CJ Dissertation answer and questions

criminal justice question and need the explanation and answer to help me learn.

Prepare for oral defense. Please be complete and concise. I will provide the dissertation and other documentation that may assist you in answering the questions (10 questions)
Requirements: As long as necessary and complete and concise
Recidivism and Reentry Programs: Putting a Stop to the Revolving Door
by
[your official name]
MA, [university], 20XX
BS, [university], 20XX
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
[name of program]
University
[last month of the term you graduate] 20XX
Abstract
Recidivism and Reentry Programs: Putting a Stop to the Revolving Door
by
[your official name]
MA, [university], 20XX
BS, [university], 20XX
Dissertation Submitted in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
[name of program]
Walden University
[last month of the term you graduate] 20XX
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
As of 2018, an estimated 2.5 million individuals in the United States were incarcerated (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). Although nearly 95% of all incarcerated individuals are released into their communities after completing their sentences, many recidivate and end up returning to prison (Prescott et al., 2019). Prescott et al. (2019) found that an estimated 70% of paroled individuals were reincarcerated within three years of their release, and 75% of the remaining parolees were reincarcerated within five years. Based on these studies, high recidivism rates remain a significant problem for the criminal justice system.
Hopwood (2019) studied the social integration challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals in the United States, with a special focus on the hardships that immediately follow their release. It was found that formerly incarcerated individuals faced many challenges regarding employment, housing, and educational opportunities (Hopwood, 2019). Incarceration has been correlated with increased feelings of anxiety and isolation that may interfere with such individuals’ reintegration into society after release (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019).
Given the numerous issues formerly incarcerated individuals face right after their release, predictably, many of them return to familiar support systems and social networks, some of which may be associated with criminal activity and lead to an increased likelihood of recidivism (Sharma et al., 2015). Parolees are more likely to reengage with their previous social networks, including those that increase the risk of recidivism, when they do not have access to sound support from reentry programs designed to assist them in finding employment, housing, and counseling services (Rodriguez et al., 2017).
Although reentry programs are common throughout the corrections sector in the United States, little is known about their efficacy in reducing recidivism (Berghuis, 2018; Bunting et al., 2019; Muhlhausen, 2018). Moreover, the factors related to program implementation that need emphasis to improve program effectiveness and reduce recidivism are unclear. This research examines the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals regarding prerelease reentry program characteristics that contribute to successful reintegration into society. Given that recidivism rates vary with demographic and personality characteristics, the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals concerning the impact of these factors on their successful reintegration into society are also explored. The significant demographic and personality characteristics include gender, cultural membership, ethnicity, level of education (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018), problem-solving styles, work habits, and emotional responses (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). The study aims to understand better how prerelease reentry programs could be used to reduce the likelihood of reoffending.
Background
Recidivism rates remain high in the United States despite attempts by prison administrators to prepare incarcerated individuals for reentering their communities through rehabilitation programs (Mississippi Clarion Ledger, 2017). Recidivism depends on various factors, including access to services for mental health, education, physical abuse treatment, and gainful employment after release from prison (Bunn, 2018; Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). Besides the barriers faced by paroled individuals, many communities are largely unwelcoming, causing them stigma and additional hardships (Bunn, 2018).
Hopwood (2019) found that recently released individuals often had difficulty adjusting to social contexts outside prison. Approximately 40% of the released individuals experienced anxiety or depression after returning home. Importantly, only 12% reported attempting to avoid old friends involved in crime or gangs (Hopwood, 2019).
Negative outcomes are especially likely when formerly incarcerated individuals lack access to adequate prerelease programs, which could help them find employment, housing, and counseling services (Rodriguez et al., 2017). Although prerelease programs are common throughout the corrections sector in the United States, little is known about their efficacy in reducing recidivism. Similarly, the most important aspects of program implementation in improving program quality and reducing recidivism have not been established.
Problem Statement
The societal problem addressed in this study is the high recidivism rates among formerly incarcerated individuals in the United States, with 70% reoffending and being reincarcerated within three years of their release from jail or prison (Mizel & Abrams, 2020). This problem is significant, as 600,000–700,000 individuals are released annually from state and federal prisons (Hopwood, 2019; Drucker, 2019). Despite some government-funded programs and activities preparing incarcerated individuals for reentry into society, recidivism rates remain high (Katsiyannis et al., 2018).
Prerelease reentry programs can help formerly incarcerated individuals find employment, housing, and counseling services, thus decreasing recidivism (Rodriguez et al., 2017). However, the research problem addressed in this study is a gap in the literature regarding the efficacy of prerelease reentry programs. Much of the existing research has focused on identifying or classifying prerelease reentry programs, with little focus on their efficacy in reducing recidivism (Berghuis, 2018; Bunting et al., 2019; Muhlhausen, 2018). Hence, this gap in the literature merits further research on prerelease reentry programs and approaches that effectively reduce recidivism (Bunting et al., 2019; Wolf & Blackwood, 2019). To fill this gap, the current qualitative study addresses the efficacy of a single reentry program in California.
Purpose Statement
This qualitative phenomenological study aims to explore the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who have not recidivated for at least three years after their release regarding the influence of a reentry program on their successful reintegration into society. To better understand and contextualize the perceived influence of prerelease reentry program characteristics on their successful reintegration into society, the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals concerning the influences of relevant personality and demographic characteristics will also be explored. Recidivism rates vary with demographic characteristics such as gender, level of education (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018), ethnicity, and access to social support networks (Hopwood, 2019), as well as personality characteristics such as problem-solving styles, work habits, and emotional responses (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). Through its focus on the perceptions concerning reentry programs and participant recidivism, this study has the potential to identify factors that minimize recidivism and maximize reentry program success among formerly incarcerated individuals. This approach requires access to a specific reentry program, enough participants, and appropriate data collection tools. To accomplish the study goals, qualitative data will be collected through in-depth interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully reentered society after their release from prison. The interview data will then be thematically analyzed using the NVivo 12 software package.
Research Question
The following research question will guide this study:
RQ1: Which skills and traits obtained through the Alternative Custody Program are the most effective in reducing recidivism for program participants?
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study is the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1988), which guided the development of the research questions and provided context for the study results. The ACF was designed to navigate issues of policy or process regarding goal conflict and interaction across different levels of government (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988), and was originally developed to address challenges for political systems and public policy. Over time, the use of the ACF has evolved to support a diverse array of sectors, including criminal justice and law enforcement (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018).
The ACF includes three interrelated tenets (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018). The first is the macro-level assumption that policy is developed by individuals who are affected and motivated by factors in an expansive political and socioeconomic system (Weible et al., 2020). The second tenet of the ACF is the assumption that a micro-level model of social and emotional motivators exists within everyone involved in policymaking (Weible et al., 2020). The third is the assumed existence of an intermediate level occupied by advocacy groups (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018).
Advocacy groups can change public opinion on policy through two critical ways (Weible et al., 2020), namely, policy-oriented learning and external perturbations (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018). Policy-oriented learning encompasses a more formal approach to policy change or alterations in public opinion (Jenkins-Smith et al., 2018), whereas external perturbations involve emotional events (Weible et al., 2020). Emotionally charged events, such as situations prompting shock or repulsion, increase the likelihood of a rapid change in public policy or opinion (Weible et al., 2020). If public opinion is deep-rooted, or if an issue is of emotional importance to the population of interest, a change in public opinion is unlikely (Weible et al., 2020). However, public policy that is not deep-rooted or emotion-based can be changed with less evidence and possibly fewer people.
The ACF was selected as the theoretical framework for the study to inform its approach to recidivism and reentry program policy. It indicates that policy change occurs through collective actors over an extended period (Weible et al., 2020). In making policy, the government addresses a perceived problem within a specific sector (e.g., giving a second chance to formerly incarcerated individuals). Current policy and policy implementation may be affected by changes in public opinion regarding the urgency of the problem (or, in the case of formerly incarcerated individuals, stigmatization that does not shift), differences in the approach to the problem among federal, state, and local governments, and the overall cyclical nature of policy development (Weible et al. 2020). The ACF will support the study by enabling the findings to be synthesized across three theoretical domains: policy changes, policy subsystems, and advocacy coalitions, which are important for the reform sector.
Nature of Study
The purpose of this qualitative phenomenological study is to explore the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who had not recidivated for at least one year after their release regarding the influence of prerelease reentry program characteristics, demographic characteristics, and personality characteristics on their successful reintegration into society. Qualitative research is based on the lens and framework of constructivism; it emphasizes how everyone perceives and understands a particular phenomenon (Silverman, 2020). In the present study, a qualitative phenomenological approach was used to collect information through semi-structured interviews with formerly incarcerated who successfully reentered society, as indicated by their not recidivating for at least one year after completing a prerelease reentry program.
Phenomenological research follows a design focused on the lived experiences of individuals, using their subjective reality as the basis for understanding the essence of a phenomenon. A phenomenological design is appropriate for the current research study because the lived experiences of formerly incarcerated individuals who have successfully reentered society are invaluable in understanding personal and program characteristics that make a reentry program successful for individuals. Interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully transferred from prison life to civilian life without recidivating for at least one year after being released can provide important firsthand information about outcomes.
. Individuals who attended a single prelease reentry program will be recruited as participants for this study. These would include individuals (a) who were formerly incarcerated for at least one year, (b) who completed the prerelease reentry program before their release, and (c) who had not recidivated for at least one year after their release. Participants would also include persons still under parole or correctional management. Audio recordings would be used to collect participants’ responses during the interviews to ensure accurate transcription of the interview data. Further, field notes will be taken to help describe environmental contexts, behaviors, and nonverbal cues. A sample size of 12 is deemed sufficient, as it is often used in qualitative studies (Yin, 2017). Interviews will be chosen as the method of data collection as they allow participants to share information freely (Yokotani et al., 2018). In the present study, the participant responses will be critical for addressing this study’s primary research question (Yokotani et al., 2018).
Definitions
This section presents clarification and operationalization of two definitions integral to this study. These definitions ensure a more comprehensive understanding of the study’s core themes and topics.
Recidivism
In the study context, recidivism refers to the propensity of formerly incarcerated individuals to re-offend after their release from prison (Wolf & Blackwood, 2019). Recidivism may be influenced by the type of crime committed, an individual’s socioeconomic status, race, or gender, and the quality of and accessibility to reentry programs (Bunting et al., 2019; Wolf & Blackwood, 2019).
Prerelease Program
Before their release from prison, incarcerated individuals are eligible for services that focus on life, job skills, and financial management. These programs provide recently paroled individuals with referrals to educational, employment, and counseling services (Mississippi Clarion Ledger, 2017).
