The steady growth of imprisonment in America over the past generation has created an unprecedented challenge for our society: the reintegration of thousands of individuals who have spent time in our prisons. Just as the rate of incarceration in America has increased fourfold, the number of people leaving prison each year has also quadrupled. In 2002, more than 630,000 individuals (1700 per day) left federal and state prisons—compared with the 150,000 who made a similar journey 30 years ago. Sadly, the challenge of prisoner reintegration has been largely overlooked amid intense political and philosophical debates over America's punishment policies. As we have embarked upon one of the greatest social experiments of our time—the expansive use of prisons as our response to crime—we have forgotten the iron law of imprisonment: they all come back. Except for those few individuals who die in custody, every person we send to prison returns to live with us.
It has not always been so. In the "Golden Age" of indeterminate sentencing, which began in the early 20th century and lasted to the mid-1970s, the goal of prisoner reintegration occupied a prominent place in the rhetoric and practice of American jurisprudence (Tonry 1999). Under the indeterminate sentencing model, judges are given wide discretion to sentence defendants to prison terms with low minimum and high maximum limits. Parole boards then decide the actual time of release, basing their decisions in part on prisoners' readiness to return to the community. Parole agents then supervise released prisoners during the remainder of their sentences, during which time parolees are expected to meet certain conditions designed to reestablish positive connections with their families, the world of work, and other supportive institutions of civil society.
The reintegration of returning prisoners as well as reductions in their criminal behavior, are the explicit objectives of this system of supervised transition from prison to community. The rehabilitation of offenders is a stated purpose of sentencing. Judges, corrections officials, parole board members, and parole agents are given wide discretion to make decisions based on their assessments of offenders' readiness to return to a law-abiding life. For more than half a century, every state in the Union, the District of Columbia, and the federal government operated within an indeterminate sentencing framework and subscribed to these ideals. Of course, the reality of practice during the "Golden Age" did not always match the lofty aspirations of the indeterminate sentencing model. This shortcoming, however, does not obscure the fact that both the rhetoric of our sentencing jurisprudence and our rationale of imprisonment pointed to prisoner reintegration as an important objective of the criminal justice system.
The seismic changes in sentencing policy that began to take hold in the 1970s fundamentally altered the landscape of punishment in America. The indeterminate sentencing model came under attack from both the left and the right. Civil rights activists and defense lawyers, citing evidence of widespread racial and class disparities in sentencing and correctional administration, called for limiting the discretion of judges, prison administrators, and parole authorities. At the same time, political conservatives, pointing to rising crime rates and research findings questioning the effectiveness of rehabilitation programs, advocated limits on discretion as a means to enforce tougher standards and crack down on criminals.
As the indeterminate sentencing model lost its intellectual and political dominance, federal and state legislatures adopted a dizzying succession of sentencing reforms. Legislatures enacted mandatory minimums, truth-in-sentencing laws, and "three strikes and you're out" schemes. States abolished their parole boards, enacted sex offender registration requirements, and created sentencing commissions to set limits on judges' sentencing power. Correctional practice changed as well. Educational programs and other activities deemed to be "frills" were eliminated from prisons. Drug testing following release from prison became routine. Electronic surveillance kept track of people under community supervision. Additionally, state and federal legislatures created a vast network of collateral sanctions for individuals with felony convictions, denying them access to jobs, public housing, welfare benefits, the ballot box, and even their children. The reality of punishment in America has changed, perhaps forever, in fundamental ways.
True, indeterminate sentencing (including the use of parole boards as release mechanisms and parole officers as supervisory agents) still exists in many states. But the concepts of rehabilitation and reintegration no longer hold the majority market share in the competition for ideas that provide an intellectual foundation for our sentencing jurisprudence. Other concepts—just desserts, retribution, and incapacitation for crime control purposes—now dominate discussions of sentencing policy in America. As a result, at the turn of the 21st century, a patchwork of sentencing philosophies and practices has emerged. The American consensus has given way to a variety of state-level experiments. The unifying ideals of the indeterminate sentencing model no longer frame our penal policy. We now live an era resembling the Tower of Babel—we speak no common language when we discuss the purposes of punishment.
Present Realities
Thus, as we begin our exploration of the challenges of prisoner reentry, we face two defining realities. First, we live in an era of "mass incarceration," a phrase used by a number of commentators (e.g., Drucker 2002; Mauer and Chesney-Lind 2002; Pattillo, Weiman, and Western 2004). Although there are indications that the prison building boom may now be over, as well as hints that the number of state prisoners may actually decline in the coming years (particularly as the states face unprecedented fiscal constraints), these developments cannot obscure the sobering realization that our prisons now hold a million more people than they did a generation ago. It is hard to imagine the current political environment combining with legislative reform and public demand in a way sufficient to return America to a level of imprisonment significantly closer to that seen in the 1970s.
