Post-Incarceration Societal Re-entry

94

Post-Incarceration Societal Re-entry

By Maya Sai

Milpitas High School, Class of 2024 Milpitas, California

Edited by: Mia McElhatton Reviewed by: Julie Higgins

95

I. INTRODUCTION

“They want you to go back out and fail. Try to rob somebody and try to hustle. So now they got you back and you’re another number you’re not a name anymore. You’re a number. And that’s more percentage of that money from [the city]; to allocate more money. We’ll see you back in here. And they say that! Most of the guards say that. And, they do usually see them back in there. I don’t know what the percentage is, but there is a high percentage of repeat offenders. But I think the programs just don’t care. We sit around in these one on ones and you’re like what’s up?” (Bowman and Travis 12).

These are the words of a male participant in a study conducted by the AdvancementProject Los Angeles, examining post-prison societal re-entry (“prison re-entry”) in Los Angelesand trends of recidivism. This perspective calls attention to widespread problems in the prisonsystem. The United States prison system incarcerates more than 2.5 million individuals andreleases more than 650,000 individuals each year (USDOJ). American society makes it difficultto be successful post-prison. Stigma, barriers to finding housing and employment, and a lack ofsupport systems all make life after incarceration more difficult. The prison system’s goals are torehabilitate inmates and deter future wrongdoings but releases them into a society where crime isoften a necessary fallback.

Recidivism occurs when a formerly incarcerated individual commits a crime afterre-entering society, causing them to return to the prison system. Stigma is the discriminationagainst an individual based on certain assumptions, characteristics, or preconceived ideas of thatindividual. Racism is predjudice and discrimination—inidvudally and systematically—towardsan indivdual belonging to a specific racial or ethnic group. This paper will explore multiplefacets of prison re-entry, the flaws of our prison re-entry process, what works in the system, andwhat does not. Section One will examine how racism impacts recidivism; specifically, it willdiscuss (1) racism as an overall factor in the prison system, (2) how racism impacts life forformerly incarcerated individuals, (3) how racism is a prominent factor in their recidivism, and

96

(4) future steps to take to help combat this issue. Section Two will analyze how employment impacts recidivism; it will discuss the difficulty of formerly incarcerated individuals in finding a job, the causes and effects of this difficulty, and the importance of ex-convicts having a job. Section Three will explore mentorship, its effect on individuals post-prison, and the difference it can make in one’s life on their journey of reentering society. In order to help formerly incarcerated individuals, we must implement community support programs, make services more accessible to formerly incarcerated individuals, and focus on the barriers that prevent people from a successful life after prison.

II.

THE IMPACT OF RACISM ON RECIDIVISM

Racism is a significant challenge to successful prison re-entry as it plays an important role in many aspects of the justice system. In fact, a study from Indiana University found that “[o]f the 2.1 million men and women in U.S. jails and prisons at the end of 2003, 44 percent were African Americans, though African Americans comprised only 12.3 percent of the U.S. population” (Nixon, et al. 23). Fourteen years later, Pew Research produced statistics showing, “[i]n 2017, blacks represented 12% of the U.S. adult population but 33% of the sentenced prison population. Whites accounted for 64% of adults but 30% of prisoners. And while Hispanics represented 16% of the adult population, they accounted for 23% of inmates.” These numbers show the disparity across minority groups’ incarceration rates. The prison system, courts, and law enforcement favor white people, directly or indirectly––their incarceration rates are extremely low compared to those of Black and Hispanic people. By paying attention to these rates, society can recognize the problem, which is the first step toward decreasing incarceration rates.

97

Once a minority leaves prison, they face a double stigma of being a minority and an individual with a criminal conviction. An individual’s life before prison directly impacts an individual's success post-prison. A study, by Nancy G. La Vigne, Christy Visher, and Jennifer Castro, analyzing arrest data in Chicago, described factors relating to post-prison success, stating: “[R]espondents who had not used drugs or been intoxicated in the six months prior to prison and those who improved their educational level while in prison (e.g., obtained a GED) were less likely to be reconvicted, while respondents who scored higher on family support scales before prison and those who showed prerelease anticipation of reentry difficulties were less likely to be reincarcerated” (Vigne, et al. 14). Prisoners that had a photo ID, did not do drugs, had an occupation when interviewed, and lived in a safe neighborhood were also less likely to return to prison (14). It is a possible explanation that many minority groups live in certain situations (neighborhoods) that make it more likely that they face specific challenges (the ones listed above) that make them more prone to reincarceration.