Assumptions
Assumptions are facets of a study without which it would fail to be meaningful or significant (Yin, 2017). Several assumptions underpin this study. First, the researcher assumes that the prerelease reentry program influences the participants’ successful reintegration into society. The second assumption is that all participants in this study would answer interview questions truthfully. Without this assumption, the qualitative data used for analysis would be largely unusable, and the results of this study would be invalid. However, ensuring the confidentiality of the participants’ identities reduced the anxiety about identity disclosure that might otherwise cause them to distort their responses. Further, interviewing and finding common themes across the responses of the 12 participants may contribute to minimizing the influence of any individual participant’s biases on the major findings. Thus, it is believed that the assumption of the participants’ honesty and accuracy in their interview responses did not constitute a significant threat to the credibility of the findings.
Scope and Delimitations
This study will be restricted to evaluating one reentry program in California to determine its effectiveness in decreasing recidivism shortly after incarcerated individuals were released from prison. California has implemented various programs to assist offenders in community re-entry. The Alternative Custody Program is one of these interventions. It allows inmates about to be released to spend the last 12 months of their sentence outside the prison setting. Prisoners are subjected to various interventions that enable them to learn numerous skills necessary to integrate with the community. This program is selected because it provides inmates opportunities to learn new skills for integrating with the community. The other programs, like the Male Community Reentry and Custody to Community Transitional Reentry, are not selected because they focus on a specific gender. At the same time, the study is concerned about the general population of offenders, regardless of their sex. The researcher is from California and had access to the prison site. The study will thus be delimited to allow a thorough evaluation of a specific program and improve validity.
This research will be delimited to a single prison prerelease program, and the participants, who were formerly incarcerated individuals, were from one geographic area. Due to this limited scope, the results of the study may limit transferability outside the said prerelease program. They may not be generalizable to other populations of formerly incarcerated individuals outside California.
Limitations
Using qualitative methodology presents several challenges to this study. The first limitation concerns data access, as data collection requires interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully transferred from prison life to civilian life for at least one year after their release. Accessing this population presents a challenge, as relevant records are not easily available. To overcome this challenge, multiple recruiting strategies will be used to access participants.
Moreover, an important consideration is that the participants might be unwilling to recount past experiences, might not want to provide sufficient information regarding participation in reentry programs, or might not correctly recall details of respective participation. This limitation will be addressed, in part, by guaranteeing the confidentiality of the participant responses and by highlighting that the purpose of the information is to provide suggestions for improving the reentry program. The participants will be informed that the notes would use code names instead of the actual names and that only the dissertation committee and the researcher would be able to access the raw data. Additionally, the participants will be informed of their right to consent, which stipulates the liberty to cease participation at any point during the study without retribution.
Significance
The results of this qualitative study have the potential to significantly improve our understanding of recidivism in several ways. First, the results of this study could aid in the development of more comprehensive release protocols for paroled individuals, which could support the development of initiatives that reduce recidivism rates. In turn, this work may enable individuals at risk of reoffending to have a more comprehensive set of options after release, potentially mitigating the likelihood of their recidivism. Reducing recidivism benefits not only the individual concerned but also the community. With fewer people imprisoned, the costs of housing are reduced in prisons and formerly incarcerated individuals are likely to contribute knowledge or skills that benefit the overall community (Bunting et al., 2019). Additionally, a better understanding of the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals regarding the personality characteristics needed to complete a reentry program successfully may enable the development of more individual programs customized based on personality characteristics. Different programs may suit different incarcerated individuals based on their personality characteristics. Determining the characteristics required or desired for success in the current program may enable the development of other programs suited to incarcerated individuals with other personality characteristics. This may also help reduce recidivism, as well as decrease costs to the taxpayers and contribute to the local community. It could also arguably develop a better understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of this reentry program and based thereon, recommendations can be made to improve the program, which could similarly be applied to improve others like it.
As part of this study, an exploration of the literature (see Chapter 2) would be conducted concerning the programs and practices that have been successful in decreasing recidivism and identifying related research gaps. By exploring relevant literature, the study would be able to add to the body of academic knowledge about prerelease programs and services utilized by non-recidivist and recidivist individuals, especially for the program under investigation. Thus, the results of the study may support the ACF theory and advance practical and theoretical knowledge regarding recidivism. They may also provide information to improve the training of prison staff, probation officers, and other stakeholders who prepare incarcerated individuals to transfer successfully from prison life to public life.
Summary
As of 2018, an estimated 2.5 million individuals in the United States were incarcerated (Sawyer & Wagner, 2019). Although nearly 95% of all incarcerated individuals are released into their communities after completing their sentences, many re-offend and return to prison (Prescott et al., 2019). Recidivism results from many factors, including access to education, employment, and mental health services after release. These factors are addressed in prerelease programs offered to incarcerated individuals throughout the United States before their release. Although these programs are common, there is little research on their efficacy in reducing recidivism and little empirical evidence to indicate which facets of the programs are most effective.
To address this gap in the literature, this study will use a qualitative phenomenological approach, whereby data were collected through interviews with recently paroled individuals. The NVivo software will be used to analyze qualitative data to identify common themes thematically. The results of the proposed study will add to the theoretical and practical body of knowledge regarding prerelease programs and recidivism. They may also be used to develop more effective prerelease programs for individuals to be released on parole. The next chapter presents a comprehensive review of the literature to address the central themes in the study.

Chapter 2: Literature Review
This study addresses the efficacy of extant reentry programs in reducing recidivism. It will focus on exploring the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who have been able to successfully reenter society concerning the characteristics, such as types of skills learned, type of crime committed, motivation to give up crimes, etc., required to complete a jail-based reentry program successfully. This issue is significant, as up to 700,000 individuals are released from state and federal prisons each year (Hopwood, 2019; Drucker, 2019). According to Drucker (2019), approximately 65 million Americans have a criminal record, which could be a barrier to their gainful employment and employment stability. More than half of all formerly incarcerated individuals remain unemployed up to a year after release (Bagaric et al., 2018; National Institute of Justice, 2017). Besides employment challenges, formerly incarcerated individuals struggle with housing insecurity and low educational attainment (Weible et al., 2020; Drucker, 2019). Many of them rely on public assistance due to the many challenges they face (Grossi, 2017), and navigating this array of challenges can affect their mindset (Weible et al., 2020; Drucker, 2019). Formerly incarcerated individuals must establish themselves within society but these challenges could affect their ability to care for their families, reestablish meaningful relationships, and adjust to social life outside prison (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018; National Research Council, 2014; Hopwood, 2019).
This chapter provides a review of the relevant literature and a discussion of the aligned theory. It begins with an overview of the literature search strategy, including information about the resources used for the search, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the sources. The literature search is followed by an in-depth examination of the theoretical framework and a review of the literature for themes central to this study, such as recidivism, challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals, reentry programs and efforts, and the effects of reentry programs on recidivism.
Literature Search Strategy
During the literature search, the researcher explored Walden University Library’s EBSCOhost interface to locate articles related to formerly incarcerated individuals and the correlation between incarceration, recidivism, and reentry programs. The search was conducted using the following databases: Articles, SocINDEX, Thoreau Multi-Database Search, Academic Search Complete, and ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), apart from Google Scholar.
The keywords used in the search were incarceration rates, recidivism, criminal reentry programs, jail reentry programs, acquiring life skills, age statistics, avoidance coping styles, behavioral gender differences, Bureau of Justice Statistics, challenges of social integration, effects of education level, environmental demands, formerly incarcerated in the United States, gender incarcerated rate, the importance of academic success, improvement with assistance, juvenile justice system, predictive relationship, race and criminality, the ramification of various responses, recurrent difficulties of ex-convicts, and stereotypes.
All sources selected for this literature review adhered to inclusion and exclusion criteria established before the literature search. These criteria required sources to be from reputable sources, which included peer-reviewed scholarly articles or information from governmental agencies. Additionally, sources were required to be current. Thus, most literature presented in this chapter was published within the last five years. Older works were considered only if they were from seminal sources associated with the theory. Finally, all sources had to be written in the English language. Sources were excluded if they did not meet any of these inclusion criteria or if they demonstrated a prominent bias or agenda.
Theoretical Framework
A theoretical framework is critical for any study, as it guides the development of the research questions and provides context and meaning for the study’s themes. It also supports both academic and practical applications of the results. The theoretical framework used for this study was the ACF, developed by Sabatier and Jenkins-Smith (1988) and substantiated in contemporary literature.
The theoretical framework in this context offers a high-level overview of the potential relationships between the core stakeholders, public policy, and issue resolution concerning recidivism. This model is selected because it integrates diverse elements of public policy into a common framework that enables the core stakeholders to understand the issues surrounding the issue in the context. It is observed that the model best matches the issue in the context because it integrates the roles played by diverse stakeholders like the community, released inmates, and the government. This model is focused on developing a cohesive policy to address the current issues affecting the community in reducing the recidivism rates among released inmates. Three primary dimensions are presented through the model for understanding the roles of the core stakeholders in developing effective interventions toward resolving the issue in the context, as discussed below.
This study will be completed based on the advocacy coalition framework (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988). The rationale for using this framework is that it provides a reliable foundation for understanding how critical problems occur within the community and the role of policy change in achieving the intended outcomes. Since its establishment in the 1980s, the framework has helped in defining alternatives in understanding the policy processes. This framework has offered a foundation for evaluating the factors affecting public policy change, focusing more on the critical issues affecting the community.
The framework can be applied in the proposed research since it will explore diverse factors influencing successful community integration after inmates’ release. Under this framework, three primary dimensions are defined (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988). These dimensions are the macro-level assumptions that show that policies are created by the affected stakeholders and can be influenced by the prevailing political and economic variables. Secondly, it is assumed that the various groups or stakeholders are connected through social and emotional variables. The third dimension is the assumption that advocacy groups are a critical part of the policy-making process and influence the decisions made by the affected stakeholders.
In this context, it is assumed that advocacy groups are an essential part of the process since they have a significant influence on policy-making interventions (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988). This intervention is based on external influences or learning processes. The learning process involves the core stakeholders, like the general public, affected by a given issue. On the other hand, external factors like socioeconomic and political variables may influence the policy-making process, depending on the presenting expectations. Such events may include the increasing trends in recidivism among released inmates. This issue affects the larger population and previously incarcerated inmates.
This model recommends that policy changes like deploying effective programs to support inmates and reduce recidivism should be executed through progressive public participation over prolonged durations (Sabatier & Jenkins-Smith, 1988). Such interventions will create a reliable platform for engaging the core stakeholders through research and development processes. The recommended interventions would be used in deploying the ideal solutions for overcoming existing problems. In this context, the model can be used to understand the complexity of the policy changes in implementing strategies for overcoming recidivism among previously incarcerated inmates. In such a case, it is observed that the need for policy change comes from stakeholders like the community, advocacy groups, and governmental agencies. The collaboration among these stakeholders will create a foundation for evaluating the best solutions to address the problem through prerelease reentry programs for inmates.
Literature Review Related to Key Variables and/or Concepts
This section discusses relevant themes in the context of the ACF theory, addressing four key areas: incarceration rates across gender and ethnicity, recidivism rates across gender and ethnicity, the efficacy of reentry programs across gender and ethnicity, and challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals.
