Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Reintegration Model

More than 2 million men and women are incarcerated in American prisons and jails. A major consequence of the prison building strategy employed over the last two decades is that more prisoners are let out and returned to society each year. In fact, it was estimated that close to 600,000 felons would be released from state and federal prisons in the year 2000 and essentially dropped on the doorsteps of communities nationwide (Petersilia 2000: 1). A recent national study estimated that in 1999, only 43 percent of adults on parole successfully completed their supervision terms (Bureau of Justice Statistics 2000). Therefore, the evidence strongly suggests that “the system” now in place to reintegrate offenders into the community needs to be reexamined.

How should the reentry problem faced by exoffenders be addressed? There is no definitive “reintegration model” ensuring that ex-offenders will be successful on their reentry and subsequent adaptation to society in their release from confinement. However, an” ideal “system may be conceived and designed if we as a society are truly interested in the reintegration of ex-offenders as citizens, with all of the rights and responsibilities that this status entails. This ideal model requires that ex-offenders be provided with more substantial services and long-term assistance, as well as help in the removal of the stigma they face, in order to enhance their attempt to conform to society and not merely to survive but thrive on their release from prison. In particular, the components of a reintegration model must aid the transition of ex-offenders back into communities as both law-abiding and productive citizens. A seamless system for the reentry of offenders consisting of a continuity of care approach is essential to the success of the reintegration process.

The ideal model includes four stages: prison-based rehabilitation, transitional services, community aftercare, and postsupervision certification as “normal,” with the restoration of all rights as citizens returned to the ex-offender. Significantly, without completion of the last stage, in which ex-offenders are publicly recognized as normal citizens, the entire concept of reintegration is essentially a misnomer.

Prison-Based Rehabilitation and Transitional Services

A unique opportunity exists while prisoners are incarcerated to invest resources in rehabilitative programs that will help to reduce recidivism. Despite the lingering effect of Martinson's (1974) important essay asserting that “nothing works” in the rehabilitation of offenders, in recent years the evidence has been mounting that effective interventions can have a significant impact on enhancing the social functioning of offenders on release and thus reduce recidivism. Consequently, a significant portion and overriding purpose of programmatic activities for incarcerated offenders should be the preparation of prisoners for reentry into society. For this to occur, a serious assessment of the client's needs must take place early in his or her imprisonment and then a long-term commitment must be made toward the implementation of the individual treatment plan that is constructed.

The services provided to offenders while confined need to set the stage for the aftercare that is to follow in the community. According to Altschuler, Armstrong, and MacKenzie (1999: 11), “Institutional services need to be geared to the services, opportunities, and challenges that exist in the community to which the juvenile (or adult offender) will return.” In order to enhance the long-term impact of institutional programming, a holistic program of rehabilitation must address the needs of prisoners for successful reentry, such as the maintenance of family ties, alcohol and/or drug treatment, education, vocational and work ethics training, job readiness, treatment for mental illness, and cognitive skills development. These types of programs exist separately in many locations today, but a commitment is needed to strengthen them, to use them in interaction with one another, and to link them to programs in the transitional and aftercare stages of offenders' reintegration to specific communities. For this holistic approach to become entrenched, it may be necessary to hold the prison administrators responsible not only for lowering incidences of misbehavior within prisons but also for increasing the number of offenders who earn General Equivalency Diplomas (GEDs) and college degrees, as well as the number and quality of programs offered to address alcohol/drug addiction, psychological problems, and cognitive skills development.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution