Baytul Aamaanah Resource Centre

The Challenges of Reentry for Ex-Offenders
and Their Communities

Much of what ex-offenders encounter upon release to their communities can be anticipated and addressed. The problem is that for too long the standard approach has been to allow ex-offenders to fend for themselves with little or no support or guidance. A critical first step in unraveling the tangle of issues that ex-offenders face is open acknowledgment that there are common difficulties. Mapping a path for ex-offenders to follow given those difficulties would seem a logical second step. Issues of gender and geography also bear consideration in developing any strategy to address the morass of reentry problems facing the returning offender.

As a first step toward coordination, one might begin by examining the various points of contact for the offender on the continuum from prison to home. Such an examination would likely suggest a role for corrections officials prior to the offender’s release. Meaningful coordination of programs for the offender means assessing the offender’s needs while in prison and providing information about programs that he or she might tap upon release. At a minimum, for example, corrections officials might ensure that upon release an offender will receive adequate state-issued identifications. Healthcare services, drug treatment placements and employment services should all be connected from facilities to communities, so the ex-offender has a map of sorts to follow that might prevent interruption of services and might provide a transitional support as he or she begins reintegration.

Still, the most pressing problems that the ex-offender encounters are the obstacles that interfere with the ability to make a smooth transition to being a productive member of the community. Collaborative efforts will need to take into consideration that the communities receiving the largest number of ex-offenders are also the communities [*PG277]most often at risk.138 Overwhelmingly, commentators and statistics demonstrate that the primary recipients of prison sentences during the height of the war on drugs and the war on crime have been African Americans.139 This high rate of incarceration has placed added stresses on low-income communities of color. The loss of young men who are potential wage earners and supports for families has a detrimental effect on the social organization of poor communities while the offender is in prison. After the offender is released, the problems of lack of employment and lack of meaningful connection with the community can persist.140

So the question remains that if conditions continue to worsen, what can and should communities do to provide resources for returning ex-offenders? At a minimum, a coordinated effort to develop public education programs geared to individuals and communities about the impact of reentry and the need to provide services would seem appropriate. These programs should identify common issues facing all ex-offenders in the particular community. For those groups of ex-offenders that may experience unique difficulties—women with children, or those ex-offenders with particular mental or physical health problems—communities should enlist broad support and input into methods to serve this population.

A.  Barriers to Reentry

One of the principal but largely hidden barriers to successful reentry is the complex network of legal and administrative regulations barring access to many services.141 Where specific legal barriers are not in place, powerful incentives drive local authorities to exercise [*PG278]their discretion in a manner that limits access to services for ex-offenders in the interest of the larger community.142

1.  Housing

For example, the federal government rewards public housing agencies points in the Public Housing Assessment System for documenting that they have adopted policies and procedures to evict individuals who engage in activity considered detrimental to the public housing community.143 On its face, such a system makes sense. It is designed to ensure safety of public housing tenants by empowering officials to remove a current threat.144 Public housing officials, however, have interpreted this mandate to cover individuals who may pose no current danger, but who happen to have criminal histories.145

Housing has always presented a problem for individuals returning to their communities following a period of incarceration. Private property owners often inquire into the individual’s background and tend to deny housing to anyone with a criminal record.146 But, in the past, when private housing options seemed foreclosed, public housing remained an option. Ex-offenders were placed on a list like other public housing applicants and were considered based on a number of factors including their age, marital status, and parental status.147 In 1988, however, Congress removed that safety net through an amendment to the public housing statute adopting a one-strike eviction policy from federal public housing.148 The intent of the amendment was to prohibit admission to applicants and to evict or terminate leases of residents who engaged in certain types of criminal activity.149 More than just adversely affecting the individual, the one-strike provision has had a profound impact on families. It has fractured family structures and increased pressure on already at-risk communities by limiting housing options for those who have convictions or are returning from incar[*PG279]ceration.150 Families who reside in public housing often have had to sign agreements that ex-offender family members not only could not live with them but also would not visit the public housing unit.151

2.  Employment

Although it is tempting to think in isolation about each of the problems reentering ex-offenders face, they tend to be linked. For example, the difficulty in finding housing also affects the ability of ex-offenders to secure and maintain employment.152 The relationship between stable housing and seeking and maintaining employment has been described as interconnected.153 Ex-offenders applying for work need to have an address and telephone number where they can be reached. Once employment is obtained, the newly employed need the stability that comes from some level of permanence to be able to handle the day-to-day stresses associated with work.