Social Development and Incarceration
In this context, social development refers to the improvement of individuals’ well-being in society. Social development has a close relationship to incarceration risk. For example, Greene and Heilbrun (2018) suggest that an individual’s social development can influence how they make decisions, master learning experiences, and work through issues. Additionally, social development has been linked to individuals’ ability to navigate several environments, including interpersonal contexts, institutions, and society in general (Berghuis, 2018). One aspect of social development involves addressing the educational needs of students, which has become a complex matter, especially because of their widely different backgrounds and social settings (Newbury et al., 2018). There is a deliberate failure on the part of the system to address the educational needs of formerly incarcerated individuals, to whom education is valuable. Educators and policymakers need to consider the needs of this population. Incarceration hurts social development, as the entire family of the incarcerated individual is directly impacted. It is thus important to consider different factors, such as the possible criminal involvement of the child of an incarcerated individual. Evidence suggests that parents’ imprisonment is likely to lead to a cycle of criminal behavior in children and is intergenerational (Greene & Heilbronn, 2018). It is important to realize the psychological problems and issues related to antisocial behavior. Social development is usually hindered by incarceration, which hurts incarcerated individuals as well as their families.
Social Development and Criminal Participation
Greene and Heilbronn (2018) argue that four main factors affect how people navigate environmental stressors that may, in turn, influence involvement in criminal activity–genetic influences, environmental conditions or events, learning experiences, and task approach skills. The first, genetic influence, relates to traits inherited by an individual from their parents (Serrat, 2017). Some genetic traits may be desirable or support talent development. Genetics may influence access to opportunity based on appearance or innate ability, increasing opportunities for some but limiting them for others (Greene & Heilbronn, 2018).
According to Greene and Heilbrun (2018), environmental conditions can also affect the outcomes of a reentry program. They constitute a proximity factor over which individuals have little or no control (Newbury et al., 2018). These environmental influences can drastically alter the way skills are developed or demonstrated (Serrat, 2017). Similarly, the environment can shape an individual’s interests or aversions, including activities (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018).
Learning experiences also influence choice and social development (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). They encompass both instrumental and associative learning (Serrat, 2017). Thus, an individual is influenced by formal learning of both cause and effect, as well as through the understanding that each action has related consequences (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018).
The development of adequate task approach skills may also influence choice, social development, and possible criminal activity (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). Task approach skills are needed for higher-level thinking and help individuals navigate complex social situations (Newbury et al., 2018). These skills include problem-solving, work habits, emotional responses, and cognitive responses (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018).
In addition, the three factors established by Greene and Heilbrun (2018) cite social development as influencing an individual’s likelihood of participating in an illegal activity. Greene and Heilbrun (2018) posit that individuals who participate in illegal or illicit activity often learn criminal techniques and attitudes through close relationships with others, such as respected family members who participate in crimes (Newbury et al., 2018).
Parents are essential role models who shape children’s behavior, including their potential for criminal conduct (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). They influence children’s social development, which may sometimes involve the normalization of criminal behaviors (Newbury et al., 2018). When children are nurtured in an environment wherein illegal activity is commonplace, they may begin to associate criminal activity with parental acceptance (Newbury et al., 2018). In turn, when exhibiting criminal behavior is associated with parental approval, children are more likely to display illegal behavior to impress parental figures or gain parental affection (Newbury et al., 2018).
Besides parental modeling, parents and their children may inadvertently reinforce each other’s negative behaviors (Newbury et al., 2018). The reciprocal nature of participation in criminal activity is largely attributed to a cycle of inadequate parenting methods and inconsistent discipline observed in prior generations within the familial line (Greene & Heilbrun, 2018). Some studies indicate that once children are involved in criminal activity, parents may escalate criminal behavior to retain the respect or affection of their children, thereby creating a cycle of criminal escalation (Newbury et al., 2018). Besides these familial factors, demographic characteristics, such as gender (Newbury et al., 2018), cultural membership, and ethnicity can influence social development and, in turn, affect the treatment of incarcerated individuals in prison.
Education and Incarceration
Educational achievement has been linked to incarceration Curci et al. (2017) and Duke (2018) propose that positive experiences with learning are correlated with educational success. Thus, by encouraging positive experiences with education, students may be more likely to succeed (Newbury et al., 2018; Duke, 2018).
Recent research demonstrates that associations between positivity and scholarship can be developed by fostering positive emotions while learning (Newbury et al., 2018; Duke, 2018; Tonry, 2018; Hopwood, 2019). Promoting happiness while learning can provide a sense of resilience, encourage mindfulness, and support physical health, benefits that persist beyond formal educational settings (Newbury et al., 2018; Duke, 2018; Tonry, 2018; Hopwood, 2019). Experiencing positive emotions can improve coping skills and provide a sense of motivation and gratification (Newbury et al., 2018; Duke, 2018). This, in turn, can help individuals feel more comfortable in their environment and eliminate anxieties that may prevent them from being completely engaged in a task (Hopwood, 2019).
In contrast, negative emotions, such as anxiety, anger, or discontent, are associated with poor educational outcomes (Hopwood, 2019). This may be due to the connection between experiencing negative emotions habitually, reduced memory processing, and poor learning competence (Newbury et al., 2018; Duke, 2018). Negative attitudes toward learning may result in discontent that can engender avoidance and social isolation (Duke, 2018), both of which can negatively impact educational achievement.
Socio-emotional teaching programs are designed to develop intelligence in five areas: self-awareness, self-management, social awareness, relationship skills, and responsible decision-making (Duke, 2018). They are also aimed at reducing negative emotions associated with educational experiences, such as aggression and peer violence (Duke, 2018). Moreover, these programs help students establish pro-social educational habits (Hopwood, 2019).
Socio-emotional teaching programs can help students establish healthy relationships with peers and teachers in educational settings (Hopwood, 2019). Further, students who participate in these programs are more likely to set positive goals and meet personal and social needs, both within formal educational settings and outside (Duke, 2018). Finally, participants in socio-emotional learning initiatives are better able to make responsible and ethical decisions across contexts (Jayman et al., 2019).
Mindfulness meditation, another educational initiative proposed by Duke (2018) and Robinson et al. (2019), is believed to increase positive emotions in students by helping them learn nonjudgmentally and attend to their present internal experiences (Robinson et al., 2019). Mindfulness meditation works toward balancing a relaxed and vigilant state of mind within formal educational settings, although this skill is also useful to students outside school (Robinson et al., 2019). It is also thought to improve the neural pathways related to efficiency and orientation (Robinson et al., 2019). Socio-emotional learning and mindfulness meditation interventions are linked to issues concerning gender, income, and race, and this can lead to substantial outcomes in the realization of the expected objectives (Duke, 2018; Robinson et al., 2019), enabling participants to achieve their goals without experiencing negative emotions. It is important to consider issues of concern such as the gender, income, race, and personal background of different participants.
Challenges Faced by Formerly Incarcerated Individuals
Research has identified a strong association between adverse socioeconomic outcomes and rearrests (Mallett & Tedor, 2018). Many negative outcomes associated with recidivism (e.g., employment outcomes and community integration) have been linked to the support system, and community perceptions that formerly incarcerated individuals face upon reentry, the environment, and the stability of the community into which an individual is released after incarceration (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Among the challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals, societal acceptance is one of the most impactful for successful reentry. When formerly incarcerated individuals feel ostracized by their communities, they may experience an inability to contribute, which in turn reinforces the criminal persona (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). If formerly incarcerated individuals are not accepted or supported by their communities, they are more likely to push back. Community support, however, does not always have a positive influence on their reentry. In situations where the community is supportive but also conducive to continued criminal activity, community support acts as a catalyst for behavior leading to recidivism, particularly among drug offenders (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Mental health and addiction issues are major factors of concern for formerly incarcerated individuals. Additionally, these individuals are likely to face legal barriers in receiving services after their release. Issues such as gender are also a major concern since women are more likely to face abuse and violence. Age is another important issue of concern that may impact the transition of an individual back into the community. For example, older, formerly incarcerated individuals will find it more difficult to find gainful employment, thus resulting in a lower quality of life.
Employment and Stability. Formerly incarcerated individuals face challenges related to employment and stability. The stigma of being formerly incarcerated may negatively impact post-release outcomes, regardless of individuals’ personal traits, according to Couloute and Kopf (2018). Many formerly incarcerated individuals experience bleak labor market prospects after release from prison (Duke, 2018). Additionally, they can develop feelings of legal and social exclusion from the criminal conviction labeling. Further, a long-term absence from the labor market can erode skills and create significant gaps in work histories (Couloute & Kopf, 2018).
Increased limitations on employment have rendered many formerly incarcerated individuals ineligible for job opportunities (Couloute, 2018). Such hiring restrictions are often adopted by legislatures and state agencies to limit employment opportunities for individuals with criminal records seeking employment, especially for those with felony convictions (Couloute, 2018). These legal hiring restrictions affect not only formerly incarcerated individuals but also those seeking to employ them or help them find employment (Couloute, 2018).
Beyond legal limitations, many employers are unwilling to hire formerly incarcerated individuals due to negative stereotypes portraying them as untrustworthy or unreliable (Couloute, 2018). Additionally, many organizational administrators feel that formerly incarcerated individuals may be dangerous to other staff or that hiring them could result in negative organizational outcomes. These practices generally limit employment opportunities for formerly incarcerated individuals (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Unfortunately, research thus far has not directly addressed how employment outcomes have changed, as incarceration has become more widespread.
Poor labor market outcomes for formerly incarcerated individuals may be attributed partly to risk factors associated with incarceration, such as low educational attainment and poor mental health outcomes (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Many formerly incarcerated individuals have inadequate formal education (Couloute & Kopf, 2018), less than 12 years on average, which may result in poor overall functioning (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018). Consequently, many of them exhibit poor functional literacy, perform poorly in cognitive tests, have histories of addiction, mental illness, violence, and impulsive behavior, and have little work experience before imprisonment (Couloute & Kopf, 2018). Thus, high unemployment rates and low wages experienced by this population may be partly due to their preexisting low employability and productivity, rather than mere incarceration (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018).
Educational Attainment. Individuals who serve time in prison are often denied a wide array of formal educational opportunities. While under incarceration and even after their release, formerly incarcerated individuals might also have trouble earning the credentials they need to succeed in society, such as high school diplomas or GED (General Educational Development) equivalents (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018). Failure to obtain these educational experiences might affect reentry success, as they are prerequisites for higher education and many sectors of the labor market (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018). Examining the factors affecting employment outcomes for formerly incarcerated adolescents, a study found educational attainment to be a more significant predictor of employment outcomes than mental illness (Schubert et al., 2018).
Education is critical for individuals seeking employment after release from prison (Couloute, 2018). Formerly incarcerated individuals without a high school diploma report a high unemployment rate; this is especially true for people of color (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018). Further, the education and training needs of incarcerated individuals are more complex than those of traditional postsecondary students due to the former’s specific needs, such as treatment for mental health issues (Taliaferro & Pham, 2018).
Through interviews with 34 current and former students of a higher education program for formerly incarcerated individuals, Runell (2017) conclude that participation in the higher education program played a role in their desistance process, a proxy for overall success after release. This work identifies a persistent need to address educational attainment among incarcerated individuals to support their reentry into society (Schubert et al., 2018; Taliaferro & Pham, 2018).
Caring for Family and Reestablishing Meaningful Relationships. Forming relationships may be challenging for formerly incarcerated individuals. According to Chikadzi (2017), Hopwood (2019), and Couloute (2018), formerly incarcerated individuals face obstacles in forming relationships after release from prison. Many of them reported that a free society induced feelings of alienation or displacement, especially in individuals incarcerated for long periods (Hopwood, 2019).
According to Hopwood (2019), one week after release, 12% of formerly incarcerated individuals reported loneliness or a feeling of not fitting in or belonging to their respective communities, perhaps because of the belief of many that formerly incarcerated individuals will hurt their neighborhoods by encouraging illicit activity (Wilson & Bastidas, 2017). Thus, the very presence of such individuals in a community can result in negative interactions that further solidify feelings of alienation and a lack of belonging (Lockwood et al., 2017; Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018; Wilson & Bastidas, 2017).
Trauma and Mental Health Issues. There has been significant research into the traumatic nature of incarceration and its sustained influence even after release (Tonry, 2018). Some recent studies suggest that traumatic experiences in prison may not be related to emotional intelligence (EI), representing a trend in the literature that departs from attributing negative outcomes to personal characteristics (Tonry, 2018). This is in stark contrast to the earlier belief that formerly incarcerated individuals are more likely to re-offend because of their low EI or other innate traits, regardless of the prison experience (Tonry, 2018).
Tonry (2018) analyzes data from a large-scale psychological study of prisoners “in crisis” in New York state correctional facilities that employed in-depth interviews to understand better incarcerated individuals’ experiences. The results reveal that those in isolation exhibited symptoms of rage, panic, and loss of control, and experienced breakdowns, psychological regression, and mounting physiological and psychic tension that resulted in self-mutilation. The research also finds that many incarcerated individuals in the New York state correctional facility rarely experience positive interactions with peers or in group activities, such as educational and vocational training classes.
Other researchers provide information about overcrowding in prisons and its effects on incarcerated individuals’ mental and physical health (Tonry, 2018). Overcrowding increases uncertainty, which can be stressful (Tonry, 2018). Stress can, in turn, produce heightened levels of cognitive strain related to interpersonal instability, a potentially detrimental or dangerous social attitude (Tonry, 2018).
Prison experience can be harmful to some individuals and can challenge their ability to lead healthy lives outside the penal system. Overcrowding further increases frustration from the watering down of the resources available to incarcerated individuals. Overcrowded prisons present severe stressors, such as danger, deprivation, and degradation. In response, incarcerated individuals must make accommodations to survive the psychological pressures they are confronted with, as well as the behavioral mandates they must comply with during incarceration (Tonry, 2018).
About 15–20% of formerly incarcerated individuals reported emotional disorders, which can reduce employability and readiness. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that employers can be held liable for exposing the public to potentially dangerous individuals. Therefore, many hesitate to hire a formerly incarcerated individual because in “72 percent of negligent hiring cases, employers lost and faced an average settlement of $1.6 million” (Simmons University, 2016).
In research exploring mental illness, self-stigma, and criminality, the authors recruited 82 people with mental illness and a history of criminal convictions from a treatment site. Participants completed self-report questionnaires regarding mental illness and criminality, self-stigma, racial self-concept, self-esteem, depression, work alliance, and medication/psychosocial treatment. The findings suggested that criminality self-stigma magnified the effects of racial and mental illness self-stigmas. The study may further contribute to the impact of mental illness self-stigma on essential outcomes.
Transition to Life Outside Prison. Many formerly incarcerated individuals have reported that transitioning to civilian life left them feeling alienated and out of place. According to the National Research Council (2014), one week after release, 12% of formerly incarcerated individuals reported loneliness or feelings of not fitting in or belonging. Rehabilitation is another important factor designed to foster improvement and provide treatment (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018). Failure to undergo treatment after release puts both the formerly incarcerated individual and the community in danger (Tonry, 2018).
Housing is another major challenge encountered by formerly incarcerated individuals (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018). The federal government rewards public housing agencies that evict individuals engaging in illegal activities, especially those detrimental to public housing communities. Private housing owners tend to deny housing to anyone with a criminal record. In the past, formerly incarcerated individuals were placed on a list for housing (National Institute of Justice, 2017). However, in 1988, Congress removed the safety net that amended the adoption of a one-strike eviction policy. The law prohibits admission and enables landlords to evict or terminate the leases of individuals engaged in criminal activities. This can fracture family structures already at risk. For example, individuals living in public housing may be prohibited from allowing a formerly incarcerated family member to reside in the housing unit (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018).
Many families gather to celebrate a family member’s release from prison. However, approximately 40% of formerly incarcerated individuals have reported anxiety in the weeks following the increased social interaction (Fahmy, 2021). These individuals often felt discomfort on public transport or in crowded public places, causing many to avoid trains and buses initially. Many formerly incarcerated individuals also reported technological difficulties with devices such as cell phones and tablets. Hopwood (2019) indicated that approximately 12% of formerly incarcerated individuals attempted to avoid old friends or “negative people” involved in crime, gangs, or serious drug use, to prevent recidivism. Nevertheless, some individuals are released into shelters or transitional housing programs where curfews and other restrictions may limit opportunities for transitioning into regular society.
Wilson and Bastidas (2017) report that the effects of incarceration are likely to recede with time. Importantly, the people a formerly incarcerated individual interacts with can either support a successful integration or promote recidivism. Crime resistance is an important goal for recently released incarcerated individuals. Desistance requires an individual to stop dysfunctional and criminal behaviors and develop new habits that keep them out of the criminal justice system (Fahmy, 2021). Formerly incarcerated individuals may be aware of society’s perception of them and must be prepared to redeem and heal themselves, shed their identity as incarcerated individuals, and work against the stigma associated therewith (Duke, 2018; Couloute, 2018). This may include assuming new responsibilities and roles, such as those of a parent, spouse, family member, worker, and neighbor, inter alia. The individuals may need to harmonize their selves and roles, with the added difficulty of remolding and reformulating others’ expectations of them. Preventative methods, such as reconnecting with family, the community, and the labor market, provide individuals with a fighting chance against recidivism (Wilson & Bastidas, 2017).
During probation, risk factors for recidivism include social and environmental influences on criminal behavior, the mental health of the probationer, the complexity of their criminal history, and the nature of the offense for which they were convicted (Fahmy, 2021). The supervision of low-risk probationers was effective within the first six months after release, indicating that check-ins and monitoring prevented involvement in criminal behavior. Among high-risk probationers, check-ins and monitoring were slightly less successful in preventing recidivism, but they decreased the risks thereof (Hyatt & Barnes, 2017). However, one year after release, individuals who did not receive supervised or probationary release exhibited nearly identical recidivism rates. Thus, the efficacy of supervision after release may be only temporary.
Prisoner Reentry
Prisoner reentry programs are designed to facilitate the transition of individuals from incarceration to reintegration into society. During his tenure as the US president, Barack Obama suggested prison reform and changes to prisoner reentry programs to provide incarcerated individuals with a fair chance after their release formerly. The problems that formerly incarcerated individuals faced were exacerbated by a lack of properly designed reentry programs. As such, over the last decade, substantial research has been conducted to determine the effects and efficacy of reentry programs. One significant point associated with reentry is the importance of striking a balance between an individual’s identity as a formerly incarcerated person and that of a rehabilitated person in a context where criminal history leads to societal stigma (Tharshini et al., 2018). The many challenges faced by formerly incarcerated individuals upon reentry can affect the efficacy of reentry programs, complicating the possibility of a one-size-fits-all solution. Mizel and Abrams (2020) explain the main factors related to a high rate of criminal recidivism, especially among young men. This is despite the increased implementation of government and nonprofit reentry programs in the US within the past two decades. Criminal justice and social welfare policies have expanded in scope, and there is a need to understand the state’s capacities to supervise and treat those under the criminal justice system. Reentry programs can provide services in various areas, such as education, employment, housing, and mental health (Mizel & Abrams, 2020). These programs must start during the process of incarceration. Such programs are also intensive and last for not less than six months. It is also important to understand that recidivism after incarceration will usually peak in young adults. Understanding this issue and the impact it has on formerly incarcerated youth is thus vital. Moreover, it is important to consider the continuity of services across incarceration and reentry. The presence of community is essential, and this can be realized through the implementation of different programs that can offer peer support for formerly incarcerated individuals.
Challenges of Reentry
Research has shown that an individual’s approach to reentry education and the types of reentry programs available depend on several factors, such as ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender (Anderson et al., 2018). This disparity is exacerbated by a lack of consistency regarding the operations, policies, and procedures of reentry programs (Schlager, 2018). All prisons are legally mandated to provide reentry programs for formerly incarcerated individuals. However, the way reentry programs and efforts are handled among state-run and autonomous prisons (Anderson et al. 2018). The types of reentry programs vary by location and the type of offense of individuals they are designed to rehabilitate and facilitate. One major issue of concern is the low vocational skills possessed by formerly incarcerated individuals because of the lack of vocational training, leading to their having lesser economic value after reentry into society. Societal rejection is another major challenge that usually arises because of the stereotypes associated with formerly incarcerated individuals.
The first stage in reentry education is rehabilitation. Rehabilitation services for reentry range from broad to targeted counseling and intervention for substance abuse or violence (Anderson et al., 2018). The first step to incarcerated individuals’ rehabilitation is to remove dependency on substances or behaviors associated with their incarceration. For many individuals, preparation for reentry begins the moment they are incarcerated and involves enrolling them in substance abuse and detoxification treatment plans (Anderson et al., 2018). For some incarcerated individuals, reentry programs focus more on counseling to address triggers of poor behavior. Helping incarcerated individuals identify behavioral triggers and ways to avoid them is integral to the success of reentry education (Anderson et al., 2018).
For incarcerated individuals who are not released into programs that can support them or into a familial support system, the influence of criminal behavior can be overpowering. If there is a waiting list for a program a formerly incarcerated individual plans to enroll in, e.g., to help combat addiction or secure employment, any time spent outside that supportive environment provides numerous opportunities for recidivism (Anderson et al., 2018). Boman and Mowen (2017) observed that exposure to criminal peers upon release was more closely associated with recidivism than release into familial custody. This was particularly true of individuals incarcerated for drug-related offenses.
