Recidivism In Corrections

Maintenance and Aftercare
Mandy McCurdy
Southern Oregon University

Abstract
Corrections, is an ever changing field today. One goal of corrections is to rehabilitate and treat offenders so they are ready or prepared to reenter society. It is stated that, “Reentry is the process of transition that incarcerated individuals make from prison or jail to the community,” (Velasquez, 2010, p. 8). In order for any form of maintenance and aftercare to be effective, post prison and after release, there needs to be consistency as well as follow ups on the inmates while they are incarcerated and after they are released. Further, it is necessary to be able to look past a conviction and be willing to help the inmate be successful so they do not recidivate.
This paper will examine the role of aftercare or maintenance, and how it can help to reduce recidivism.

Introduction In the United States, prison reentry is a growing issue. Mulloy et al. stated, “the reentry process is about developing, implementing, and sustaining healthy relationships with the judicial offenders, their families, facilities managers and staff, and the community where they will be returning,” (2007, p. 87). These are all key components of reentry and making sure that the transition back into society is smooth as possible for the individual leaving prison or jail. Reentry is a process by which an individual or individuals become a part of society or rather a part of a community again after they have been incarcerated.
There are more and more prisoners being released back into society once they have completed their sentences. Allison and Clarke state that “in the last 25 years, the nation has encountered unprecedented growth in every aspect of the criminal justice system,” (2008, p.82).There has been growth in the prisons and jails as well as other areas of corrections such as probation or parole. Growth is the expansion of something or as in this case, the criminal justice system such as prisons. This can vary from multiple angels such as going to prison to getting released back into society, called reentry. Pinard states, “The reentry crisis follows three decades of exploding incarceration rates” (2010, p. 1214). A crisis in this instance is the amount of people that have been incarcerated being released back into society after they have served their sentence and with the high numbers of people being released, a crisis is made because we have to figure out how to keep helping these individuals after they are released. The problem that society faces with reentry is following through with giving the same amount of care that they offered for treatment to prisoners while they were incarcerated. Further, this paper will examine the role of aftercare or maintenance, and how it can help to reduce recidivism.

Literature Review The history of corrections is long and has been around for many years. The importance of corrections has defined what our society is in the respect of how it deals with offenders. Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal stated, “The Bureau of Justice Statistics state, more than 700,000 leave U.S. state and federal prisons each year” (2009, p. 38). This is a high number of individuals reentering society. They also stated that “In the last 35 years the rate of incarceration in America has more than quadrupled and the prison population now stands at 1.6 million” (2009, p. 38). The numbers of the jail and prison population has grown over the years and seems to be increasing. Pinard stated, “In 1980, fewer than 170,000 people were released…and by 2008, the number of individuals released skyrocketed to 735, 454,” (2010, p. 1213). The concept or idea of collateral consequences has always been a part of the correctional side of the justice system. According to Pinard, “They are remnants of the civil death that was imported from England and imposed on lawbreakers during the colonial period,” (2010, p. 1214). As a result of these consequences on offenders, it not only affects those who were incarcerated but their families as well because it makes it harder for the offenders reentering society or almost impossible for them to find employment (Pinard, 2010, p. 1215). It also makes it hard for the offenders reentering society to contribute financially to their family households (Pinard, 2010, p. 1215). Collateral consequences are not incorporated into sentencing practices or the advocacy aspect that offenders receive from defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges (Pinard, 2010, p. 1215). The idea or concept of collateral consequences is that it is more about looking at the civil issues/problems that become a part of an individual’s conviction, not their punishment (Pinard, 2010, p. 1219). Collateral consequences have been a part of what happens with an individual when they are convicted and sentenced to jail or prison such as losing “public benefits or student loans” (Pinard, 2010, p. 1218). These consequences are what attach to an individual when they get into trouble legally. Pinard stated that “collateral consequences must be restructured to minimize the legal hurdles imposed on individuals with criminal records…they need to be tailored to individual criminal conduct,” (2010, p. 1223-24). This is an important component with individuals who have been in trouble legally because no two individuals are the same and this means that the law needs to fit each individual, not every individual as a whole. Further, these consequences still exist today and they have an “impact in all aspects of life for individuals with criminal records” (Pinard, 2010, p. 1218). In society most individuals have some sort of criminal record. Pinard stated, “Approximately one in four adults in the United States has a criminal record,” (2010, p. 1218). The number of individuals returning to society over the years has increased and the laws of the justice system have also changed in many areas. Pinard stated, “Federal legislation has been enacted recently that aims to expand and improve existing reentry programs, expand employment opportunities for reentry individuals, improve federal reentry programming, and reduce recidivism,” (2010, p. 1219). These are important in helping individuals reentering society out of prisons and jails because it is needed to give a helping hand to ensure that these individuals are given the proper services that they deserve and need to be successful in reentering society.
