Re-Entering Society from Prison

Abstract

The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and the majority of incarcerated offenders will eventually be released back into society. While much attention has been paid to the dramatic increase in the incarceration rate since the mid-1970s, comparatively little attention has been paid to the corresponding increase in ex-prisoners who are rejoining society. The terms of a prisoner's release—whether release comes from exoneration, serving an entire sentence, or early conditional release through a parole board—have an impact on how an ex-prisoner reintegrates into society. Generally, ex-prisoners face many problems, from disenfranchisement to difficulties finding employment and housing to high recidivism rates and health problems.

Overview

For decades, the United States has had one of the largest prison populations in the world, if not the largest, with 2.3 million incarcerated in 2020, including those held by state, federal, and territorial prisons; juvenile correctional institutions; immigration detention facilities; American Indian Country jails; military prisons; civil commitment centers; and state psychiatric hospitals (Reiman, 2004; Sawyer and Wagner, 2020). In 2023, that number remained relatively stable at 2 million (Sawyer & Wagner, 2023). From 1970 to 2008, the number of prisoners went from around 300,000 to around 2.5 million. However, as the twenty-first century progressed, the number of prisoners did begin to decline. According to data from the International Centre for Prison Studies, approximately 716 per 100,000 people were incarcerated in the United States in 2012; the number decreased but remained high in 2020, with 698 inmates per 100,000 residents (Sawyer and Wagner, 2020). The Bureau of Justice Statistics announced in 2018 that in 2016 the total number of people supervised by adult correctional systems (including those on probation or parole) in the United States had decreased for the ninth consecutive year, falling from 3,210 people per 100,000 residents in 2007 to 2,640 people per 100,000 in 2016, for an estimated total of more than 6.6 million people by the end of 2016 (Kaeble and Cowhig, 2018). There are many explanations for this high rate: the excessive rate of violent crime in the United States; the association of crime with stigmatized groups; increasingly harsh penalties for nonviolent crimes, especially drug crimes; and a focus on punishment rather than rehabilitation (Mauer and Coyle, 2004).

Still others have pointed to what activist Angela Davis dubbed the prison-industrial complex, the powerful political lobbying groups that promote the interests of the businesses involved in operating and supplying government prison agencies by advocating for strict sentencing laws and other policies designed to increase the prison population and thereby prison revenues. Despite the attention paid to the increased number of prisoners in the late twentieth century and early twenty-first, little public discussion exists about the inevitable result of this increase: there has also been an enormous increase in the number of former inmates who have re-entered society. Most prisoners will eventually re-enter society, a process that has changed substantially in the last few decades. The increase in the incarceration rate, decreases in funding for many social programs, a harsher societal attitude toward crime, and stricter legal penalties for reoffending have all made the experience of re-entry different and more difficult than in the past (Seiter & Kadela, 2003).

Felons are people who have been convicted of a felony, a crime that has been characterized by the state as serious in nature and warrants a prison term of over one year. Classification of crimes as misdemeanors or felonies differs from state to state. Minorities are charged with felonies at a higher rate than Whites (Walker, Spohn and DeLone, 2004). Minorities are more likely to be arrested, more likely to be convicted, and more likely to receive stiffer sentences for the same crimes as their White counterparts. In 2020, a study found that Black people were five times more likely to be arrested than their White counterparts (Srikanth, 2020). This results from both racial profiling and also from legislation that is written in such a way as to disproportionately affect minority groups (Mauer, 2007). Social attitudes toward race create yet another obstacle to reintegration into society after prison. In addition to barriers based on pre-existing racial and ethnic divisions, there are also barriers to obtaining adequate housing and well-paying jobs created by one’s felony status (Liker, 1982; Copenhaver, Edwards-Willey, & Byers, 2007).

Many felons are released back into the communities in which they previously lived. Some ex-offenders are monitored by the Board of Parole or by halfway houses that offer social services and provide some education, job training, and reintegration programs to help ex-felons learn the social and work skills necessary to stay out of prison. In some cases, halfway houses function as a step toward addiction management, and in other cases, they provide low-cost living for those who have no other options. Unfortunately, many ex-felons are returned to a life of poverty, which increases the risk of re-offending (Berk, Lenihan, & Rossi, 1980).