The reality of mass incarceration translates into a reality of reentry. If progress toward significant reductions in our prison population is unlikely, then America must face up to the fact that large numbers of its citizens will serve time in prison. Because a wide network of prisoners' children, families, and neighbors now feels the harmful effects of high rates of incarceration and reentry, the era of mass incarceration calls for a sustained effort within public and private institutions to embrace policies that promote reintegration, not retribution.
Second, we have not created a new unifying penal philosophy that could take the place of indeterminate sentencing. Granted, noteworthy innovations in sentencing policy are sprouting up all over the country. Based on a fundamentally different concept of the proper response to crime, restorative justice programs hold enormous promise. Researchers and policymakers are touting an emerging consensus that prison-based rehabilitation programs can indeed reduce future criminal behavior. Parole and probation practitioners are fundamentally rethinking the mission of community supervision. Judges are experimenting with reentry courts, a promising idea that envisions a role for the judiciary in supervising the reintegration process. Yet, for the moment, these efforts must be viewed as tender seedlings struggling for light in the dark forest of robust retributivism dominating our discourse on sentencing policy.
The challenge we face, therefore, is to develop a jurisprudence of reintegration that can comfortably coexist with the disparate philosophies governing sentencing practice in modern America. If our nation is serious in pursuing the reintegration ideal, then its sentencing laws must be significantly reformed. This new sentencing framework does not require that America resolve its many debates on punishment philosophy, because all sentencing policies result in prisoners being sent to prison and then being sent home. But it does require legislative action. Then, once a reintegrative sentencing framework is in place, reform of the systems that carry out penal policy can be implemented in ways that measurably improve reintegration outcomes.
This book argues that neither the reality of mass incarceration nor the absence of a new sentencing ideal should stand in the way of a renewed focus on prisoner reentry and reintegration challenges. Stated affirmatively, the book argues that a focus on the reality of reentry and the goal of reintegration creates a new common ground for developing criminal justice policy. There, the philosophical differences that have created the current cacophony of sentencing policies can be put to one side. There, policies designed to improve outcomes for returning prisoners, their families, and their communities can gain broad support.
I quickly make two qualifying observations. First, the decision to accept the state of imprisonment in America as a given is not an endorsement of that reality. For a number of reasons, ranging from moral to pragmatic, I agree with those who believe that our current level of incarceration is unacceptably high. In fact, this book documents some of the deep harms attributable to our current imprisonment policies. It is my hope that this discussion provides empirical support for a fundamental reexamination of the wisdom of those policies.
Second, the future is not bleak. On the contrary, over the five years that I have undertaken this examination of prisoner reentry, I have been deeply impressed by the level of energy, innovation, and intellectual engagement I have seen around the country. For the past three decades, it has been hard to be optimistic about the state of political discourse on crime and punishment issues in America. Now, however, with crime rates at their lowest in a generation and prison populations leveling off, practitioners and policymakers are remarkably willing to open up the discussion, to focus on the consequences of our experiment with mass incarceration, and to challenge some assumptions that have governed the definition of what is possible. So, I am optimistic. Indeed, this book addresses some of the innovations that I find most promising.
In short, I have come to the conclusion that, by acknowledging that more than 630,000 individuals leave prison each year and by observing that our sentencing policy has lost its focus on the goal of prisoner reintegration, we create a new discussion in the midst of our long-standing debates on punishment policy. By recognizing that they all come back, we may find it easier to meet the challenges of prisoner reentry.
The Reentry Framework
The book uses a "reentry framework" to analyze the challenges we face in this unprecedented era of mass incarceration. Reentry is the process of leaving prison and returning to society. Reentry is not a form of supervision, like parole. Reentry is not a goal, like rehabilitation or reintegration. Reentry is not an option. Reentry reflects the iron law of imprisonment: they all come back. While the concept of reentry applies to release from any type of incarceration—jails, federal prisons, or juvenile facilities—this book focuses on the reentry of state prisoners back to the community. These prisoners are those individuals who are sent to prison for serious offenses under sentencing schemes that reflect the changes in American penal policy over the past generation.
The reentry framework views sentencing and corrections policies from the perspectives of the individuals who pass through America's prisons as well as the perspectives of their families and the communities to which they return. We can use this framework as a prism to refract, in new ways, some age-old debates in the criminal justice field. For example, a reentry perspective can be used to refocus the role of prisons in our society. Since, with rare exceptions, everyone comes home, the policy question that we must address in every aspect of prison management is, "How can prisoners best be prepared for their inevitable return?" This question leads to a series of new goals for corrections professionals. For example, providing drug treatment in prison is certainly commendable, but such programs are quite incomplete unless we develop ways to reduce the high rates of postrelease relapse found among individuals with substance abuse histories. Similarly, facilitating family contacts for prisoners may be desirable, but visitation programs miss the larger challenge of helping prisoners and their families work through the complex dynamics of the prisoners' return home. Finally, encouraging participation in job readiness programs may be good correctional practice, but creating concrete links to the world of work on the outside is the ultimate test of program success.