There are many programs offered for those that have been incarcerated or no longer incarcerated. One program that is looked at and used is family based. When family is included in the treatment process, it is said to be beneficial. It also is useful to have family involved when someone is incarcerated because it helps keep communication intact and is good for the process of helping treat an offender as well as counsel them with their issues that they may have.
According to Christ and Bitler, “Family therapy is an approach that is time intensive and, to be effective, requires family participation.” and “Family members who are not incarcerated have to be willing to participate…” (2010, p. 22). This is very true in most cases and sometimes the individual that is incarcerated may not really have that good of a bond or connection with their family. So family therapy can be difficult if all parties are not willing to participate in the individual’s treatment plan and in helping keep some sort of connection to the outside world which could factor in whether or not an individual that is incarcerated will be successful when they return home after they get released. For example, in Pennsylvania they have a “Family Support Alliance” and this program is designed in a way that is supposed to help families (Christ & Bitler, 2010, p. 23). With these types of programs that are family based, they “…last one hour a week…” and there are a wide range of topics like “effects of parental incarceration on children, alternatives to physical discipline of children, etc…” (Christ & Bitler, 2010, p. 23). Further, family based programs can help because it is teaching the individual skills while incarcerated and is helping to keep families intact as well as teaching the family skills that is needed to maintain a relationship with the person incarcerated.
Another program that was introduced as a faith based one is the Out4Life program. Le Blanc and Nolan state that “Out4Life is a Prison Fellowship that was created to increase the number of released offenders who successfully reintegrate into communities…it is a comprehensive plan that calls for the creation of communities of care that will provide pre-release, day-of-release, and post-release programming and mentoring to offenders enrolled in the program” (2009, p. 58). This kind of program can be very helpful in that it is getting communities involved to help offenders when they get ready to go back into society. When communities get involved, especially faith based ones, there stands a better chance for those incarcerated in getting help they need and the involvement of the community shows that society does care about what happens to these individuals. It shows care and concern as well as further expands “…public awareness and provides resources, education, and practical solutions…” (Le Blanc & Nolan, 2009, p. 58).
There are also programs that deal with alcohol and drug issues that individuals may have when they get incarcerated. For most individuals that get into trouble there are sometimes other underlying issues present. One underlying issue that seems to be most prevalent is alcohol and drug use. One program in particular that is being used is in Indiana and this program is said to work for those incarcerated. The program deals with therapeutic communities. Buss states that “…therapeutic communities are designed to treat offenders with severe drug addictions.” and “The program includes a minimum of eight months of cognitive behavioral counseling” (2010, p. 6). In therapeutic communities the individual receives a certain amount of hours in the program and the program covers a range of topics such as recovery from addiction to gaining skills to getting a job (Buss, 2010, p. 6). Therapeutic communities especially for those who have an addiction can and does benefit the individual that participates in the program and the individual is required to follow the program that is set forth. This type of program is said to have had a “positive impact on both recidivism and conduct” (Buss, 2010, p. 6). Further, therapeutic communities as a program, does work and it is beneficial to implement this into the correctional system while in prison and after they are released so the offender’s drug/alcohol addiction gets addressed as well as dealt with.