A study by David S. Kirk, a professor at Oxford, analyzing the racial discrepancy in arrest data, explained, “blacks...live in areas characterized by higher levels of concentrated poverty than other groups, whereas whites live in areas with the lowest levels of concentrated poverty” (Kirk). This racial disparity indicates that “concentrated poverty” leads to higher arrest levels of individuals, who happen to be racial minorities. These neighborhoods are communities that lack necessary skills, don’t have stable connections to employment, and only minimal organization of the transition from prison. In addition, such issues are a result of past offenders returning to communities that already face “economic disadvantages”. This often damages

98

communities (Brown 7). The reason for living in these “unstable communities” may come from the racial income gap, the income difference between different minority groups. Across a thirty-year period, from 1983 to 2013, “[w]hite households saw their wealth increase by 14%. But during the same period, Black household wealth declined 75%. Median Hispanic household wealth declined 50%” (Amadeo). When minorities reenter society with insufficient incomes, their lack of income is an immediate barrier to successful re-entry. As a result, they cannot access necessary services and programs. This can lead to more difficulty in finding jobs, housing, and other social services. These difficulties can be specifically seen in employment, one of the most important aspects of a successful life after prison (Couloute and Kopf).* This double stigma causes much harm to their daily lives and prosperity, as elaborated on in Section Three. This harm can cause the individual to recidivate. Race is a correlating factor to recidivism as Black offenders are very probable to recidivate (32.8%) and White offenders are less prone to (16%) (Lyles-Chockley 262). The impact of the community disparities is that “poor black [and other minority groups] communities have become incubators for recidivism” (Lyles-Chockley 263).

* 35

Unemployment Rate forGeneral Population

Unemployment Rate forFormerly Incarcerated

Black Women 6.4% 43.6%

Black Men 7.7% 35.2%

White Women 4.3% 23.2%

35

This table is adapted from Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment among formerlyincarcerated people.

99

White Men 4.3% 18.4%

Overall 5.2% 27.3%

Society must shift to an equal perception of all individuals, no matter their race, in our institutions and daily life. Yet, racism is psychologically rooted and cannot be completely solved with any policy. Along with this, we need to focus on fixing the systematic disadvantages that minorities currently have. That said, we can create more services to help individuals prosper. These services include re-entry programs, mentorship, and educational services. We can push for more guidance in helping individuals, specifically, those of minority racial groups, prosper. One of the most prominent barriers during re-entry is employment, and knocking out this barrier can make all the difference in a formerly incarcerated individual's life.

III.

ENTERING THE WORKFORCEA. BARRIERS TO EMPLOYMENT Obtaining employment as a formerly incarcerated individual is not as easy as one may think. The primary cause for this is the aforementioned stigma surrounding criminal convictions. Employers use criminal convictions to judge a candidate’s character. As The New York Times states, “[s]urveys show roughly nine in 10 United States employers check databases of criminal records when hiring for at least some positions.” It can be inferred that, to many employers, criminal convictions indicate that the person is dangerous, untrustworthy, and has a poor work ethic. Amanda Agan and Sonja B. Starr from the University of Michigan Law School studied the callback rates of almost 3000 job applications of formerly incarcerated individuals. They found that “[c]allback rates were 8.5 percent and 13.6 percent for applicants with and without convictions, respectively. That is, applicants without convictions received 60 percent more

100

callbacks (5.1 percentage points)” (Agan and Starr 561). In addition, “[i]n New York City, applicants without records received 80 percent more callbacks than those with records; in New Jersey this difference was 45 percent” (Agan and Starr 562). If there is background information on an applicant regarding their past criminal convictions, the employers are highly likely to use it. The smallest charge on a record can have the biggest impact on the decision of an application. As a result, “the unemployment rate for formerly incarcerated people is nearly five times higher than the unemployment rate for the general United States population” (Couloute and Kopf) (emphasis modified). In addition, “having a record reduces employer callback rates by 50%” (Couloute and Kopf). This stigma behind the records is partly what makes it difficult for formerly incarcerated individuals to get a job. 36