Exoneration. According to the Innocence Project, 367 people have had their convictions overturned through the use of DNA testing between 1989 and 2020. Evidence gathered by the New York Times on ex-prisoners who were exonerated by DNA evidence, while not generalizable, suggests that exonerees face a unique set of problems upon release. There are not generally organized transition or support programs for those who have been declared innocent. Additionally, in the past, many exonerees convicted by states were not awarded compensation by the state for their time wrongly served, although in 2023 over thirty states had developed some form of restitution. Additionally, there is federal legislation that guarantees compensation for anyone exonerated of a federal conviction (Roberts & Stanton, 2007).

Transitional Programs. Programs that aid re-entry to society can begin in prisons themselves and carry over into the outside community, or they can focus only on the post-release transition. Most prisons have some sort of release curriculum, although these can range from brief interviews or orientations to more tailored programs dealing with employment, drug use, health issues, and life skills. Vocational training programs, work release, halfway houses, and drug treatment programs reduce recidivism. Educational programs and programs aimed at ex-offenders have more mixed results (Seiter & Kadela, 2003).

Recidivism. The Bureau of Justice Statistics has operationalized recidivism as "rearrest, reconviction, resentence to prison, and return to prison with or without a new sentence" (Langan & Levin, 2002, p. 1). As Maltz (2001) argued, the definition and measurement of recidivism has serious implications. Older measures captured rearrest rates within a year of a prisoner's release, which overestimated the effectiveness of the corrections system's goals of protection and rehabilitation.

In a study of prisoners released in 1994, Langan and Levin (2002) found that within three years, 67.5 percent had been rearrested, and slightly more than half were back in prison for either a new crime or a parole or probation violation. Those who had been in prison for homicide, rape, and driving under the influence had the lowest recidivism rates. Women (compared to men), Hispanics (compared to non-Hispanics), Whites (compared to Blacks), and younger prisoners also had lower rates of recidivism. The highest rearrest rates were for prisoners convicted of robbery, burglary, and similar property crimes.

These high rates indicated that the traditional system failed in terms of rehabilitation. Maltz (2001) pointed out that recidivism data contributed to a sense that "nothing works" by not paying enough attention to the type of crime most likely to be repeated and the demographics of offenders likely to re-offend. Studies have indicated that not much has changed in terms of these numbers as the twenty-first century progressed.

In 2018, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report containing data on the recidivism rates of prisoners released in 2005, with a follow-up period through 2014. Within three years, 68 percent of these individuals were rearrested; 79 percent were rearrested within six years, and 83 percent within nine years (Alper et al., 2018). Another government study released in 2023 showed 82 percent of state prisoners were rearrested within ten years, though the vast majority were rearrested within three (Sawyer & Wagner, 2023).

Parole. The parole process—the conditional release of a prisoner before their term is finished, under court supervision, with rigid behavioral requirements for continued freedom—varies from state to state. Generally, decisions to grant parole are made by a parole board set up by the state. Parole became more popular through the first half of the twentieth century, as corrections philosophy focused more on rehabilitation. When the parole rate hit its highest point in 1977, 72 percent of prisoners were granted parole. Seiter and Kadela (2003) argued that parole had many positive functions. Parole was part of a larger corrections structure aimed at reintegrating ex-prisoners back into society; as such, it worked as a "gatekeeper" to keep more dangerous prisoners behind bars while allowing others out only under supervision. Parole boards made sure that released prisoners had a residence lined up before release and connected parolees to social services and treatment options. In the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries, most states moved away from the parole system and back to a system of set sentences, which meant that many former inmates were released without any post-prison supervision or state-sponsored transition. In the 2020s the number of former prisoners on probation or parole continued to decline (Kaeble, 2021).

Further, parole is not always granted fairly. For example, Huebner and Bynum (2008) found that parole boards were more likely to grant earlier parole dates to White offenders than to Black offenders, and Maltz (2001) pointed out that parole rates increased when prisons became overcrowded, suggesting that it is more tied to the needs of the prison system than to individual prisoners' readiness for release. The COVID-19 pandemic drastically reduced the number of prisoners in the system due to fears that close contact among prisoners would lead to an increase in the spread of the virus.