Maintenance is a key component of treating and helping offenders. What is maintenance as well as how does it work? Maintenance is a lot like rehabilitation and is designed to help individuals stay on track. It is also like follow-ups or when someone checks in. When an individual checks in they are letting someone know how they are doing or anything pertinent to their situation. A check in or follow-up can be done with a person’s probation or parole officer when they are released out of prison or jail.
When it comes to maintenance and how effective it is, there are programs that are set forth for individuals. Day and Casey state, “…some programmes suggests that often the decision to offer maintenance can be based on pragmatic grounds (e.g. how easy it is to reconvene treatment groups, or if funding is available), rather than on any explicit assessment of the likely effects of offering such a service on risk reduction, or the type of person for whom ongoing intervention might be beneficial,” (2010, p. 450). This is saying that there is a decision on who should receive maintenance or treatment. However, it should not be decision based but rather mandated because individuals that have been incarcerated are used to having a schedule on what they are supposed to be doing. Day and Casey also state, “Issues of effectiveness can only be addressed in relation to the stated goals or purposes of the programmes,” (2010, p. 450). To have goals or purposes set forth with programs helps to give a set schedule or to state what is expected of the individual. Further, if we continue giving these individuals a schedule on what needs to be done when they are released there may be greater success in that these individuals will be able to succeed in staying out of prison or jail.
According to Day and Casey, “individual differences are important particularly in relation to the levels of self-control that individuals are able to exert over their behavior,” (2010, p. 451). Behavior is also important when assessing or helping an individual. There are no two people alike and each person has specific needs that need to be met which can factor off of their behavior in regards to who they are as a person. There are many theories that look at behavior and how it plays a part in maintenance or rehabilitation of an individual. Day and Casey state, “ these theories place particular emphasis on how change typically progresses through a sequence of change stages, each one characterized by different attitudes, thoughts, beliefs, and values,” (2010, p. 451). These are important components because an individual’s behavior is a process that takes place and there are different levels or stages for a person’s behavior. When someone can understand as well as see behavior progress, it is then that one can begin to understand how to help an individual especially when trying to place them in a program that will benefit the individual when they are released. One program that Day and Casey talked about is “the Transtheoretical Model of Change” and this model looks at “three key constructs that are involved in behavior change: decisional balance, self-efficacy, and the process of change” (2010, p. 451). This model can be helpful in maintenance or rehabilitation of an individual due to the fact that it is addressing three components of behavior change that all play a part in how an individual behaves. Further, when utilizing the Transtheoretical Model of Change and applying it, it can be useful because when “applying this model to maintenance programmes suggests that the goals of sessions might center around strengthening commitment to change by reminding offenders of their decision to lead a law abiding lifestyle, reinforcing their perception of self-efficacy through the provision of encouragement and support, and generally assisting participants to continue thinking, feeling, and behaving in ways that are associated with acting in pro-social ways,” (Day & Casey, 2010, p. 452). This is beneficial and tells how this type of model can be effective in changing a person’s behavior. It shows that behavior can be changed and that each individual is fully capable of turning their behavior around.
Aside from behavior and being able to change it, there is another component that is needed to help offenders and that is supervision. Supervision is vital to an individual that has been incarcerated and released back into society. Taxman states that “supervision, like reentry is focused on helping the offender to become a productive citizen: supervision usually consists of the period after release through the period of correctional control” (2007, p. 98). Most often when individuals reenter society they need some sort of supervision to make sure they are on track and abiding by the law as well as by the rules set forth for them to follow as a condition of their release. There is a supervision model that Taxman states that consists of “moving the offender through different stages of supervision: engagement, early change and sustained change” (2007, p. 98). According to Taxman “engagement includes the process of assessment…early changes refers to the use of formal controls…and sustain the progress through the development of the pro-social networks and involvement in step-down service” (2007, p. 98). The model is of importance and “the goal is to alter supervision to be consistent with where offenders are in their change process” (Taxman, 2007, p. 98). These stages of the model are vital in helping an individual and each stage states what is expected of the individual or what needs to be done. The stages are what explain what is required of the individual and clearly these stages will help an individual to be successful in their programs, treatment, maintenance, or rehabilitation while being supervised after they have been reentered back into society. Furthermore, this is what makes or breaks the individual on whether or not they can continue to follow through with being told what to do according to where they are at in their process of wanting to change.
The system is a concern with offenders and how it operates. In order to make the system work to a person’s advantage or in a person’s best interest, one must look at the issues and solutions of the system. According to Allison and Clarke an issue is the failure of the system and they state, “ascribing accountability to the system’s failure is nearly impossible, and a viable solution is a similarly impossible goal,” (2008, p. 83). This is stating that our system has failed and not been held accountable for what it has done. It also states that to come with a solution is not even a possibility. Another issue that Allison and Clarke state is “the established policies and mandates for incarcerating offenders have done the nation a disservice by not holding offenders accountable or responsible for changing their own lives” and “nor does the bureaucracy task itself by accepting responsibility for the condition of an offender upon his or her release to society” (2008, p. 83). To fix the system and to come up with a solution we need to reconsider how we punish offenders as well as hold each individual responsible for their actions. If this is possible, then maybe we would have a better success at rehabilitating individuals and better preparing them for reentry into society.
According to Allison and Clarke a way to fix the system or a solution to the problem is to “face the fact that if the priority of the system is not changed to include in improving an offender’s ability to succeed in society, criminal justice budgets will continue to consume larger portions of already strapped government funds” (2008, p. 83). Further, if the system does reconsider priorities by putting the offender first and helping the offender to be successful, money would be being spent where it needs to be spent. Another solution to the system is “the human resource recovery system” and this “system comprises four broad areas: vision, continuum of control, habilitation, and efficiency” (Allison & Clarke, 2008, p. 83). These four areas may be broad but each brings something important to help resolve a system that needs to be fixed. In the vision aspect it would require the criminal justice system and political leadership to start accepting some responsibility in helping an inmate to change by providing any tools that may benefit the inmate (Allison & Clarke, 2008, p. 83). Then with continuum of care, the basic idea is placing the control on the inmate of their behavior as well as providing the necessary tools to an inmate that will help them to change their behavior and their life (Allison & Clarke, 2008, p. 83). Allison and Clarke then go on to talk about habilitation in which they state, “the habilitative approach expects and places responsibility upon the offender to change and establish a crime free lifestyle…it rejects the notion that behavior can or should be fundamentally altered by anyone other than the offender,” (2008, p. 84). They also state that with efficiency “the more successful the system is at changing inmate behavior and returning a better ‘product’ to society, the less crime will occur in the community,” (Allison & Clarke, 2008, p. 84). So what do these four broad areas tell us? They tell us that when we place responsibility on an individual and provide them with the necessary tools that they can change. It also tells us that an individual can change their behavior provided that they are given the right tools to do so and that an individual’s change comes from within their self, no one else. Furthermore, for the system to be efficient, we must focus on an individual in helping to provide them with the necessary tools and education so they can change who they are and how they behave which will make them a better person that is willing to be a law abiding citizen.
On the other hand, there is the Second Chance Act that is helping the system to work or become better. What is the Second Chance Act? It is an act that the President George W. Bush addressed in 2004 in his “State of the Union address” in which he “announced his administration’s commitment to a multiyear federal reentry program and declared that ‘America is the land of second chance, and when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life’ ” (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009, p. 38). This act was about the person and giving them a second chance. Each person deserves a second chance because this is giving them an opportunity to prove their self, that they can do right, and that they can be a law abiding citizen. The act was a very important law that George W. Bush signed into law in 2008. This law, the “Second Chance Act marks a turning point in the nation’s history” (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009, p. 38). The act showed that the United States was making an effort to help individuals who had been incarcerated and that needed to be given another chance to make their wrongs into rights by further bettering their lives once they reentered into society.