Formerly incarcerated individuals currently obtain jobs in similar ways as regular 37 job-seekers. A Research Brief by the Urban Institute entitled Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, analyzes employment data and challenges of 740 male ex-convicts. It states, “[m]ost participants (86 percent) used multiple strategies to find a job, including talking with friends and relatives, responding to newspaper or help-wanted ads, speaking with their parole officer, and contacting their former employer” (Visher, et al. 3). Many formerly incarcerated individuals felt that their parole officer was helpful in terms of finding a job (3). Individuals without any criminal convictions find their jobs primarily through networking—connecting to their different connections, using job search platforms, social media, family, and friends. The two groups find jobs in similar ways, yet we see that their job chance

36

Lack of work experience and education, as well as the conditions of their neighborhood can also harm their chances of employment success. See, for example, Urban Institute, 2004 (available at http://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/311115_ChicagoPrisoners.pdf) and Prison Policy Initiative, 2018 (available at https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/education.html).

37

The term “regular” here is used to describe job applicants that do not have a past or current criminalconviction.

101

outcomes are completely different. Even if they do secure a job, “[t]he most common types of jobs [after incarceration are] construction or general manual labor… maintenance...and assembly line or factory jobs” (Visher, Debus, and Yahner 3). Formerly incarcerated individuals rarely get high-paying jobs such as positions in engineering, business, marketing, medicine, and law. One can conclude that this is partly because of their education levels and the stigma surrounding their work ethic. Many might argue that prisoners and ex-convicts have access to programs that may help them achieve their intended degree but this is simply not true. From the research brief, many prisoners were not aware of community programs, but “[o]f those who knew of education and employment programs (60 percent), participation rates ranged from 29 percent for GED classes to 61 percent for employment skills programs” (Visher, Debus, and Yahner 4). Respondents explained that not joining post-release programs was because of not knowing they were there and other barriers like transportation and cost. Existing programs do not offer formerly incarcerated individuals the tools to achieve high-paying jobs and fight biased perceptions of their character that automatically disqualify them from even being considered for employment. When establishing education programs for formerly incarcerated individuals, it is important to consider (1) the different barriers that they may have in accessing the programs; (2) the actual content of the program and how one can make these programs as helpful as possible; (3) how to reduce the stigma around formerly incarcerated individuals; (4) networking for individuals to obtain the job; and (5) how to help more formerly incarcerated individuals obtain jobs in high-paying sectors.

A job can make or break post-incarceration success. Post-incarceration employment can reduce recidivism rates. The Research Brief on the Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry explained this saying, “[offenders] who worked in the 6 months before prison were nearly half as likely to be reincarcerated 12 months out as those who had not

102

worked…. Similarly, the more wages earned two months after release, the lower a respondent’s likelihood of reincarceration” (Visher, Debus, and Yahner 8). While considering the amount of money earned to recidivism rates is important, it is important to note that being employed is better than not being employed at all. “Also notable was that respondents who participated in job training classes while in prison (about a fifth of the sample) were less likely to be reincarcerated one year out—with a difference approaching significance...of 13 percent compared with 22 percent.” (Visher, Debus, and Yahner 8). As stated, recidivism can be a result of not being able to find a job. It is a cycle: an individual can not find a job after leaving prison and there is no other way to support their family. As a result, the individual turns to an income involving illegal activities such as selling drugs. Law enforcement catches the individual, who serves their time in prison, and once they get out, they need money. But because of the many barriers they face, they cannot obtain a job. So, they may resort to illegal activity to survive or support their family, and the cycle continues.

One way to fix this issue is to reduce the stigma surrounding criminal convictions of formerly incarcerated individuals. We can do this by raising awareness of these issues and educating people that just because someone has a criminal record, they are not necessarily dangerous or a bad person. Moreover, we need to focus on establishing efficient work and education programs for formerly incarcerated individuals. But their success won’t just come from employment. Mentorship and support systems will also play a vital role, as discussed in Section Four. B. INTERSECTIONALITY: RACE AND EMPLOYMENT The stigma of having a criminal conviction is enough to jeopardize employment success, but the added stigma of being a minority can further lower the chances of finding a job. As