If families cannot or do not provide housing options for those returning from incarceration, then options are few. The temporary housing stock in most central cities—the primary communities in which large numbers of offenders are located—consists primarily of homeless shelters. Homeless shelters are more often than not unsafe.154 Moreover, these facilities tend to be crowded and lack any sense of privacy, making it difficult for occupants to regard the shelter as anything other than temporary lodging.155 This situation adds to the feeling of instability in the lives of ex-offenders when stability is precisely what they need.156

[*PG280] In addition to limitations on access to public housing, felony convictions lead to a number of employment barriers. Throughout the 1980s, a number of states restricted the employment opportunities for ex-offenders to show their tough-on-crime stance.157 Rather than focusing on employment that might be related to an offense, these prohibitions generally assume the form of blanket restrictions based on the individual’s status as an ex-offender as opposed to some specific relationship to conduct.158 A number of states permanently bar ex-offenders from public employment.159 California, for example, prohibits parolees from working in real estate, nursing, or physical therapy.160

On one hand, some might argue that the nature of certain offenses might warrant exclusion from specific occupations, such as barring a convicted sex offender from working with children. The logic of this sort of exclusion lies in its direct relationship to the nature of the offense of which the ex-offender was convicted. On the other hand, some still might argue against these specific exclusions because the exclusions fail to acknowledge the effect of therapy and the potential for changes in the offender’s conduct and character. Regardless of how one might resolve this debate, it is hard to construct a justification for blanket restrictions that makes sense. Applicants for employment should be reviewed individually rather than having to face the additional punishment of being barred from a position regardless of the offense. By precluding every ex-offender from specific occupations, states may be preventing too broad an array of potential workers from becoming productive members of the community.161

Complicating the bars to employment are occupational licensing restrictions that apply to ex-felons nationwide.162 Professional licensing is the primary method for maintaining some measure of regulatory control over professional qualifications and over the quality of service provided by individuals within that business. Ex-offenders are routinely excluded from many employment opportunities that require profes[*PG281]sional licenses.163 Many federal, state, and municipal laws exclude ex-felons from “regulated occupations” by requiring that the applicant show “good moral character” or by barring entry into the profession by anyone who has been convicted of a crime.164

Good moral character statutes pose a significant barrier to the ex-felon obtaining an occupational license.165 These statutes rarely define “good moral character” with any specificity making statutory interpretations of this term ambiguous at best.166 Without a reasonably clear legislative or judicial understanding of what “good moral character” means, licensing boards and agencies have tremendous latitude in defining the term.167 Therefore, someone with a criminal conviction applying for a license that contains the good moral character requirement is barred, for all intents and purposes, from obtaining a license.168 Further, without adequate guidelines, different licensing agencies can apply varying interpretations of good moral character, which can lead to inconsistent application of the same licensing statutes.

The provision that any criminal conviction will bar an individual from obtaining a license can be similarly overbroad.169 Licensing requirements apply to a wide spectrum of professions—from lawyer to bartender, nurse to barber, and plumber to beautician.170 Professional disqualifications do not depend on the existence of a nexus between the prior offense and the employment.171 Therefore, an individual might face exclusion from the plumbing profession, for example, because of an assault conviction that occurred in a unique situation wholly divorced from an employment context. Still, professional disqualifications have been hailed as necessary “to foster high professional standards.”172 As these restrictions indicate, felony convictions “impose[] . . . a status upon a person which not only makes him vulnerable to future sanctions . . . but which also seriously affects his reputation and economic opportunities.”173 The end result of these [*PG282]wide-ranging restrictions on ex-offenders’ ability to obtain employment is to further restrict their ability to reintegrate into society.

One unforeseen complication has been that prisons have continued to provide vocational training to inmates in certain occupations from which they will be barred upon release. Consider the case of Marc LaCloche.174 Mr. LaCloche served a term in the Clinton Correctional Facility in New York after being convicted of first-degree robbery.175 He spent 1200 hours in prison learning a barber’s trade so that upon release he would have a means of building a new life.176 Shortly before LaCloche was due to be paroled, he applied for a license as a barber’s apprentice, but the state refused his application on the ground that the “applicant’s criminal history indicates lack of good moral character.”177 At least one judge in New York appreciated the irony of this situation, noting, “if the state offers this vocational-training program to persons who are incarcerated, it must offer them a reasonable opportunity to use the skills learned thereby after they are released from prison.”178 Yet the disconnect continues

 Reentry Is Complicated by Gender

To the extent that policymakers consider the plight of the returning ex-offender, they treat reentry problems generically more often than not. That tendency has almost hidden from view the unique but quite compelling difficulties that female ex-offenders face upon release.182 Women who are incarcerated have unique health needs and often experience different mental health issues that may have contributed to or arisen out of their confinement.183 Yet, perhaps the most significant factor that distinguishes women from their male counterparts relates to their real and perceived responsibility for their children.184 It is the impact of the parental role that often weighs most heavily on the woman ex-offender and guides her choices upon release—a factor too often ignored in examinations of the problems posed upon reentry.

The majority of mothers currently incarcerated had been the sole caretakers for their children prior to incarceration.185 Generally, when a father goes to prison, the mother keeps the family intact.186 When a mother enters prison, however, the father too often does not remain involved in the caretaking of the children.187 Therefore, families are more likely to be broken as a result of mothers being incarcerated than fathers.188 Although some children live with a relative during their mother’s incarceration, many enter the foster care system because no [*PG284]family member is available to care for them.189 Thus, an overriding concern for many women upon release is regaining custody of their children.