If we can begin to help offenders from the start of the process of them entering into the system instead of at the end, we may have a better chance at helping them to become successful and to help them gain insight into what needs to be done to stay on track. Marchese stated that “in progressive criminal justice systems, the reentry process begins when an offender commences his or her period of incarceration” and that “…the reentry process should start even earlier-at the plea bargaining stage/sentencing stage, when interactions between the district attorney, defense counsel and the judge take place” (2007, p. 20). This is of importance and should take place at this time rather than when the individual is starting their sentence. In the early stage, such as the plea bargaining, this is when all communication is up on the table and this would be the perfect opportune moment to lay the foundation out as to what is expected as well as what needs to be done to help an individual before they are they are locked up. This time could be vital in getting through to an individual and it helps to place the responsibility on the person who is going to be incarcerated for their crime or crimes. In this stage early on it would allow the person as a defendant in court to “develop a reentry plan to the court that would demonstrate how he or she would effectively use the period of incarceration and subsequent community supervision as an opportunity for behavioral changes that support a law-abiding lifestyle” (Marchese, 2007, p. 20). A reentry plan is essential in that it sets up for the individual what they need to do and what is expected of them. It is a guideline that serves to help that person to become a better person and better prepared to become a part of society once they complete their sentence in prison or jail. Furthermore, “by making reentry a key factor in the plea bargaining and sentencing process, we help offenders focus on what they need to do to lead a more productive life” (Marchese, 2007, p. 21).
Aftercare like maintenance is of importance when helping individuals once they reenter back into society. Aftercare is the basic concept or idea of continuing services or treatment to a person who has been incarcerated and released back into society. Burdon, Dang, Prendergast, Messina, & Farabee state, “…parolees entering aftercare are more likely to experience continuity of treatment, with aftercare treatment services picking up where prison based treatment stopped, and are more likely to go through the in-prison and post-prison treatment,” (2007, p. 11). They also state that “due to the limited number of aftercare programs/providers, the variability in the quality of the treatment services received by parolees who attend aftercare attenuated” (Burdon et al., 2007, p. 11). This tells us that there is an effort being made to ensure that offenders still receive some sort of treatment or aftercare upon their release and that it can be adjusted to meet their needs due to the minimum number of programs that are offered to them after release. When it comes to males and females there is a difference in aftercare. Messina, Burdon, Hagopian, and Prendergast state, “Men were significantly more likely to participate in aftercare than women (46% of men vs. 41% of women); yet, men who participated in aftercare did not stay as long as women,” (2006, p. 17). It seems that even though men go into aftercare sooner than women, they do not stay in aftercare as long as women. In order to fix this issue we need to address the cause of why men do not stay in aftercare as long as women and then make a plan that will help keep the men in aftercare so they are able to succeed in staying out of prison or jail. Aside from this issue, aftercare needs to be addressed to every individual and not according to their gender. It is stated that there is “the need to place greater emphasis on promoting appropriate aftercare treatment for inmates in the prison-based treatment programs, regardless of gender” (Messina et al., 2006, p. 25). This is necessary to ensure that all individuals receive adequate and appropriate treatment while incarcerated as well as after they are released. Gender should not be a factor to be considered in deciding on aftercare treatment of offenders but rather the whole picture such as why they were incarcerated and their past history so a proper program can be given to treat the individual once they reenter society.
Finally there is the concept of recidivism that needs to be addressed.