For individuals incarcerated for drug-related offenses, a focus on improving familial ties and relationships is essential to successful reentry. Familial support is a protective factor for released individuals, as it makes them feel supported by those not motivated by personal gain. For many individuals incarcerated on drug-related charges, any exposure to criminally-inclined behavior or illicit substances is a significant risk factor for recidivism.
Public Opinion and Reentry
Public opinion about incarceration, incarcerated individuals, and the nature of fair and just punishment has increased attention to prison reform (Lehmann et al., 2020). Over the past decade, the public has become aware of the ineffective practices of the judicial system and how incarceration can result in a cycle of criminal behavior (Lehmann et al., 2020). This awareness has produced public calls for reform of the penal policy and increased attention to reentry programs providing opportunities for released individuals. A focus on reentry programs that provide life and job skills has increased, as those who once advocated mass incarceration now work to curtail it. Public opinion regarding incarceration and the needs of released individuals has a powerful effect on the efficacy of reentry.
One difficulty associated with reentry is the societal perception of criminal behavior and incarceration. Rade et al. (2017) found that the environment in which incarcerated individuals were released had a significant impact on the likelihood of recidivism. According to the researchers, difficulties in finding employment or housing are often the first barriers to reentry that a released individual encounters, and they are integral to post-release probationary requirements. Their ability to integrate into public life is dependent on many factors, such as the type of home life or support system they are released to (Rade et al., 2017). If a released convict has a supportive family to live with, reentry is often easier if triggers for criminal activity are avoided (Rade et al., 2017). In general, the availability of a support system and a stable environment is essential for the success of reentry (Rade et al., 2017). This is important, as the steps taken in reentry programs are found to be less effective in the face of adversity when adequate support is not available (Rade et al., 2017). Those without a support system are under immediate pressure to find employment or housing, which in turn triggers a survival response. This survival response may lead released individuals to seek security and support in whatever form available, and when familial support is unavailable, the risk of their returning to criminal activity increases (Rade et al., 2017).
Despite the efforts made through reentry programs, a key external contributor to recidivism is the instability in post-release housing. Particularly for economically disadvantaged individuals, the availability and quality of post-release housing have a significant impact on recidivism (Lehmann et al., 2020). In economically backward neighborhoods with higher crime rates, post-release housing is often located in areas where the released individual is surrounded by crime, which triggers criminal behavior. Additionally, post-release housing may function as a breeding ground for criminal behavior, where recently released individuals are prone to easy reentry into criminal activity (Lehmann et al., 2020). In many cases, post-release housing conditions are more impactful on recidivism than the released individuals’ demographics and economic status (Lehmann et al. 2020).
Efficacy of Reentry Programs
The effectiveness of reentry programs remains unclear for many reasons. Because of the fundamental differences between public and private prisons, there is a debate regarding whether reentry programs are designed to be effective at reducing recidivism (Lehmann et al., 2020). Due to the cost-prohibitive nature of intensive reentry programs, wraparound services are often employed by many reentry facilities or programs (Doleac, 2019). These services adopt a general approach to reentry preparation, including coaching participants to avoid environments and situations that may lead to continued criminal behavior. Generalized care and reentry education, although beneficial to some, do not address specific issues that formerly incarcerated individuals face.
The reentry success of released individuals may depend on the reason underlying their incarceration. The rates of recidivism are significantly higher for individuals incarcerated for drug-related offenses than for any other (Schlager, 2018). For reentry programs focusing on drug rehabilitation, success may depend on whether the individual is released into an environment conducive to a drug-free lifestyle (Clark & Vealé, 2018). For many of these individuals, being released into an environment in which drugs are readily available can undo all rehabilitation efforts through reentry programs.
Because of the challenges that incarcerated individuals face upon reentry, many reentry programs are not successful. There is no way to control the environment that individuals are released into, just as there is no way to control the influences that they are exposed to. Considering the societal pressures that incarcerated individuals face upon reentry, it is difficult for reentry programs to adopt a one-size-fits-all approach (Tharshini et al., 2018). Visher et al. (2016) argue that individualized and targeted efforts at reentry education that focus on individual change are far more effective than services focused on practical skills and needs. However, Gill and Wilson (2016) maintain that job and practical skills education is essential for successful reentry. Recent studies have identified several factors associated with effective reentry programs.
Employment Programs. These may be used as a part of reentry education to reduce recidivism. An example is EMPLOY, an employment program. Between 2006 and 2008, incarcerated individuals who gained post-release employment through reentry employment programs were less likely to become repeat offenders (Lehmann et al., 2020). This research revealed that the guarantee of employment and a livable wage created a sense of purpose among formerly incarcerated individuals and helped them overcome the stigma of incarceration. During the study, recidivism among individuals involved in post-release employment programs was reduced by 32%. The success of employment programs illustrates the importance of societal acceptance of formerly incarcerated individuals for reentry success. The 32% reduction in recidivism is, however, misleading, as post-release employment programs still led to a recidivism rate of nearly 62% (Lehmann et al., 2020). Although employment programs are well-intentioned and provide valuable employment skills and support in gaining long-term employment, they do not demonstrate a reliable effect on recidivism (Doleac, 2019). Ultimately, the stigma of previous incarceration still acts as a significant barrier to gainful employment.
Counseling-Based Reentry Programs. Reentry programs that target individual needs tend to be more effective than those with a broad approach (Doleac, 2019; Kim et al., 2018). Programs focusing on individual needs, such as mental health counseling and drug counseling, yield higher rates of success in preventing recidivism than generalized programs (Doleac, 2019; Kim et al., 2018). Even so, while counseling does allow incarcerated individuals the opportunity to understand and learn about their well-being, it does not provide a holistic solution for reentry. Many counseling-based programs are successful at reducing incarcerated individuals’ dependence on illicit substances in prison and may have some effect on drug use during reentry. However, they are ineffective in providing a long-term solution and often fail to prevent relapse (Kim et al., 2018). Due to environmental and societal influences, counseling programs cannot provide the constant support that individuals need to lead a productive and successful life upon reentry into society. Jaegers et al. (2020) explain the difficulties faced by formerly incarcerated individuals in terms of reentry into society. For reentry programs to be successful, it is critical to measure their efficiency and establish the extent to which they could be successful. Additionally, guidance is critical in establishing the effectiveness of such programs if they are to be successful. These programs need to focus on the potential successful outcomes that may be realized if successful reentry programs are to be established.
Wraparound Services. Wraparound services are popular in reentry programs as they adopt a multifaceted approach to reentry and reintegration that targets substance abuse, employment counseling, supervision, life skills training, and housing assistance (Doleac, 2019). The support provided by wraparound services, despite addressing many aspects of reentry, may induce in formerly incarcerated individuals a feeling of denial of the services they truly needed (Doleac, 2019; Kim et al., 2018). Wraparound services are traditionally provided through a case manager who is assigned to an incarcerated individual upon release and offers individualized programs. One significant issue with the manner of provision of wraparound services is that the case manager offers access to a service, but it remains the responsibility of the released individual to seek out assistance from the programs themselves (Doleac, 2019). Further, the services do not provide a solution for all the problems of formerly incarcerated individuals during reentry. A common issue regarding wraparound services arises when a service creates a previously nonexistent problem (Doleac, 2019). For example, a program may provide services for employment but not assistance for childcare.
The rationale behind wraparound services is that support is available, whatever the need. Because of the number of services provided, operating a reentry program with wraparound services is cost-prohibitive and labor-intensive (Doleac, 2019). To reduce program costs, services are offered only upon request, but the full scope of services offered is disclosed to the incarcerated individual. The logistics of providing beneficial wraparound services are substantially more complex than in targeted intervention programs, such as counseling-based reentry programs or employee assistance programs (Doleac, 2019). When properly implemented and all supports are readily available to incarcerated individuals, wraparound services may have a significant effect on recidivism (Doleac, 2019; Kim et al., 2018).
Strengths-Based Reentry Programs. One method of providing individualized reentry education entails a strengths-based approach. This approach does not specifically target any of the negative influences associated with incarceration but focuses on providing incarcerated individuals with a new outlook on themselves and life beyond incarceration (Lehmann et al., 2020). The strengths-based approach to reentry education centers on developing incarcerated individuals’ personal and professional strengths, with an emphasis on developing self-confidence and self-worth (Schlager, 2018). The goal of such a program is to convince individuals that they can be successful and that they have worth in society. This emphasis is intended to reduce recidivism by removing self-judgment and stigmatization associated with a criminal background. There are three principles of the strengths-based approach that affect reentry: collaboration with the law to promote law-abiding behavior, pro-social behavior that empowers individuals to seek change, and community cooperation to promote acceptance of the individual as an asset to society (Schlager, 2018).
This issue can be explored from another perspective, focusing on desistance. Desistance is the process through which previously incarcerated individuals avoid engaging in criminal activities (Weaver, 2019). This process is progressive since it allows the populations concerned to continually improve themselves through counseling to overcome the risks associated with involvement in crime. In most cases, this process allows the affected persons to be exposed to false stops and enables gaining internal strength to prevent similar incidents. The intervention is integrated into other programs like probation. Probation offers previous offenders a platform that may trigger desistance (Fox, 2022; Weaver, 2019). The rationale for this observation is that probation officers act as guides in helping previous offenders through the recovery and integration process. However, the effectiveness of this process depends on the internal strengths and beliefs defining the affected personnel (Fox, 2022). On the same note, this model is focused on recognizing the individual strengths and the challenges that may affect the recovery process. Therefore, experts like counselors and probation officers must provide inmates with the ideal resources for preventing engagement in crime, by ensuring emotional resilience.
Similarly, it is easy for released inmates to re-offend due to the ineffectiveness of the prevailing programs (Fox, 2022; Weaver, 2019). Offense cessation may happen due to various reasons, one of which is the availability of resources that would support effective decisions. Such programs would equip previous offenders with the necessary resources to support mental resilience against re-offending. Previous offenders are exposed to various interventions like counseling to sustain cessation.
However, the implemented programs must consider the psychological aspects and perceptions of the offenders (Weaver, 2019), as previous inmates who are not psychologically prepared are likely to re-offend, making it hard to sustain cessation. It is, therefore, vital to implement the ideal interventions to support previous offenders reentering the community by equipping them with the necessary skills from psychological and entrepreneurial dimensions. Such skills are necessary for ensuring social and economic resilience.
According to this model, the offenders may follow three stages to achieve the desired success. The first stage is primary desistence, which is behavioral cessation, where the offenders avoid further criminal activities. This stage is essential since it provides a reference framework and benchmark for understanding the progress made when dealing with the cessation process (Fox, 2022). Secondary desistance involves creating and acquiring a new identity. The resulting identity is based on new behavioral traits and patterns that focus more on constructive personal development instead of criminal activities. Offenders at this stage require psychological, social, and economic support to ensure that their new identities match their attributes and desired goals. The last stage is tertiary desistance (Weaver, 2019), where individuals develop a sense of belonging to their new position and status based on behavioral change. However, the effectiveness of this process may be affected by various variables including the amount of support offered, family and community relationships, meaning and purpose in life, and the general motivation of the previous offenders (Fox, 2022).
