarantee shelter or employment to the offender.
In fact, it is solely upon the offender to seek and obtain employment. The lack of housing and employment play a crucial role in determining the success of the offender’s reintegration into society. The issue lies with legislative decisions correlated with the fact that offenders carry a criminal and arrest record with them for many years after paying their debt to society in some cases permanently depending on the offense. Many of these “tough on crimes” laws offer a resolution to remove the offender from society through prison sentences however they do not offer much towards the offenders rehabilitation and reentry.
When offenders seek employment and housing, they are often denied a position or home when employers and landlords retrieve their criminal history. Such practices create a significant struggle for ex-offenders to become productive citizens while avoiding recidivism. As we know, recidivism is harmful to both the offender, the community, and in some ways the economy/tax payer revenue. Approximately “sixty-billion dollars” is disbursed annually to house offenders’ country-wide and when ex-convicts reoffend and are sent back to prison, costs increase resulting in spiked taxes for citizens and overcrowding for
prisons. Recidivism can also create new victimization as an unemployed/homeless offender may rely on crimes such as robbery, gang Main Body affiliation, or drug dealing to provide for themselves and their families to name a few. In order to successfully and consistently improve the rate of prison re-entry, the laws and guidelines based on criminal background verifications will need to be stipulated especially for non-violent offenders. Stipulating the guidelines for employers and landlords when researching criminal backgrounds of applicants can increase the chances of an ex-offender successfully obtaining employment and housing which in time can decrease the rate of recidivism.
Over “six hundred fifty thousand” inmates are released from United States’ prisons annually.
In 2005, approximately “seven hundred thousand” prison inmates were released. Within three years of reentry, over “fifty percent” returned back to prison for a violation of their parole agreement or a new offense (Freeman). In many ways, certain state legislation contribute to recidivism in the United States as legislators implement laws that produce critical challenges for a group facing more than enough obstacles while reintegrating. One example of lawmaker’s contribution to recidivism would be the barring of the Pell Grant implemented in the1990’s. Pell Grants were used to endorse “higher education” within state
penitentiaries.
The elimination of these funds was a crucial and impactful decision regarding ex-offenders’ success with reintegrating. Adequate education and training should be available for each inmate as a part of their rehabilitation and preparation for reentry into society. Especially considering that approximately “seventy percent of offenders and ex-offenders are high school dropouts and at Main Body least half are illiterate” (Holzer, Raphael, Stoll 2003). Many ex-prisoners reenter society not only homeless and jobless but also clueless with a substantial lack of skill.
In fact, a study performed in 2003 by The Urban Institute examined ex-offenders released from prison in Illinois, Maryland, Virginia, Georgia and New Jersey. The results showed that the absence of individualized preparation, educational and vocational training negatively affect prisoner’s reintegration back into the community. Recidivism rates for prisoners who were able to receive training were substantially lower than recidivism rates for prisoners who weren’t afforded training at some point during their sentence (Newman 2007). The minute percentage of prisoners given the opportunity to receive training prior to reentry showed an average of only one to six percent per prison population, per state. The recidivism rates for this group reflected a reduction between “twenty and sixty percent.” Another legislative decision that contributes towards rising and stagnant recidivism rates would be The Welfare Reform Bill of 1996, which discontinued food and housing aide for offenders with felony drug convictions. The implementation of this law creates additional reintegration challenges for an ex-prisoner. When an ex-prisoner is released back into the community to become a model citizen but has no source of food, shelter or income, it seems logical to think that an excessive number of ex-offenders will likely return to their criminal lifestyle as a means to survive and eventually return back to prison because of a