103

mentioned above, finding a job with a criminal conviction is already hard enough with callback rates being much lower. These rates only worsen when the stigma extends to individuals based on their race. A paper in The Annals of the American Academy, analyzing the employment success for individuals with criminal convictions, found that “...the magnitude of the criminal record penalty suffered by Black applicants (60 percent) is roughly double the size of the penalty for whites with a record (30 percent). This interaction between race and criminal record is large and statistically significant, which indicates that the penalty of a criminal record is more disabling for Black job seekers than whites” (Pager, Western, and Sugie 199). When we view employment barriers for formerly incarcerated individuals, it is critical that we also consider the unique barriers minorities face. As such, enforcing and promoting more services for minorities in regards to employment is extremely important as well as doing what we can to reduce stigma and unfairness around the individuals and their treatment.

IV.

MENTORSHIP AND SUPPORT

Support for formerly incarcerated individuals through their journey of prison re-entry is essential to their success. Support systems include various types of mentorship. In this paper, we will categorize the different types of support systems into general support by family and friends and community-based mentorship by peers and parole officers. A. GENERAL SUPPORT: FAMILY AND FRIENDS Family support is helpful during a prison sentence and after release. A Minnesota-based study of over 16,000 prisoners found that “prisons who received visits were 13 percent less likely to be convicted of a new felony offense” (Mooney and Bala 3). Additionally, they saw that “visitation within the last twelve months of an individual’s sentence reduced the odds of

104

reconviction within two years of release by over 30 percent” (Mooney and Bala 3). While visitation is an important factor in an individual’s success, unfortunately, there are many barriers to visitation. Some of these barriers are simply logistical: many times prisoners do not have anyone to come and see them. In other situations, the distance, costs, and regulations for visitors who want to visit individuals in prisons, may pose a challenge that makes it impractical to visit.

There are many barriers to obtaining support during a prison sentence. Many times, when a prisoner’s family lives far away from the prison, they visit their family member less often. This can have detrimental impacts on the prisoner and leave them with no support. Another barrier is the number of restrictions involving the connection between outside visitors and prisoners. These restrictions can include the type of mail prisoners receive—if the message on the mail is too long, if the postcard is on a certain type of paper, or if the message has pictures with it, the visitor’s message may not even go through to the prisoner. Other regulations, such as limits on how they can visit, what they can do while visiting, and things they can say, might lead to negative experiences of visitors and prompt them to lessen or completely stop their visits. Moreover, the costs of visitations can lead to family and friends to lessen or stop their visits. In many prisons, especially private prisons, there is a fee for calling prisoners and visiting them. There are also time limits on these calls which make the experience all the less intimate. Allowing for more connection between prisoners and visitors can help lead to success while the individual is still in prison. Although, it can make an even bigger difference when support is shown when the individual is released. Family members do not only provide emotional and interactional support but also physical support in terms of income, housing, transportation, and sometimes even employment. Research has proven, “[f]amily members are far more likely to overlook the negative stigma attached to “having a record” than other members of society…. In

105

fact, families tend to mark a relative’s release with a celebration to express their affectionate support” (Mowen, et al.). Support can decrease recidivism rates and can lead to an individual’s post-release success.

B. COMMUNITY-BASED MENTORSHIP: PEERS AND PAROLE OFFICERS

Formal mentors and parole officers (“community-based mentorship”) can also facilitate success in the prison re-entry process. Parole officers provide supervision and guidance to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals. They have the potential to be extremely helpful in the transition back to one's community. Unfortunately, they often fail in that goal. A study done analyzing arrest data in Chicago described their respondents' thoughts on their parole officers, noting, “the majority (74 percent) reported meeting monthly with their parole officers (POs), with the average visit lasting 5 to 30 minutes” (Vigne, Visher, and Castro 13). Many expressed positive feelings toward their parole officer “although only half (52 percent) said their [parole officer] had been helpful in their transition to the community” (Vigne, Visher, and Castro 13). The study further found that “[o]nly about one-third of the respondents” said that parole supervision would help them stay crime/drug-free and 45% agreed that supervision would help them stay out of prison (Vigne, Visher, and Castro 13). Yet research has proven that supervision is highly effective as it reduces an individual’s involvement in crime (13). Making parole officers more actively useful to incarcerated and formerly incarcerated individuals is sure to help them in their post-release success.