The reentry framework redefines the social responsibilities of prison managers in an even more fundamental sense. Now, about one-fifth of the more than 630,000 prisoners released annually from America's state and federal prisons are released unconditionally. These prisoners are not on parole, are under no legal obligations to meet special conditions following their release, and report to no parole officer. In a very real sense, prison administrators have discharged their social obligations when these individuals leave prison. Yet, from a reentry perspective, prison administrators have a broader social obligation to prepare these prisoners for the inevitable return home. The prisoners leaving under no supervision, as well as their families and communities, have the same interest in successful reentry as do those who leave with supervision. The fact that unsupervised prisoners are not subject to legal constraints may impede the state's ability to enforce certain behaviors, but the larger social interest in reconnecting prisoners to positive and productive activities in their communities still exists.
The reentry framework also serves a basis for questioning sentencing policies. As discussed above, this bridge between sentencing policy and prisoner reintegration is an established but under-appreciated aspect of the indeterminate sentencing model. The possibility of early release theoretically creates incentives for prisoners to participate in rehabilitative programs and arrange for housing, employment, and family support. Parole boards are supposed to ensure that those conditions have been met and the prisoner's return to the community presents low risk of failure. But determinate sentencing laws, by eliminating parole boards as the gatekeeper between prison and community, do not offer a substitute mechanism for promoting prisoner reintegration. Similarly, sentencing reforms that eliminate parole supervision after release simply allow prisoners to leave confinement without any conditions. These comparisons between different sentencing schemes raise a fundamental question: "Does the state have a responsibility for minimizing the harmful effects of the transition from prison to community?" One answer might be no—the risks of failure are borne entirely by the prisoner, his family, his social network, and the public at large. For some motivated prisoners with a solid base of human and social capital, that laissez-faire policy might indeed be the appropriate societal response. But for others—imagine, for example, a violent, mentally ill, drug-addicted prisoner who has completed his fixed sentence—a sentencing policy that simply shows them the door makes little sense.
As these examples illustrate, the reentry framework creates a natural linkage to a related, important discussion about the goals of the criminal sanction. Reduced recidivism is certainly a core objective for criminal justice interventions, imprisonment included. Yet another objective quickly comes into focus—successful reintegration of those who have violated the law. At times, these goals overlap; more often, they are quite distinct. For example, connecting a former prisoner with a job may or may not reduce the likelihood that he will violate the law. But the same job also serves reintegration purposes. It connects him to the habits of work, provides economic benefits to his family, adds his taxes to the public coffers, and gives him status in the community. Similarly, assisting a returning prisoner in establishing a healthy relationship with his family upon return from prison may or may not reduce his propensity to reoffend. But a successful familial reintegration may also have a number of positive effects on the overall well-being of the former prisoner's family. Too often, criminal justice interventions are assessed solely on their effectiveness at reducing reoffending without consideration for the societal impact of reintegrating those who have violated the law and served time in prison.
Finally, the reentry perspective also sheds light on social policies outside of the traditional criminal justice domains of sentencing, corrections, and the role of the criminal sanction. In the chapters that follow, we will explore the nexus between the modern reentry phenomenon and our nation's policies regarding employment, public health, families and children, housing, community strengthening, and civic participation. When viewed through the reentry prism, these policy domains take on different dimensions and contours. Indeed, a high degree of overlap exists between these domains and criminal justice policy. Consider the following three policy questions. In some communities, a large percentage of minor children have a parent in prison. Should educators, foster care providers, and youth-serving agencies in those communities try to mitigate the harmful effects of parental incarceration on those children? Many low-skilled workers (particularly minority males) have spent time in prison. Should workforce development agencies and private businesses work to improve the employment prospects of returning prisoners? A large portion of those Americans with various communicable diseases passes through a correctional facility each year. Should public health officials collaborate with their prison health counterparts to increase the level of inoculation, screening, and treatment for these prisoners, particularly treatment extending into the community? Stated differently, the reentry framework defines a common ground of overlapping policy interests between unlikely allies in different arenas of public policy. This analytical framework holds the potential for creating new partnerships between criminal justice practitioners and their counterparts in other areas of social policy.