What exactly is recidivism? According to the Pew Center on the States “recidivism is the act of reengaging in criminal offending despite having been punished” (2011, p. 7). There are many individuals who after being released from prison or jail that reoffend. The reasons for these individuals reoffending can range on a scale of many levels. According to Buss “the number one predictor of recidivism is employment” (2010, p. 10). Buss also states that “an unemployed ex-offender is 21 times more likely to return to prison than an employed ex-offender and the number one predictor of employment post-release is academic achievement while incarcerated” (2010, p. 10). This is stating that while offenders are incarcerated their level of education is not being fully met and that the education level while incarcerated does not exceed the standards set forth to those who are not incarcerated. In order to fix this issue we need to make sure that all offenders receive an adequate education while incarcerated and to better prepare them for the job market upon release so they do not
recidivate.
There have been studies done on recidivism that indicate that alcohol and emotions have a role in whether or not someone will recidivate.
Day and Casey state that the study performed by Zamble and Quinsey on recidivism found that “alcohol played a role in the pre-offence period…in the 6 months preceding arrest, most of the recidivists used alcohol…and in the 24 hour period preceding the offence, a majority reported drinking heavily before offending” (2010, p. 454). This indicates that alcohol can be a contributing factor on whether an individual recidivates or commits a crime especially if alcohol is an issue for that person. Day and Casey also state that Zamble and Quinsey found that “re-offenders were much more likely to report negative feelings than those who did not re-offend, with 77.2% of re-offenders reporting dsyphoric feelings in the 30 day period prior to reoffending, compared with only 41.7% of those who had not re-offended” (2010, p. 454). There is obvious support that those who chose to re-offend have negative feelings which can stem from a variety of issues one of which could be not being able to get a job so they can support their families or their self. In order to fix this problem we must continue helping these individuals once they are released to ensure that they are successful and make sure that they have the skills as well as education required of them to have a life outside of prison or
jail.
The idea or concept of recidivism is not very easy to grasp. Velasquez states, “in theory stopping recidivism is simple, but very difficult in practice…the simple solution is determining and addressing their various needs, focusing on the big five-substance abuse, treatment, mental health treatment, housing, employment, and education,” (2010, p. 8-9). These big five are a huge factor in an individual’s life especially if they have been incarcerated. To help a person with these big five issues, we can begin to help maintain and treat offenders once they are released as well as be able to focus on what should be done to help with these areas to keep these people from recidivating. Further, we can help reduce recidivism with individuals if we continue to deliver the care and concern that they received while incarcerated. If we keep helping offenders upon their release back into society, we are continuing to show that the system does care about what happens rather than just releasing them without any help which would possibly set them up for failure.
There are programs that do work and help with recidivism. Of the listed programs the one that showed the highest effect on recidivism was intensive supervision and the one that had the least effect on recidivism was employment training/job assistance. The following table below shows what these programs are as well as the number of studies looked at and how effective they are.
Table 1
Effectiveness of Correctional Programs _____________________________________________
Type of Program__________ _ Number of Studies____________Reduction in Recidivism_
1) In-prison drug treatment 6 6.9%
2) Drug treatment in jail 9 6%
3) Drug treatment in the community 5 12.4%
4) Cognitive behavioral therapy 25 8.2%
5) Correctional industry programs 4 7.8%
6) Vocational education/training programs 3 12.6%
7) Employment training/job assistance 16 4.8%
8) Adult basic education 7 5.1%
-------------------------------------------------
9) Intensive supervision 10 21.9% *Source: This information was taken from “A New Era in Inmate Reentry,” by Travis, Crayton, and Mukamal, 2009, p. 39. The above information shows how recidivism can be effective. If we continue to progress with these programs, we will have succeeded in helping offenders to stay out of the system. These programs are a vital component in helping offenders get the treatment they need after they have been released. The one of most importance is supervision because when these individuals are constantly being supervised and required to check in, it helps them to stay focused as well as out of trouble with the law. The concept of supervision means having someone constantly knowing what an individual is doing which would be in this case those who have been released back into society. Furthermore, we must be consistent and follow through with those who have been incarcerated and released back into society in order to ensure that these individual’s have success in staying out of prison.