Mentors involved in rehabilitation programs can be especially helpful in the concrete terms of post-release success such as employment, mental health, and overall guidance. A research paper analyzing the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Data

106

which studied 2,500 adults and juveniles in 14 different states found that pairing a mentor and mentee “based on gender, race, mutual interests, and expectations of what their relationship should look like; and involving the youth’s parents” tends to improve the relationship and outcome” (Workman 8). For adults, they found that “[m]entored offenders reported an average of 1.37 crimes post-release, slightly higher than the non-mentored group average of 1.26 crimes” (Workman 21). Additionally, the paper found, “those who reported having received mentoring reported a three percent decrease in the rate of post-release criminal offenses compared to their non-mentored counterparts” (Workman 23). Another study measuring the effect of peer-mentored community re-entry found that “clients receiving standard reentry services plus peer mentorship showed significantly lower levels of recidivism than those receiving standard reentry services alone” (Sells, et al. 13). They also saw that involvement with their peers helped to “mitigate addiction cravings and negative affect…increase self-efficacy, social support, and quality of life…foster adherence to treatment and drug abstinence, and lower recidivism” (Sells, et al. 13).

Mentorship can be extremely impactful to a formerly incarcerated individual’s success after prison, which is why it is vital that we help to facilitate programs that support mentorship. Rehabilitation and prison reentry programs must integrate mentorship resources, as well as prisons themselves. In addition, there should be no significant visitation barriers, and visitation should be made more accessible overall.

V. CONCLUSIONSociety continuously turns a blind eye to how demeaning our prison system is and how it

continues to impact felons even after their release. Prisons release millions of people each year,

107

who return to the same communities and lifestyles that prompted them to commit the initialcrime in the first place. The prison system sets up formerly incarcerated individuals to fail. Wemust reduce the stigma surrounding criminal convictions and provide more resources for prisonre-entry support programs. Stigma is something no one can fully solve, but we can progressivelywork to inform the public about prison re-entry struggles. We need to encourage discussionsabout successful prison re-entry, spread information about prisons and re-entry programs andencourage people to not judge a person based on their criminal past. The key to reducing stigmais to educate.

An essential goal should be to establish, promote, and encourage involvement in effectivere-entry programs. Effective prison re-entry programs would consist of carefully constructededucational and vocational classes, mentorship, therapy, and overall assistance. They shouldactively encourage participation by especially vulnerable individuals, hire professionally trainedemployees, and work towards the betterment of the individuals attending the programs. Anothercharacteristic of a strong re-entry program would be helping ex-convicts obtain jobs, such asthrough networking and teaching them interviewing and application tips. 38Aside from these two main solutions, other solutions may include the following:Financially, (1) To improve employment and income for ex-offenders, we can provideshort-term income when prisoners are first released, either in the form of a loan or other givenamount of money; and (2) we could make social safety nets, such as food stamps, moreaccessible.

Relating to employment, (1) We should consider making the background check systemmore accurate and holistic, taking into account more than the individual's criminal past; (2) to

38

For more information on successful re-entry programs, see American Psychological Association (available at https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/indicator/2018/03/prisons-to-communities) and Crime Policy Report (available at http://webarchive.urban.org/UploadedPDF/410213_reentry.PDF).

108

increase employment rates for ex-convicts, we may also provide employers with insurance or tax incentives if they hire ex-convicts; and (3) we may make it easier for these individuals to obtain jobs by creating an easier pathway for state licenses for different jobs, such as nursing.

In terms of social support, (1) To improve the overall support and well-being of formerly incarcerated individuals, we can make it mandatory for them to have some type of registered mentors, such as a family member, trusted individual, significant other, or parole officer; (2) we can also help prisoners plan for their future, while still in prison, for when they are released; 39 and (3) in prison and post-prison, we need to initiate mental health programs specific to helping prisoners.

With additional research and the right programs, we can truly make a difference. Every life matters, including the ones of formerly incarcerated individuals. Past wrongdoings should not jeopardize their lives. It is important that we consider and carry out the proposed solutions in order to combat this issue.

39

Examples may include holding workshops and creating specific programs for this planning.

109

Works Cited

Agan, Amanda, and Sonja B. Starr. “The Effect of Criminal Records on Access to Employment.” American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 2017, pp. 560–564. PDF, https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2892&context=articles.