Further Insights

Labeling. Once an individual is convicted of a felony, their life changes in many ways. Time away from society can affect their social skills, work-related abilities, and connections to the community. In some cases, being labeled an ex-felon increases the likelihood of recidivism, and in other cases, there are consequences for voting rights and job opportunities. Regardless, the label of "ex-felon" negatively affects one's life chances (Chiricos, Barrick, & Bales, 2007).

Labeling theory suggests that people often react to labels placed on them by others by adopting the labels as their self-identities. Thus, the label of felon might result in an ex-offender identifying as such and committing acts of deviance that conform to this self-image.

Being labeled a felon transforms a subject on both the micro- and macro-level. On the micro-social level, the label can cause the subject to self-identify as a criminal and embrace the concept of what it means to be and act like a felon. This can cause offenders to engage in more risky behaviors and commit more crimes since they have adopted the lifestyle they perceive to be consistent with the label of a felon. Second, the label of felon will have a structural impact on an offender's life bringing about changes ranging from increased surveillance to a loss of citizenship rights such as voting, serving on a jury, or owning a gun (Chiricos, Barrick, & Bales, 2007).

Being labeled as a felon increases the likelihood of recidivism. In a study comparing adults who were convicted of a felony with those who were found guilty yet had adjudication of guilt withheld, Chiricos, Barrick, and Bales (2007) found that being officially labeled a felon led to significantly higher rates of recidivism, especially among whites and women.

Felon Disenfranchisement. Along with the rapid growth in the prison population has also been an increase in the number of felons who have lost their right to vote. In many states, election laws bar anyone convicted of a felony (whether currently serving time or released from prison) from voting. It is estimated by the Sentencing Project that 6.1 million Americans are unable to vote because of their felony convictions in 2016. Although that number declined in 2022 to 4.6 million Americans, it still remained high (Uggen, et al., 2022).

Scholars who investigate the impact of felon disenfranchisement on electoral outcomes (Havey, 1994; Manza & Uggen, 2004; Manza, Brooks, & Uggen 2004; Manza & Uggen, 2007) have found empirical evidence that suggests the electoral decisions in many gubernatorial and presidential contests would have been different had there not been the systematic disenfranchisement of ex-felons throughout the United States.

Central to these concerns is the issue of race and felon disenfranchisement in terms of voting rights. Because minorities are far more likely to be charged with and convicted of a felony, disenfranchisement of felons has a disproportionate impact on minority groups. These findings are troublesome when we consider that a felony conviction can remove one from civic participation and potentially lead to the total exclusion of certain racial and ethnic groups from participating in the democratic process of electing local, state, and national representatives.

Given the close presidential elections of 2000, 2004, 2012, and 2016, this imbalance is of growing concern to many who value the notion of an open democracy (Manza & Uggen, 2004). Although the 2020 election was fraught with other, unrelated issues, it still remained a close election. Manza and Uggen (2002; 2004; 2007) demonstrated that the disenfranchisement of Black (and some Latino) ex-felons in southern states resulted in electoral outcomes that favored Republican candidates over Democratic and Independent candidates. Their data showed that the disenfranchisement of minority voters has had a significant impact in both senate elections as well as the 2000 presidential election. The 2016 US presidential election was yet another example of a close contest that many observers felt was impacted by minority voter disenfranchisement.

Health Risks. Rosen and Wohl (2008) found that the mortality rate for men released from state prisons was higher than the mortality rate for other men residing in the state, although Black ex-prisoners had lower-than-expected rates of lung cancer, heart and respiratory diseases, and diabetes.

Discrimination in the Work Place. Employers who conduct background checks for criminal history are much less likely to hire ex-offenders, especially if the employer is legally required to conduct such a check (Stoll & Bushway, 2008). The effect of a criminal record on employment is further compounded by race. Pager (2007) demonstrated several noteworthy trends in employment opportunities by race and having a criminal label. First, she looked at how accessing jobs differs for Black and White applicants with and without a criminal conviction. The data suggested that even when the experience and skills of each job candidate were exactly the same, a White man with a criminal record was more likely to be called in for an interview than a Black man without any previous convictions. This demonstrated widespread discrimination against Black applicants by many employers, especially for Black job applicants who have a criminal conviction.