Summary
Many factors influence the recidivism rates among formerly incarcerated individuals. The social stigma that attaches to individuals due to their criminal history can complicate their relationship with society and distort their self-perception. While various programs help with societal reintegration and reentry, no singular or simple solution exists for the issues that individuals face upon reentry. Programs adopt a plethora of approaches, although none offers clear evidence of the most effective path to reentry education.
Given the variety of factors that affect criminal behavior and recidivism, it is difficult to design and implement a single solution to the problem. Differences related to ethnicity, gender, education, social demographics, and community contexts individually play a significant role in determining the likelihood of not only involvement in criminal activity but also recidivism, post-release acceptance, and the effectiveness of reentry education.
This chapter reviewed the literature related to incarceration, including influences that predict criminal behavior, challenges formerly incarcerated individuals face on reentry, various types of reentry programs, and reentry program efficacy in the context of the study. Chapter 3 discusses the methodology employed in the present study.

Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
This research seeks to understand the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who have successfully managed to reenter society after their release. The United States has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (National Research Council, Pass, 2017). While most incarcerated individuals are eventually released into their communities, nearly three-quarters of them are reincarcerated again, within 3–5 years of release (Prescott et al., 2019). Government-funded programs assist prisoners with reentry into society, despite which recidivism rates have remained high (Katsiyannis et al., 2018). These persistently high recidivism rates indicate the need for further investigation into release programs as part of a larger effort to reduce recidivism (Lehmann et al., 2020). Specifically, research on the efficacy and efficiency of release and reintegration programs is necessary (Berghuis, 2018).
Rigorous research is required on recidivism and the efficacy of release programs (Berghuis, 2018; Bunting et al., 2019; Muhlhausen, 2018), as much of the existing research focuses on identification or classification, rather than program efficacy. As such, this gap in the literature merits study to improve our understanding of the programs and approaches that are successful in reducing recidivism (Bunting et al., 2019; Muhlhausen, 2018; Wolf & Blackwood, 2019). To address this gap in our understanding of prerelease reentry programs, the present qualitative study explored the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully reentered society regarding the influence of personality characteristics, demographic characteristics, and prerelease reentry program characteristics on their successful reintegration into society.
This chapter addresses the framework and design for the present qualitative study, including the research design and rationale, the justification for the research design and methodology, research methodology, population, sample and sampling procedures, and limitations and delimitations.
Research Design and Rationale
The following research question guided this study:
RQ: What skills and traits obtained through the Alternative Custody Program are the most effective at reducing recidivism for program participants?
The present study will use a qualitative method for its research design. Qualitative research focuses on exploring and describing the lived experiences of individuals or groups in the context of their culture or group dynamics (Silverman, 2020). The individualized results of qualitative research, while valuable in providing context and a more subjective view of a situation, cannot be generalized beyond the immediate contexts of the research. Hence, the qualitative approach provides a framework for presenting an empirical result in conjunction with the context-specific lived experiences provided by qualitative research. A qualitative approach will be used to collect information through semi-structured interviews with formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully reentered society shortly after their release. These interviews are vital for gathering firsthand information about the target population of the present research.
The research methods employed in this study inform the data collection method. The implementation of a qualitative design provides valuable insights into the participants’ lived experiences and enables the examination of additional perspectives. This approach supports the exploration of the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully reentered society regarding the personality and demographic characteristics needed to complete a prison-based reentry specialist program that lasts at least six months as well as the strengths and weaknesses of a prison-based reentry specialist program. This emphasis ensures a more comprehensive and exhaustive investigation of the study’s research questions.
A phenomenological research design will be used in this study. Phenomenological research focuses on the lived experiences of individuals, using their subjective reality as the basis for understanding the essence of a phenomenon (Ataro, 2020). Phenomenological research is appropriate for the current study because the lived experiences of formerly incarcerated individuals who successfully reentered society are invaluable in understanding the personal characteristics that ensure an individual’s success in a reentry program.
Role of the Researcher
The researcher has access to the site where the recruitment of participants will be facilitated. There are no underlying issues related to the setting or environment that disrupt the completion of this project. The researcher is responsible for coordinating with the reentry program organizers to gain access to the former attendees and will be the main instrument (Clark & Vealé, 2018). Further, the researcher will be responsible for conducting the interviews, transcribing audio recordings, and performing data analysis. There are no personal or professional relationships between the researcher and the participants. Researcher bias was controlled by practicing the strategy of bracketing (Beyer et al., 2020), which was accomplished by being mindful of potential preconceived ideas about reentry programs and recidivism.
Methodology
This section discusses the study’s methodological plan. The first subsection focuses on the logic behind participant selection. The second subsection explains the instrumentation. The third subsection includes a discussion of the recruitment, participation, and data collection procedures, while the last subsection addresses the data analysis plan.
Participant Selection Logic
The target population will include individuals who completed a prerelease reentry program in California and successfully reintegrated into society without recidivating for at least one year.
According to Creswell and Crewel (2017), a qualitative study should include at least 5-25 participants. Based on this, the study will seek to obtain a minimum of 5 participants, but recruitment will continue until saturation is met.
Purposeful sampling involves focusing recruitment efforts on individuals who are likely to know enough to provide meaningful data (Luciani et al., 2019). In criterion sampling, a form of purposeful sampling, those likely to have relevant knowledge are defined as individuals who meet the study inclusion criteria (Luciani et al., 2019).
To be considered for participation in this study, individuals need to meet the inclusion criteria. The participants will include individuals (a) who were formerly incarcerated for at least one year, (b) who completed the prerelease reentry program, and (c) who had not recidivated for at least one year after their release. After obtaining approval from Walden University’s IRB, participants will be recruited from a single prerelease reentry program to which the researcher has access. The ARI Works Advance Reentry Initiative will be contacted by the researcher, and the contact information of individuals who could be eligible to participate in this study will be obtained. The program maintains an email list of several hundred former participants from which a sample of a sufficient size will be recruited. A recruitment email will be sent to the first 20 individuals on the email list who completed the program at least one year before the data collection and had not been re-incarcerated. The recruitment email will describe the purpose and nature of the study, inclusion criteria, and an invitation to contact the researcher through email to ask questions, raise concerns, or express an interest in participating. The recruitment email will be sent to each potential participant to preserve the confidentiality of their identities. The informed consent form will be included with the email as a Microsoft Word attachment. As a sample of a sufficient size will not be recruited from the 20 initial recruitment email recipients, the recruitment email will be sent to another 20 members of the target population. This procedure will be repeated until a sample of sufficient size is recruited.
When potential participants contact the researcher to express their interest in participating, a time will be scheduled for a 10-minute preliminary phone call. During the phone call, the researcher will ask the participant to answer “yes” or “no” regarding whether they meet each of the inclusion criteria for the study. Potential participants who report not meeting one or more of the inclusion criteria will be thanked for their interest and told they were not eligible to participate. Potential participants who affirm meeting all the inclusion criteria will be asked to review the informed consent form. The researcher will review the terms of informed consent with them. Potential participants will be invited to ask any questions or express any concerns and once these are addressed, invited to sign and return the informed consent form. Thereafter, a time will be scheduled for a one-hour interview.
A sample size of 12 is deemed sufficient for this study, as data saturation is often met in qualitative studies with 12 individuals (Yin, 2017). Data saturation is the criterion used to determine sample sizes in qualitative studies, with saturation being met once additional data no longer provide novel results. In this study, participant recruitment and data collection will continue with the interviewing of at least 12 participants who meet the inclusion criteria, till the analysis of the data from the last two participants interviewed results in the identification of no new themes.
The research will interview former participants in a single reentry program in the state of California. This setting was selected because the researcher had access to the site and was able to collect relevant data from it. The decision to focus on one program will allow for specificity and validity. The qualitative data collection will take place over Skype.
Instrumentation
Semi-structured interviews will be used to gather qualitative data for the study. Interviews with the participants will be done via Skype and audio-recorded for future playback and to obtain accurate transcripts. Open-ended questions will be integrated into the interview process (Magaldi & Berler, 2020). Besides the audio recordings and transcripts of the interviews, field notes and observations will be made.
The interviews will be guided by a researcher-developed interview protocol (see Appendix). The protocol will begin with a demographics section to document the duration of the participants’ last incarceration, the time elapsed since release, level of education, gender, and ethnicity. The remainder of the interview protocol will consist of open-ended questions formulated to elicit data relevant to addressing the research questions. The open-ended questions were developed based on a review of the literature. The data collection instrument is sufficient for gathering data to address the research questions because it enables the researcher to maintain a focus on relevant topics while inviting the participants to answer in their own words and to have the freedom to ask probing follow-up questions whenever necessary (Magaldi & Berler, 2020).
Data Collection
The interviews will be scheduled at the participants’ convenience and will take approximately one hour each. The researcher will conduct the interviews through the online videoconference application Skype, and they will be audio-recorded using Skype’s integrated audio-recording feature. The researcher will email each participant a link to a private Skype call the day before the scheduled interview. The participants will be invited to join the videoconference call from a safe, comfortable location where they have privacy and few distractions.
At the beginning of the interviews, the researcher will greet the participants, review the terms of informed consent with the participants and invite them to raise any questions or concerns. The participants’ signatures will be obtained on the informed consent form earlier, at the time of the preliminary phone call, but the terms of informed consent will be reviewed again before beginning the interviews to ensure that the terms were fully understood and agreed to.
The researcher will then ask the participants’ permission to activate Skype’s audio-recording feature and begin the interviews. The interview questions will be asked in the order in which they appear in the researcher-developed interview protocol document (see Appendix ___). After all the questions are asked, the researcher will ask whether the participant would like to add anything. The audio recorder will then be deactivated. The member verification procedure will then be explained to the participants, as described in this chapter’s section on trustworthiness. The participants’ transcripts will be emailed to them for review and return with recommended corrections or amendments.
Data Analysis Plan
The audio-recorded interviews will be transcribed verbatim using automated transcription software. The researcher will verify the transcripts by reading and rereading them while listening to the recordings and making requisite corrections. During the researcher-verification process, the transcripts will be de-identified by removing any personally identifiable information (PII) and replacing the participants’ real names with an alphanumeric identifier (P1, P2, etc.). The transcripts will then be emailed to the participants for member verification. The researcher- and member-verified de-identified transcripts will be subsequently imported into the NVivo 12 computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software for inductive thematic analysis.
The first step will be reading the interview transcripts multiple times. The second step is to code the data, at which point the researcher assigns names or labels to specific portions of the transcripts to summarize their essence using a word or phrase. In the third step, the researcher will analyze all the codes to formulate categories and themes. This process will also be informed by the theoretical framework and research questions. The fourth step is the validation of themes by reverting to the source materials and cross-checking the viability of the categories and themes. The fifth step is the process of explaining the core meaning or essence of each theme through a short description. The final step is the development of a thick description that answers the qualitative research question, using the themes as the basis for the final output of the thematic analysis.