Amadeo, Kimberly. “Racial Wealth Gap in the United States.” The Balance, 23 November 2020, https://www.thebalance.com/racial-wealth-gap-in-united-states-4169678.

Bowman, Scott Wm., and Raphael Jr. Travis Jr. “Prisoner Reentry and Recidivism According to the Formerly Incarcerated and Reentry Service Providers: A Verbal Behavior Approach.” THE BEHAVIOR ANALYST TODAY, vol. 13, no. 3, 4, 2012, p. 19. PDF, https://psycnet.apa.org/fulltext/2013-27003-003.pdf.

Brown, Geneva. “The Intersectionality of Race, Gender, and Reentry: Challenges for African-American Women.” American Constitution Society, 2010, p. 18. PDF, https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/american_constitution_society_bro wn_brief_on_intersectionality_of_race_gender_and_reentry_for_african_american_wom en_2010.pdf.

Couloute, Lucius, and Daniel Kopf. “Out of Prison & Out of Work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people.” Prison Policy Initiative, July 2018, https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/outofwork.html.

Gramlich, John. “The gap between the number of blacks and whites in prison is shrinking.” Pew Research Center, 12 Jan 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/30/shrinking-gap-between-number-of-bla cks-and-whites-in-prison/.

110

Kirk, David S. “The Neighborhood Context of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Arrest.” Demography, 2008, pp. 55-77. NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831379/.

Lyles-Chockley, Adrienne. “Transitions to Justice: Prisoner Reentry as an Opportunity to Confront the Counteract Racism.” Hastings Race and Poverty Law Journal, vol. 6, no. 2, 2009, pp. 259-303. PDF, https://repository.uchastings.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1058&context=hastings_rac e_poverty_law_journal.

Mooney, Emily, and Nila Bala. “THE IMPORTANCE OF SUPPORTING FAMILY CONNECTIONS TO ENSURE SUCCESSFUL RE-ENTRY.” R STREET SHORTS, no. 63, 2018, p. 6. PDF, https://www.rstreet.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Final-Short-No.-63-1.pdf.

Mowen, Thomas J., and Richard Stansfield. “Family Matters: Moving Beyond “If” Family Support Matters to “Why” Family Support Matters during Reentry from Prison.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, vol. 56, no. 4, 2018, pp. 483-523. NCBI, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7205225/#R38.

Nixon, Vivian. “Life Capacity beyond Reentry: A Critical Examination of Racism and Prisoner Reentry Reform in the U.S.” Autumn, vol. 2, no. 1, 2008, pp. 21-43. PDF, https://dpl6hyzg28thp.cloudfront.net/media/25594997.pdf.

Pager, Devah, et al. “Sequencing Disadvantage: Barriers to Employment Facing Young Black and White Men with Criminal Records.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 2009, pp. 195-213. PDF, https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/pager/files/annals_sequencingdisadvantage.pdf.

111

Sells, Dave. “Peer-Mentored Community Reentry Reduces Recidivism.” CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, vol. XX, no. X, 2020, p. 20. PDF, https://www.continuumct.com/files/news/Sells%20et%20al%202020%20Mentors%20Re duce%20Recidivism%20SCPS%20pg%205.pdf.

United States Department of Justice. “Prisoners and Prisoner Re-Entry.” USDOJ, USDOJ, https://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/progmenu_reentry.html.

Vigne, Nancy G. La, et al. CHICAGO PRISONERS’ EXPERIENCES RETURNING HOME. Urban Institute’s Justice Policy Center, December 2004, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/42831/311115-Chicago-Prisoners-Ex periences-Returning-Home.PDF.

Visher, Christy, et al. “Employment after Prison: A Longitudinal Study of Releasees in Three States.” 2008, p. 9. PDF, https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/32106/411778-Employment-after-Pr ison-A-Longitudinal-Study-of-Releasees-in-Three-States.PDF?__hstc=221944263.671a3 4e3a56a4c773f89949c75cda0bb.1494633600060.1494633600061.1494633600062.1&__ hssc=221944263.

Workman, Amanda Claire. “Can Mentoring Help Reduce the Risk of Recidivism? An Analysis of the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI) Data.” 2018, PDF, https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7827&context=etd.