Scholarship in the area of penology has demonstrated that one way to reduce crime and recidivism is to help ex-felons reintegrate into society through meaningful work and suitable housing. Pager's work may account for some of the disparity in recidivism rates between Black and White ex-felons. Liker (1982) found that ex-felons re-entering society suffered less emotional distress if they were employed. Employment reduced their sense of stigma and helped reintegrate them into society while also providing the security of income.

Discrimination in Housing. Pager (2007) studied whether Black and White men with criminal convictions were treated differently with respect to obtaining credit and access to housing by sending Black and White actors to apply for credit and rental housing. She randomly assigned some of them fictitious criminal records. The actors were wearing nearly identical clothing and had exactly the same credit scores and work experience to try and obtain lines of credit and/or rental housing. When Black applicants showed up, they were told that there were no apartments available or that the advertisement was incorrect. This was exacerbated when Black applicants reported having a criminal conviction on their rental applications. White applicants had no such experience when they attempted to get credit lines or enter a contract for rental housing. Even with a criminal conviction, White applicants were met with less hostility and suspicion than their Black counterparts.

Previous scholarship has demonstrated that stable housing helps to minimize criminal involvement. When people feel connected to their communities or, at the very least, feel as though engaging in crime can adversely affect their lives, they are less likely to engage in criminal activity.

Access to Higher Education. Copenhaver, Edwards-Willey, and Byers (2007) found that there was a stigma associated with being labeled a felon which negatively affected individuals' experiences in the classroom. Access to financial aid was restricted for those who had been convicted of drug-related crimes (FAFSA 2009). Though intended to prevent the wrongful use of aid money, limiting access to financial aid puts forth yet another barrier for those felons who are trying to turn their lives around by learning new trades or skills in order to enter the workforce. Given what is known about access to meaningful employment and the links between higher education and job opportunities, these types of policies negatively affect the opportunities for ex-felons and disproportionately affect the opportunities for poor minorities who are trying to work their way out of impoverished, crime-ridden neighborhoods.

Additionally, the accessibility and number of correctional education programs decreased with the elimination of the Pell Grants in the early 1990s. The 1993 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act and the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1994 completely removed them from prisons. However, in December 2020 Congress lifted the ban on Pell Grants for prisoners (Cantora, 2020). As studies have shown that a large number of people imprisoned are undereducated (oftentimes because of the young age at which they are incarcerated) and, in some cases, illiterate, the reduction of these programs negatively affected prisoners’ abilities to achieve higher levels of functionality and employment upon release (Pryor & Thompkins, 2013). However, the restoration of these programs points to a desire to focus more on rehabilitation and reducing the prison population.

Viewpoints

Social & Political Consequences of Labeling Felons. By labeling and stigmatizing those who are convicted of a felony as felons, society is limiting individual access to employment opportunities, basic citizenship rights, and education. Policies that support limiting access to these basic services exacerbate the likelihood of recidivism and continue to perpetuate the cycle of violence and the revolving door that has come to typify the US criminal justice system. If real change is to be done to help offenders reintegrate into society and leave a life of crime behind, the United States needs to put in place policies and resources that help ex-felons obtain meaningful work, adequate housing, job training, and social development. Through these types of policies, one can be assured of developing community ties and reducing crime at the same time.

The United States has the largest prison population in the world. The majority of offenders, violent and nonviolent, will be released back into society; most never received any rehabilitative services while in prison. With the increasing number of ex-felons being released back into society, the question remains what do to help reintegrate those who are leaving prison? The issues of discrimination in employment and housing and voter disenfranchisement play into the revolving door that has become stereotypical of the country’s criminal justice system. Until greater attention is given to the loss of citizenship rights and access to opportunities, crime and recidivism will continue to be a problem facing the United States. Much has yet to be learned as to how society can intervene and increase the odds of ex-felons making it rather than returning to a life of crime.

Terms & Concepts

Disenfranchisement: The removal of one's citizenship rights, especially the right to vote.

Felony: In the United States, a crime serious enough in nature to warrant more than one year in prison.