Methods
In the process of gathering information on maintenance and aftercare, there were many pathways taken to find the information necessary for the research. The literature looked at was peer-reviewed empirical journal articles. In the process of researching the topic qualitative and quantitative data were used. Further, various statistics were reviewed but not fully utilized in the paper because not all was necessary to implement in the paper. The literature used had a 6 year range starting with 2006 and ending with 2011. The majority of articles were obtained from the Hannon Library using academic search complete. There were a few of the articles obtained from a couple different websites. Some of the articles found on the Hannon Library needed to be clicked to go to another page were the information was located to be able to obtain the literature. Finally, the vast majority of literature was from Corrections Today, while the rest of the literature came from a couple of other journals. The database primarily used for this research was EBSCOhost off of the Hannon Library website. There were a few other websites used which directly linked to the webpage as a pathway to follow off of EBSCOhost and The Pew Center was also used to get some information. The key words that were used to find the literature were: corrections, maintenance, aftercare, prison, post-prison, reentry, jails, recovery, prevention, offenders, supervision, and recidivism.
Results
It is possible that as long as there is consistency and follow ups, individuals can be successful after they reenter society. If we can look past a conviction we can see the person for who they are. It does matter that someone was incarcerated but it does not matter whether or that the person keeps being stigmatized or labeled for what they did. We need to look past this and give the individual a chance to be successful, to be a better person. If we can do this and continue to give the care that was given to these individuals while they were incarcerated, then we can be successful in the aftercare or maintenance part of their rehabilitation. There are programs that do work and if followed through as well as if we give the right type of program according to the person’s needs then we have succeeded in helping them. Further, recidivism will decrease as we continue to deliver the care that is needed to help keep these individuals on track especially if we provide them with intensive supervision which has been shown to be beneficial. Maintenance and aftercare are key in keeping an individual or individuals on the right path when they reenter society. We need to continue treating offenders upon their release and supervise them as well to ensure that these individuals do not slip or end up back into the system. By offering as well as following through with the right treatment program and/or programs according to the individuals needs, it will be the first step in helping maintain their reentry process. The right treatment program and/or programs is essential in helping offenders be successful in aftercare or maintenance because by assigning the person to the right program/treatment we are meeting their needs and we are continuing to show that we care about what happens to these individuals. Further, we are providing a foundation for these individuals to stand on so they can become stable and for these individuals it is of importance to do this because if we do not provide a foundation or framework to continue helping them upon release they are likely to recidivate but with the necessary help they will not recidivate.
Discussion
The primary strength of this research is that a variety of studies were conducted and there were many well written articles on this topic. It was not very difficult to find studies and articles that were well written during the research process. Further, the research appeared to be well established as well as informative. There was a wide range of information in the studies which show that programs do work as well as are important. The weakness found in the research was that there needs to be further studies conducted to show empirical validity. In doing further research it will offer more support to show that maintenance and aftercare are essential for an individual to be successful as they are going through the reentry process. There are a number of issues that also need to be included in the research for empirical support that would help established the importance of programs. Furthermore, Day and Casey mention issues that they did not address in their paper which could be beneficial in helping to prove empirical support for programs and they state “there are a number of issues… including whether programmes should be delivered in prison or community settings, to individuals or groups, how long they should run, and whether programmes should be voluntary or mandated as part of a legal order” (2010, p. 456). If we can include these issues in research, then we can find the answers on maintenance and aftercare in how it should be given as well as how beneficial they are. In the research it has been found that there are programs that work such as therapeutic communities which starts the treatment process in the prison and it also helps to set the offender up for what is to come when they get released in regards to maintenance or aftercare services that they will need. Everyone needs to be involved (community, family, friends, etc.) in making sure that the offender is receiving what they need in their treatment/program, that it is adequate and fair. We need to start by fixing the system and by doing so we will have taken the first step in helping individuals in their process of reentry as well as maintenance or aftercare. To fix the system will be a process that will take time to get it right but it will work. Further, “successful reentry requires strong community networks and comprehensive services” and “…the field is just now begging to develop an approach to reentry based on evidence of best practices” (Travis, Crayton, & Mukamal, 2009, p. 41).