Issues of Trustworthiness
The qualitative data must be established as trustworthy. Issues of trustworthiness will be assessed using the bases of credibility, dependability, transferability, and conformability. These methods of quality control are discussed below.
Credibility is the extent to which the qualitative findings accurately reflect the experiences and perceptions of the participants (Soderberg et al., 2020). Member verification will be used to enhance the credibility of the study by requesting the participants to validate the interview transcripts. After transcription, a copy of the transcript will be emailed to the participant for review for accuracy. The participants will thus have the opportunity to suggest changes that would allow the data to reflect their experiences and perceptions more accurately.
Dependability refers to the extent to which the findings remain the same after the passage of some time, indicating stability or consistency (Carnot et al., 2020). To enhance the dependability of the study, the researcher noted all aberrations from the original research plan to provide an accurate account of the research process and the study context. Dependability is also enhanced by providing a detailed description of the study design in Chapter 3, which would enable the reader to replicate the study to verify the integrity of the procedures, if necessary.
Transferability refers to the extent to which findings can be used outside the research context in which the findings will be determined (Korstjens & Moser, 2018). It will be established by providing an in-depth description of the research context in San Diego, California. The assumptions made during the study will also be identified. These in-depth descriptions will enable other researchers to assess the value of the findings. The individual participant’s demographic characteristics are reported in Chapter 4 to the extent compatible with preserving the confidentiality of their identities so that the reader can assess transferability by comparing the sample in this study with other samples of interest.
Confirmability provides insights into the level of objectivity of the study (Nassaji, 2020). The researcher will enhance confirmability by implementing multiple validation procedures to ensure that the study is grounded in objectivity. Discrepant cases and negative findings will also be reported for transparency. In Chapter 4, direct quotes from the interviews will be provided as evidence for all findings, so that the reader can assess the confirmability independently by comparing samples of the original data with the researcher’s interpretations.
Ethical Procedures
To evaluate the ethical considerations for this study, the researcher will submit the study for approval by the IRB (Nichol et al., 2021). The IRB provides research legitimacy through a stringent ethical review process. No data can be collected until the researcher secures approval from the IRB.
To protect the identity of the participants and the confidentiality of their responses, all participants will be assigned a codename (P1, P2, etc.), and no organizational or program names will be mentioned in this study. The participants will be informed that all study materials will use codenames instead of legal names and that only the dissertation committee and the researcher will have access to the raw data.
Through the informed consent process, participants will be informed of the purpose and nature of the study. Participants will also be informed that participation in the study is entirely voluntary and that they have the right to withdraw at any time by sending the researcher an email stating, “I withdraw.” They will have the right to choose not to answer any question and to stop the interview at any time for any reason that they do not need to disclose. They will be assured that their identities will remain confidential. They will also be informed that the interviews will be audio-recorded. After providing this information, the participants will be allowed to ask questions. There are no significant risks associated with participation, meaning that the level of risk does not exceed that associated with the participant’s everyday activities. There will be no direct benefits to participants, but findings from this study may be used to aid members of the target population by recommending improvements to prerelease reentry programs to make them more effective in facilitating successful reintegration into society.
This will guarantee that the sampling method, although purposeful, is ethically considerate. Finally, the audio recordings of the interviews and the digital copies of the informed consent forms will be encrypted and stored on a flash drive, to which only the researcher has access, and locked in a secure facility to ensure the protection of sensitive and confidential information. The only way to identify which codename was assigned to which participant will be the inclusion of the codename in the file names of each participant’s audio recording and informed consent form.
Summary
This qualitative phenomenological study will explore the perceptions of formerly incarcerated individuals, who have not recidivated for at least one year, regarding the influence of prerelease reentry program characteristics, demographic characteristics, and personality characteristics on their successful reintegration into society.
This chapter provided an overview of the research methodology, including data collection and analysis procedures as well as a discussion of the limitations and delimitations, the population and sampling methods, and ethical considerations. The researcher described the steps taken to ensure the ethical conduct of the study by submitting the study for review by the IRB, maintaining the confidentiality of participants while establishing consent, and protecting the data.
The small sample size of the current study may limit the generalizability of the results. The study findings would be limited to the region from which the sample is drawn. The method may be replicated, however, and key themes may be matched for future studies on governance and equity of education in developmentally comparable locations. Chapter 4 presents the results of the study, which address the research questions described in Chapter 1. This is followed by a discussion of the conclusions and implications of this study.

References
Anderson, A., Nava, N. J., & Cortez, P. (2018). The conduits and barriers to reentry for formerly incarcerated individuals in San Bernardino. Journal of Prison Education and Reentry, 5(1), 2.
Ataro, G. (2020). Methods, methodological challenges and lesson learned from phenomenological study about OSCE experience: Overview of paradigm-driven qualitative approach in medical education. Annals of Medicine and Surgery, 49, 19–23.
Bagaric, M., Hunter, D., & Wolf, G. (2018). Technological incarceration and the end of the prison crisis. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 108(1), 73–135.
Berghuis, M. (2018). Reentry programs for adult male offender recidivism and reintegration: A systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(14), 4655–4676. https://doi.org/10.1177_0306624X18778448
Beyer, R., Krapp, M., & Manica, A. (2020). An empirical evaluation of bias correction methods for palaeoclimate simulations. Climate of the Past, 16(4), 1493–1508.
Boman, J. H., & Mowen, T. J. (2017). Building the ties that bind, breaking the ties that don’t. Criminology & Public Policy, 16(3), 753–774. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/1745-9133.12307
Bunn, R. (2018). Intersectional needs and reentry: Re-conceptualizing ‘multiple and complex needs’ post-release. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 19(3), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895817751828
Bunting, A. M., Staton, M., Winston, E., & Pangburn, K. (2019). Beyond the employment dichotomy: An examination of recidivism and days remaining in the community by post-release employment status. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 63(5), 712–733.
Caputo-Levine, D. (2018). Learning to be a ‘safe’ ex-con: Race, symbolic violence and discipline in prisoner re-entry. Contemporary Justice Review, 21(3), 233–253.
Carnot, M. L., Bernardino, J., Laranjeiro, N., & Gonçalo Oliveira, H. (2020). Applying text analytics for studying research trends in dependability. Entropy, 22(11), 1303.
Chikadzi, V. (2017). Challenges facing ex-offenders when reintegrating into mainstream society in Gauteng, South Africa. Social Work, 53(2), 288–300.
Cid, J., Pedrosa, A., Ibàñez, A., & Martí, J. (2021). Does the experience of imprisonment affect optimism about reentry? The Prison Journal, 101(1), 80–101.
Clark, K. R., & Vealé, B. L. (2018). Strategies to enhance data collection and analysis in qualitative research. Radiologic Technology, 89(5), 482CT–485CT.
Cooke, M. (2022). Is reentry really that easy? Ways the US has sabotaged successful reentry for the formerly incarcerated. Gleanings: A Journal of First-Year Student Writing, 27.
Couloute, L. (2018). Nowhere to go: Homelessness among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative.
Couloute, L., & Kopf, D. (2018). Out of prison & out of work: Unemployment among formerly incarcerated people. Prison Policy Initiative, 1–14.
Curci, A., Cabras, C., Lanciano, T., Soleti, E., & Raccis, C. (2017). What is over and above psychopathy? The role of ability emotional intelligence in predicting criminal behavior. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(1), 139–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2016.1196642
Doleac, J. L. (2019). Wrap-around services don’t improve prisoner reentry outcomes. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 38(2), 508–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22119
Drucker, E. (2019). Mass incarceration in the United States: From punishment to public health. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
Duke, B. (2018). A meta-analysis comparing educational attainment prior to incarceration and recidivism rates in relation to correctional education. Journal of Correctional Education (1974-), 69(1), 44–59.
Fahmy, C. (2021). First weeks out: Social support stability and health among formerly incarcerated men. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114141.
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2018). Inmate statistics. https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_gender.jsp
Fox, K. J. (2022). Desistance frameworks. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63, 101684.
Gill, C., & Wilson, D. B. (2016). Improving the success of reentry programs. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(3), 336–359. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0093854816682048
Greene, E., & Heilbrun, K. (2018). Wrightsman’s psychology and the legal system (9th ed.). Cengage Learning.
Grossi, L. M. (2017). Sexual offenders, violent offenders, and community reentry: Challenges and treatment considerations. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 34, 59–67.
Hopwood, S. (2019). Second looks & second chances. Cardozo L. Rev., 41, 83.
Hyatt, J. M., & Barnes, G. C. (2017). An experimental evaluation of the impact of intensive supervision on the recidivism of high-risk probationers. Crime & Delinquency, 63(1), 3–38.
Jaegers, L. A., Skinner, E., Conners, B., Hayes, C., West-Bruce, S., Vaughn, M. G., Smith, D. L., & Barney, K. F. (2020). Evaluation of the jail-based occupational therapy transition and integration services program for community reentry. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 74(3), 1–11.
Jayman, M., Ohl, M., Hughes, B., & Fox, P. (2019). Improving socio-emotional health for pupils in early secondary education with Pyramid: A school-based, early intervention model. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(1), 111–130.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Ingold, K. (2018). The advocacy coalition framework: An overview of the research program. In Theories of the policy process (pp. 135–171). Routledge.
Katsiyannis, A., Whitford, D. K., Zhang, D., & Gage, N. A. (2018). Adult recidivism in the United States: A meta-analysis 1994–2015. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 27(3), 686–696. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-017-0945-8
Kim, B., Gerber, J., & Kim, Y. (2018). Does the victim–offender relationship matter? Exploring the sentencing of female homicide offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(4), 898–914. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X16667573
Korstjens, I., & Moser, A. (2018). Series: Practical guidance to qualitative research. Part 4: Trustworthiness and publishing. European Journal of General Practice, 24(1), 120–124.
Lehmann, P. S., Pickett, J. T., & Denver, M. (2020). Public opinion on criminal records and employment: A test of competing theoretical models. Crime & Delinquency, 66(6–7), 995–1022.
Lockwood, S. K., Nally, J. M., & Taiping, H. (2017). Race, education, employment, and recidivism among offenders in the United States: An exploration of complex issues in the Indianapolis metropolitan area. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 12(2), 57–74. https://www.sascv.org/ijcjs/pdfs/lockwoodetalijcjs2016vol11issue1.pdf
Luciani, M., Campbell, K., Tschirhart, H., Ausili, D., & Jack, S. M. (2019). How to design a qualitative health research study. Part 1: Design and purposeful sampling considerations. Professioni infermieristiche, 72(2).
Magaldi, D., & Berler, M. (2020). Semi-structured interviews. Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences, 4825–4830.