Research and Purpose
The book begins in Part One by looking back at the dissolution of the American consensus on sentencing policy and then describes three new realities of punishment—the growth in incarceration, the extended reach of supervision, and the expanded universe of invisible punishment. Part Two examines the nexus between prisoner reentry and seven policy domains—public safety, families and children, work, housing, public health, civic identity, and community capacity. Each of the chapters in Part Two ends with a discussion of new policy directions. Part Three builds on these new ideas, proposing five principles for successful reentry and five building blocks for a new jurisprudence of prisoner reintegration.
Throughout the book, reference is made to promising programs, innovate practices, and ongoing interventions. Where possible, the book cites evaluations of those initiatives to assess their effectiveness at producing desired outcomes. But the sobering truth is that very few of these have been subjected to rigorous evaluations using random assignment. The purpose of this book, however, is far broader than merely producing a review of the research. Rather, its purpose is to promote new ways of thinking, encourage innovation, challenge existing orthodoxy, and spur policy reform. Therefore, although the recommendations found in each policy chapter could easily be collected into a master list, the larger hope is that the reader will be convinced to pursue a more fundamental set of reforms. The principles of successful reentry and the building blocks for a jurisprudence of prisoner reintegration could serve as guideposts for a national effort to enhance the challenge of prisoner reentry in an era of mass incarceration.
A Note on Language
Throughout the book I will generally refer to those who are in prison as "prisoners," and those who have left prison as "former prisoners," or "people who have formerly been incarcerated." Through an enlightening series of conversations with former prisoners (including some who comprise a group of "convict criminologists," or former prisoners who have earned PhDs), I have come to realize the importance of the words we use to refer to these citizens who have violated the law. In their view, the term "inmate" improperly lumps prisoners with mental patients. The term "offender" may be appropriate at the time of the criminal offense, but bears little meaning years later. "Ex-offender" implies that this former status is forever the defining characteristic of a person. Moreover, all of these labels tend to diminish the humanity of individuals who have violated the law.
In justice reform circles, the preferred terminology to refer to someone who has been in prison is just that—a "formerly incarcerated individual." That phrase, though accurate and preferable to some alternatives, is however somewhat unwieldy, particularly in written text. Accordingly, throughout this book, I will principally refer to those who journey from prison to home as former prisoners, or formerly incarcerated persons. Yet because not all law violators have been in prison, even this linguistic solution has its limits. So in discussing this larger population, I still resort to such words as "ex-offender" or "ex-felon." Perhaps someday our language will better accommodate this complicated reality.
The title of this book reflects the certainty of prisoner reentry, the fact that "they all come back." In choosing these words, I intend to capture the dilemma of sentencing: As a society, we send people to prison, but fail to recognize the reality that (with few exceptions) they all return. Even as we embrace different sentencing reforms, we cannot escape the challenges of prisoner reintegration.1 The title also implicitly recognizes the public's denial of this fact: The word "but" demonstrates that all debates over sentencing policy should lead to a discussion of what happens after prison, but they rarely do. Therefore, every sentencing proposal, whether retributive or rehabilitative, should include consideration of the realities of reentry—"but" they all come back. In choosing the word they to describe returning prisoners, I also intend to invoke the tendency, in public discourse, to characterize those who violate the law as "others." We use many linguistic devices to separate ourselves from these "others"—we call them cons, ex-cons, career criminals, sociopaths, predators, and worse. By adopting this "us-them" dichotomy in the title, I hope to illustrate, not embrace, that impulse. In fact, I argue in this book that one of the goals of a successful reentry model should be to break down the artificial construct of "us" versus "them."
Finally, the "challenges" referenced in the book's subtitle are both individual challenges facing returning prisoners, their families, and extended social networks, and the societal challenges our country faces as a result of the fourfold increase in incarceration and reentry rates. Others have written insightfully and eloquently, sometimes from personal experience, of the personal challenges facing returning prisoners. I could not possibly add to those accounts. It is my hope that this book will prompt a new consideration of the best ways American society can face the complex and profound challenges inherent in the new reality that more than 630,000 individuals leave prison each year to return home.
NOTES
Parts of this introduction appeared as "Reentry and Reintegration: New Perspectives on the Challenges of Mass Incarceration" in Pattillo, Weiman, and Western (2004).
1 A version of this phrase appeared in an article by Attorney General Homer Cummings entitled "They All Come Out," originally delivered as a speech on May 23, 1938, subsequently published in the October 1938 issue of Federal Probation (vol. 2, no. 4), and reprinted in the June 2003 issue of Federal Probation (vol. 67, no. 1). The editors prefaced the reprint with the statement: "As we grapple today with what we now call 'prisoner reentry' issues, readers may be interested to read an important public figure speaking on a similar issue 65 years ago."
Return to Top
But They All Come Back: Facing the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry, by Jeremy Travis, is available from the Urban Institute Press (paper, 6" x 9", 420 pages, ISBN 0-87766-750-0, $32.50).