References Allison, T. L., & Clarke, H. W. (2008). Rethinking the reentry process: The human resource recovery system. Corrections Today, 70(4), 82-84. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=3&hid=125&sid=a560cab7-d91a-434d-bd38-785d258f8d0c%40sessionmgr115 Burdon, W.M., Dang, J., Prendergast, M.L., Messina, N.P., & Farabee, D. (2007). Differential effectiveness of residential versus outpatient aftercare for parolees from prison-based therapeutic community treatment programs. Substance Abuse Treatment, Prevention, & Policy, 216-14. doi: 10.1186/1747-597X-2-16 Buss, E. G. (2010). Stepping stones to successful reentry. Corrections Today, 72(4), 6-10. Retrived from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1b2d0be2-10fb-4e93-981f-9b1fd2edb00c%40sessionmgr104&vid=3&hid=111 Christ, J., & Bitler, B. ((2010). Family engagement + professional compassion=successful reentry. Corrections Today, 72(6), 22-24. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=6bcb3015-bf7d-4f83-83cd-9634e7dea6d1%40sessionmgr111&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=57527793 Day, A., & Casey, S. (2010). Maintaining change programmes for offenders: Some suggestions for practice. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 16(6), 419-458. doi:10.1080/10683160902798086 Le Blanc, J.M., & Nolan, P. (2009). Partners for successful reentry. Corrections Today, 71(6), 58-71. Retrived from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=17e8a279-ca68-42b3-af01-46a86a20c955%40sessionmgr112&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=48500575 Marchese, J. J. (2007). Starting the reentry process at the beginning. Corrections Today, 69(5),
20-21. Retrived from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=d508dfb2-2a48-4da4-bcda-7e71734381c9%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=27221057 Messina, N., Burdon, W., Hagopian, G., & Prendergast, M. (2006). Predictors of prison based treatment outcomes: A comparison of men and women participants. American Journal of Drug & Alcohol Abuse, 32(1), 7-28. doi: 10.1080/00952990500328463 Mulloy, P.J., Shearon, J., Atkins, P., Hunter, T., Blum, J., & Fleming, W. (2007). Reentry: A correctional approach, not just another correctional program. American Jails, 21(5), 82-87. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=688bd6e6-1e9d-415c-847e-8a962aa1d0b5%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=28387946 Pew Center on the States (2011). State of recidivism: The revolving door of America’s prisons. Washington D.C. The Pew Charitable Trusts. Retrieved from http://www.pewtrusts.org/uploadedFiles/wwwpewtrustsorg/Reports/sentencing_and_corrections/State_Recidivism_Revolving_Door_America_Prisons%20.pdf Pinard, M. (2010). Reflections and perspectives on reentry and collateral consequences. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 1213-1224. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=7eb050bf-37d7-401f-a2e7-102e61871808%40sessionmgr113&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=58547927 Taxman, F.S. (2007). Reentry and supervision: One is impossible without the other. Corrections Today, 69(2), 98-105. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=97c0d2a3-767e-4a3a-8981-5431f2903a02%40sessionmgr110&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=24833138 *Travis, J., Crayton, A., & Mukamal, D.A., (2009). A new era in inmate reentry. Corrections Today, 71(6), 38-41. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=6f385801-9f4d-4633-9c70-03a3335194e1%40sessionmgr115&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=48500570 Velasquez, C. (2010). Reentry—breaking the downward personal and intergenerational spiral. Corrections Today, 72(6), 8-12. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete. http://web.ebscohost.com.glacier.sou.edu/ehost/detail?sid=ace06e39-a451-478b-b947-7d369cb04a24%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=110&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=57527795