Labeling theory: Labeling theory states that people perceive the labels that others place on them, and these labels become part of their identities, influencing their future actions.

Parole: Conditional release before the completion of a prison sentence, under the supervision of the court system, with stringent behavioral conditions.

Probation: The suspension of all or part of a jail sentence, whereby the offender will remain under the supervision of the court for a specific period.

Recidivism: Generally described as the act of re-offending once released from jail or prison, it can include rearrest, reconviction, resentencing, and any return to prison.

Social Control: The formal or informal processes that regulate individual and group behavior.

Stigmatization: Severe social disapproval of personal characteristics that violate cultural norms and shared values.

Bibliography

Alper, M., Durose, M., and Markman, J. (2018, May 23). 2018 update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-year follow-up period (2005–2014). Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6266

Berk, R., Lenihan, K., & Rossi, P. (1980). Crime and poverty: Some experimental evidence from ex-offenders. American Sociological Review, 45, 766–786. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14907976&site=ehost-live

Cantora, A. (2020, Dec. 29). Congress lifts long-standing ban on Pell Grants to people in prison. PBS. Retrieved June 17, 2023, from https://www.pbs.org/newshour/education/congress-lifts-long-standing-ban-on-pell-grants-to-people-in-prison

Carson, A. (2013, September). Prisoners in 2013. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p13.pdf

Chiricos, T., Barrick, K. & Bales, W. (2007). The labeling of convicted felons and its consequences for recidivism. Criminology, 45, 547–581. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=26596581&site=ehost-live

Copenhaver, A., Edwards-Willey, T., & Byers, T. (2007). Journeys in social stigma: the lives of formerly incarcerated felons in higher education. The Journal of Correctional Education, 58, 268–283. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=27945842&site=ehost-live

Dickson, C. (2014, April 22). America’s recidivism nightmare. Daily Beast. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/04/22/america-s-recidivism-nightmare.html

Duwe, G., & Clark, V. (2013). The effects of private prison confinement on offender recidivism: evidence from Minnesota. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 375–394. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90109634

FAFSA — Free application for federal student aid: FAQs: eligibility (2009). Retrieved from http://www.fafsa.ed.gov/faq003.htm

Hallett, M. (2012). Reentry to what? Theorizing prisoner reentry in the jobless future. Critical Criminology, 20, 213–228. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=78437594&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Harvey, A. (1994). Ex-felon disenfranchisement and its influence on the black vote: The need for a second look. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 142, 1145–1189.

Huebner, B., & Bynum, T. (2008). The role of race and ethnicity in parole decisions. Criminology, 46, 907–938. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35538920&site=ehost-live

Kaeble, D. and Cowhig, M. (2018, April 26). Correctional populations in the United States, 2016. NCJ 251211. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6226

Kaeble, D. (2021, Dec. 31). Probation and parole in the United States, 2020. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved June 17, 2023, from https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/ppus20.pdf

Koschmann, M. A., & Peterson, B. L. (2013). Rethinking recidivism: a communication approach to prisoner reentry. Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 7, 188–207. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89801707

Kroner, D. G., & Yessine, A. K. (2013). Changing risk factors that impact recidivism: in search of mechanisms of change. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 321–336. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90612859

Langan, P. A. & Levin, D.J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Bureau of Justice Statistics. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/rpr94.pdf

Liker, J. (1982). Wage and status effects of employment on affective well-being among ex-felons. American Sociological Review, 47, 264–283. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14779408&site=ehost-live

Maltz, M.D. (2001). Recidivism. Originally published by Academic Press, Inc., Orlando, Florida. Internet edition available http://www.uic.edu/depts/lib/forr/pdf/crimjust/recidivism.pdf

Manza, J. & Uggen, C. (2004). Punishment and democracy: Disenfranchisement of nonincarcerated felons in the United States. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 491–505.

Manza, J., Brooks, C. & Uggen, C. (2004). Public attitudes toward felon disenfranchisement in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly 68, 275–86. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=14073217&site=ehost-live

Manza, J. & Uggen, C. (2007). Felon disenfranchisement and American democracy. Boston, MA: Oxford University Press.