The lack of planning for reentry for the female population has a disproportionate impact on children and families. Approximately 2.1% of all children under the age of eighteen have a parent in state or federal prison.190 This means that 1.5 million children in the United States are affected by the lack of any coherent reentry policy.191 In addition, between 1985 and 1997 the number of women in jails and prisons nearly tripled.192 Upon release, this growing number of women faces the burden of trying to find housing and employment often at the same time that they are fighting to be reunited with their children.193

Additionally, the fight for custody can be overwhelming. Federal welfare and adoption legislation create significant obstacles for women ex-offenders.194 Welfare laws reduce their access to benefits that might provide transitional support as they seek employment.195 Adoption laws add pressure to returning mothers by reducing the amount of time that parents have to reunite with their children before permanently losing custody.196 At the same time, increased rates of incarceration of men and women of color have meant an increase in fragmented families in those communities.197 Although measuring emotional harm is difficult, some judgments about the ways in which [*PG285]high imprisonment affects families, the life chances of children, and the economic circumstances of at-risk communities are possible.198

A brief examination of the problems that women encounter on reentry may lead to a decision to have gender-specific approaches to reentry. For example, in communities of color, women offenders tend to be stigmatized by their community.199 Although men who commit crimes are not necessarily seen as good members of the community, they are rarely ostracized.200 Women who engage in crime are often seen as defying gender roles, which is perceived by communities as deviance of a higher order.201 In addition, women’s transition back into their communities becomes more difficult because they often have trouble maintaining connections during their period of incarceration. The few women’s prisons that exist tend to be located far from the women’s homes.202 This distance means fewer visits and limited contact with family members.203 This distance has consequences such as loss of physical or legal custody of children.204 Once released, women face multiple tasks simultaneously—getting children back, getting a job, getting housing, getting treatment—which only exacerbates the already difficult process of reentry.

C.  Challenges to Communities with Reentering Residents

As a general rule, communities are quite adept at considering and anticipating the potential safety issues posed by the release of offenders. Still, they tend to ignore the drain on political influence and financial support when large numbers of ex-offenders return.

[*PG286] A principal financial impact has occurred as a result of the mechanics of the most recent national census. At the end of the millennium, the Census Bureau engaged in a comprehensive effort to count every living body in the country.205 The Bureau counted bodies where they were located, which had an often-devastating impact on low-income communities, because prisons are often located somewhere else.206 The twin circumstances of high incarceration rates of individuals from low-income urban communities and the Census Bureau’s decision to count prisoners as residents of the communities in which prisons were located meant that low-income communities lost numbers for purposes of the Census.207 Financial resources in the form of state and federal aid are tied, in part, to census figures. States such as Arizona, Illinois, and Wyoming use census figures to distribute state tax revenue and other funds.208 One hundred and eighty-five billion dollars a year in federal aid are distributed on the basis of census figures.209 Federal programs based at least partially on census data include job training programs, school funding, national school lunch programs, Medicaid, and community development programs.210 The loss of population numbers can diminish the financial health of communities that rely on such programs. Indeed, as urban communities lost out, some rural communities stood to gain. Towns located close to prisons were able to include prisoners’ low incomes in their per capita income figures.211 Thus, the towns appeared poorer and became eligible for more poverty-related grants.212

What rural communities stood to gain from the inclusion of prison populations in their census figures, poorer urban communities lost. Funding follows prisoners who are transferred out of their home communities. In the 1990s, for example, Lorton prison, filled with District of Columbia residents, was placed in Virginia at a cost to the city of $60 million.213 Such transfers of people and funds reduce the [*PG287]money available for resources that have been proven to reduce crime, such as schools and poverty programs.214

The census count simultaneously reduced the political power of low-income urban communities.215 Even though inmates are prohibited from voting in forty-eight states, including New York, they are counted for the purpose of legislative apportionment and redistricting.216 The fact that they are recorded by the census as residing in their prisons results in a decrease in the number of politicians representing urban interests.217 In New York, for example, where 65.5% of state prisoners are from New York City, the census count costs the city 43,740 residents.218 The loss of political power is particularly severe for minority communities in New York, because 80% of New York’s prisoners are black or Latino, but New York’s prisons are predominantly in white rural areas.219 All prisons built in New York since 1982 have been built upstate, and although only 24% of New York prisoners are from the upstate region, over 91% of its prisoners are incarcerated there.220

In a number of states, the decrease in political power in mostly inner-city neighborhoods of color is matched by an increase of political power in the predominantly white rural areas in which prisons are located.221 The votes of rural residents are said to be weighted more heavily than those of urban residents, because, with so many of their constituents incarcerated, rural politicians are able to devote more of their attention to their “real constituents.”222 With a considerable [*PG288]proportion of those included within their constituencies unable to react by means of the vote, politicians become better able to maintain the supply of local prison-related jobs through policies involving lengthy sentences and prison expansion.223 In New York, for example, the leading defenders of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which impose long mandatory drug sentences, and which precipitated the prison boom, are state senators who represent upstate areas.224 The combination of the weakening of the political representation available to the urban communities most affected by these policies with the strengthening of those who stand to gain from them results in a cycle of prison expansion that appears to lack a democratic check.225