Mauer, M. (2007). Racial impact statements as a means of reducing unwarranted sentencing disparities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 5, 19–46.

Mauer, M., & Coyle, M. (2004). The social cost of America's race to incarcerate. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in Social Work, 23(1/2), 7–25. Retrieved January 16, 2009, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=13016978&site=ehost-live

Pager, D. (2007). Marked: Race, crime, and finding work in an era of mass incarceration. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Plante, J. (2015). Problems prisoners face in the reentry industry. Perspectives (University Of New Hampshire), 52–59. Retrieved December 8, 2016 from EBSCO Online Database Sociology Source Ultimate. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sxi&AN=110502026&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Pryor, M., & Thompkins, D. (2013). The disconnect between education and social opportunity for the formerly incarcerated. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 457–479. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=89411623&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Reiman, J. (2004). The rich get richer and the poor get prison: Ideology, class, and criminal justice. 7th (Ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Roberts, J. & Stanton, E. (2007, November 25). A long road back after exoneration, and justice is slow to make amends. New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/25/us/25dna.html?%5fr=1.

Rosen, D., Schoenbach, V., & Wohl, D. (2008). All-cause and cause-specific mortality among men released from state prison, 1980-2005. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 2278–2284. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=35564805&site=ehost-live

Sawyer, W. and Wagner, P. (2020, March 24). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2020. Retrieved June 29, 2020, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2020.html

Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2023, March 14). Mass incarceration: The whole pie 2023. Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved June 17, 2023, from https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2023.html

Seiter, R. P., & Kadela, K. R. (2003). Prisoner reentry: What works, what does not, and what is promising. Crime & Delinquency, 49, 360–388.

Srikanth, A. (2020, June 11). Black people 5 times more likely to be arrested than whites, according to new analysis. The Hill. Retrieved June 17, 2023, from https://thehill.com/changing-america/respect/equality/502277-black-people-5-times-more-likely-to-be-arrested-than-whites

Stoll, M., & Bushway, S. (2008). The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 371–404. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34228248&site=ehost-live

Uggen, C. & Manza, J. (2002). Democratic contraction? Political consequences of felon disenfranchisement in the United States. American Sociological Review, 67, 777–803. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9020240&site=ehost-live

Uggen, C. (2008). Editorial introduction: The effect of criminal background checks on hiring ex-offenders. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 367–370. Retrieved December 10, 2008 from EBSCO online database, SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=34228249&site=ehost-live

Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Stewart, R. (2022, Oct. 25). Locked out 2022: Estimates of people denied voting rights. The Sentencing Project. Retrieved June 17, 2023, from https://www.sentencingproject.org/reports/locked-out-2022-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights

Walker, S., Spohn, C. & DeLone, M. (2004). The color of justice: Race, ethnicity, and crime in America. Belmont, CA: Thompson and Wadsworth.

Wyse, J. B., Harding, D. J., & Morenoff, J. D. (2014). Romantic relationships and criminal desistance: Pathways and processes. Sociological Forum, 29(2), 365–385. Retrieved January 25, 2016, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=96286374&site=ehost-live&scope=site

Suggested Reading

Liem, M., & Sampson, R. J. (2016). After life imprisonment: Reentry in the era of mass incarceration. New York, NY: New York University Press.

Martin, L. (2013). Reentry within the carceral: Foucault, race and prisoner reentry. Critical Criminology, 21, 493–508. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=90593034&site=ehost-live&scope=site

McCleary, R. (1992). Dangerous men: The sociology of parole. New York, NY: Harrow and Henson.

Price, J. M. (2015). Prison and social death. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Schutt, R. K., Deng, X., & Stoehr, T. (2013). Using bibliotherapy to enhance probation and reduce recidivism. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 52, 181–197. Retrieved October 31, 2013 from EBSCO online database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87341913

Simon, J. (1993). Poor discipline: Parole and the social control of the underclass, 1890–1990. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Vanstone, M. (2008). The international origins and initial development of probation: An early example of policy transfer. British Journal of Criminology, 48, 735–755.

Westervelt, S., & Cook, K. (2008). Coping with innocence after death row. Contexts: Understanding People in Their Social Worlds, 7, 32–37.