Mallett, C. A., & Tedor, M. F. (2018). Juvenile delinquency: Pathways and prevention. Sage
Mississippi Clarion Ledger. (2017, September 3). Pre-release prison program prepares inmates for post-release success. https://www.clarionledger.com/story/news/local/2017/09/03/pre-release-prison-program-prepares-inmates-post-release-success/629629001/
Mizel, M. L., & Abrams, L. S. (2020). Practically emotional: Young men’s perspectives on what works in reentry programs. Journal of Social Service Research, 46(5), 658–670.
Moorer, R. (2021). Advancing social equity: Examining the impact of gender, place, and race on criminal justice administration in Alabama. Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 7(2), 283–292.
Muhlhausen, D. B. (2018, June 13). Research on returning offender programs and promising practices [Speech transcript]. National Institute of Justice. https://www.nij.gov/about/director/Pages/muhlhausen-research-on-returning-offender-programs-and-promising-practices.aspx
Nassaji, H. (2020). Good qualitative research. Language Teaching Research, 24(4), 427–431.
National Institute of Justice. (2017). Recidivism. https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/Pages/welcome.aspx
National Institute of Justice. (2019). Recidivism. https://www.nij.gov/topics/corrections/recidivism/pages/welcome.aspx
National Research Council. (2014). The growth of incarceration in the United States: Exploring causes and consequences. National Academies Press.
Newbury, J., Arseneault, L., Caspi, A., Moffitt, T. E., Odgers, C. L., & Fisher, H. L. (2018). Cumulative effects of neighborhood social adversity and personal crime victimization on adolescent psychotic experiences. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 44(2), 348–358.
Nichol, A. A., Mwaka, E. S., & Luyckx, V. A. (2021, May). Ethics in research: Relevance for nephrology. In Seminars in Nephrology (Vol. 41, No. 3, pp. 272–281). WB Saunders.
Pass, M. G. (2017). Masculinity and disproportionate risk of contact with the criminal justice system: Findings from a select sample of low-income Black males in New York City [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. City University of New York. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1926
Prescott, J. J., Pyle, B., & Starr, S. B. (2019). Understanding violent-crime recidivism. Notre Dame L. Rev., 95, 1643.
Pusch, N., & Holtfreter, K. (2018). Gender and risk assessment in juvenile offenders: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854817721720
Rade, C. B., Desmarais, S. L., & Burnette, J. L. (2017). An integrative theoretical model of public support for ex-offender reentry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 62(8), 2131–2152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624×17714110
Reisdorf, B. C., DeCook, J., Foster, M., Cobbina, J., & LaCourse, A. (2021). Digital reentry: Uses of and barriers to ICTs in the prisoner reentry process. Information, Communication & Society, 1–18.
Robinson, C., Armenta, M., Combs, A., Lamphere, M. L., Garza, G. J., Neary, J.,… Witkiewitz, K. (2019). Modulating affective experience and emotional intelligence with loving-kindness meditation and transcranial direct current stimulation: A pilot study. Social Neuroscience, 14(1), 10–25.
Rodriguez, B. M., Kim, J. L., & Kim, Y. (2017). Evaluation of prison pre-release facility program: What effect do these programs have on offender success in Texas? Critical Issues in Justice and Politics, 10(1), 55–70.
Roma, P., Mazza, C., Mammarella, S., Mantovani, B., Mandarelli, G., & Ferracuti, S. (2019). Faking-good behavior in self-favorable scales of the MMPI-2. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36(2), 250–258.
Runell, L. L. (2017). Identifying resistance pathways in a higher education program for formerly incarcerated individuals. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 61(8), 894–918.
Sabatier, P. A., & Jenkins-Smith, H. (1988). An advocacy coalition model of the policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences, 21(2/3), 129–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00136406
Sawyer, W., & Wagner, P. (2019). Mass incarceration: The whole pie. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2019.html
Schlager, M. D. (2018). Through the looking glass: Taking stock of offender reentry. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 34(1), 69–80. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1043986217750443
Schubert, C. A., Mulvey, E. P., Hawes, S. W., & Davis, M. (2018). Educational and employment patterns in serious adolescent offenders with mental health disorders: The importance of educational attainment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 45(11), 1660–1687. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818784330
Serrat, O. (2017). Knowledge solutions: Tools, methods, and approaches to drive organizational performance. Springer.
Sharma, N., Prakash, O., Sengar, K. S., Chaudhury, S., & Singh, A. R. (2015). The relation between emotional intelligence and criminal behavior: A study among convicted criminals. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 24(1), 54–58.
Siegel, L. J., & Welsh, B. C. (2014). Juvenile delinquency: The core. Cengage Learning.
Silverman, D. (2020). Qualitative research. Sage.
Simmons University. (2016, July 12). The challenges of prisoner re-entry into society. https://socialwork.simmons.edu/blog/Prisoner-Reentry/
Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., & Nosek, B. A. (2020). Credibility of preprints: An interdisciplinary survey of researchers. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201520.
Spiegel, S. N. (2020). The relevance of prison reentry programs for shaping female offender behavior [Doctoral dissertation]. University of Cincinnati.
Stamer, K. (2018). Increasing emotional intelligence in online RN-BSN students: Is it possible? Northwestern Review, 3(1), Article 8.
Sun, S., Crooks, N., Kemnitz, R., & Westergaard, R. P. (2018). Re-entry experiences of Black men living with HIV/AIDS after release from prison: Intersectionality and implications for care. Social Science & Medicine, 211(1), 78–86.
Taliaferro, W., & Pham, D. (2018). Incarceration to reentry: Education & training pathways in Ohio. Reconnecting justice in the states. Center for Law and Social Policy.
Tharshini, N., Ibrahim, F., Mohamad, M. S., & Zakaria, E. (2018). Challenges in re-entry among former inmates: A review. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(4), 970–979. https://doi.org/ 10.6007/ijarbss/v8-i4/4126
Tonry, M. (2018). Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 47). University of Chicago Press.
Treitler, P. C., & Angell, B. (2020). Prisoner re-entry. In Encyclopedia of Social Work.
Visher, C. A., Lattimore, P. K., Barrick, K., & Tueller, S. (2016). Evaluating the long-term effects of prisoner reentry services on recidivism: What types of services matter? Justice Quarterly, 34(1), 136–165. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/07418825.2015.1115539
Weaver, B. (2019). Understanding desistance: A critical review of theories of desistance. Psychology, Crime & Law, 25(6), 641–658.
Weible, C. M., Ingold, K., Nohrstedt, D., Henry, A. D., & Jenkins‐Smith, H. C. (2020). Sharpening advocacy coalitions. Policy Studies Journal, 48(4), 1054–1081.
Wilson, C. R., & Bastidas, E. P. (2017). Positive criminology. Corrections Today, 79(3), 34–40.
Wolf, A., & Blackwood, N. (2019). Recidivism rates in individuals receiving community sentences: A systematic review. PLOS One, 14(9), Article e0222495. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222495
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case study research and applications: Design and methods. Sage.
Yokotani, K., Takagi, G., & Wakashima, K. (2018). Advantages of virtual agents over clinical psychologists during comprehensive mental health interviews using a mixed methods design. Computers in Human Behavior, 85, 135–145.

Appendix – Questions
Q.1 What are the barriers you faced while entering society again?
Q.2 How was your mental health impacted by the program?
Q.3 How did the re-entry program help you?
Q.4 What skills or characteristics did you learn from re-entry programs?
Q.3 Do you think re-entry programs are effective in the prevention of re-offending?
IRB Questions
Student
Institution
Course
Instructor
Date

IRB Questions
3a. Please copy in the research question(s) that this study will address.
3a. RQ1: Which skills and traits obtained through the Alternative Custody Program are the most effective in reducing recidivism for program participants?
3b. Please briefly describe the analyses that will be performed for this study. You may paste in the abstract if you like.
3b. This study aims to find out what former detainees think about the features of prerelease reemergence programs that help people successfully reintegrate into society. It will likewise inspect the effect of segment and character attributes on their fruitful reintegration. Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews and analyzed through thematic analysis. The review desires to recognize factors that can be utilized to diminish the probability of reoffending and add to the improvement of more effective prerelease reappearance programs, prompting positive social change.
3c. Mark all of the data types that will be analyzed in this study.
Interviews
Focus group
Surveys/assessments that I administer
Public records or documents
Private records or documents (released by a school, clinic, business, or other entity)
Observations in public (streets, sidewalks, parks, open access online spaces)
Observations in non-public spaces (workplace, schools)
Other
3d. Provide the inclusion criteria for the interviewees.
The inclusion criteria for this study are:
Individuals who were formerly incarcerated for at least one year.
Individuals who completed a prerelease reentry program.
Individuals who had not recidivated for at least one year after their release.
The study will recruit at least 5 participants, with recruitment continuing until data saturation is reached, which is estimated to occur after interviewing at least 12 participants. Purposeful sampling will be used to recruit participants from a single prerelease reentry program in California, and potential participants will be contacted through email. After expressing interest in participating, potential participants will undergo a preliminary phone screening to ensure they meet the inclusion criteria. Data collection will take place through one-hour Skype interviews.
PILOTING AND VALIDATION
 
4a. Will you do any type of piloting or instrument validation prior to the main part of your study?
No.
Yes.
DATA FROM ORGANIZATIONAL OPERATIONS (OPTIONAL SECTION)
 
5a. Could conducting this study be considered part of the researcher’s job responsibilities?
5a. Conducting research is often considered to be a core responsibility of researchers, especially those working in academia or research institutions. As such, it is likely that conducting the study would be considered part of the researcher’s job responsibilities.
PARTNER ORGANIZATIONS
 
6a. Partner organizations can support a study in any of the following ways. Please mark all that apply.
Not applicable: there will be no partner organization providing any of the support roles listed below. My data/participants are accessible without permissions or help from an organization.
An organization will be distributing or displaying a study invitation on my behalf.
An organization will be providing me with access to its internal (non-public) documents, records, or other data.
An organization will be letting me recruit participants on site.
An organization will be providing me with space for data collection.
An organization will be providing me with contact info for potential participants.
An organization will be permitting me to use employees’ paid time for data collection.
An organization will provide funding for my study activities.
Other
6b. Specify each partner organization’s name and their email address.
6b. The partner Organization is Walden University and its email is IRB@waldenu.edu
6c. Please select the response that describes the researcher’s relationship to the partner organization(s).
Researcher has no formal role at the organization, other than being a guest researcher.
Researcher is an employee of the partner organization.
Researcher formerly held a position at the partner organization.
Other
RESEARCHER AFFILIATION
2a: Indicate your role at Walden University
Student
Faculty/staff member
DATA SOURCES
5a. Could conducting this study be considered part of the researcher’s job responsibilities?
No.
Yes.
I prefer to skip this section because it is clear to me that my study is completely separate from any organization’s operations.
6d: Does the partner organization have its own IRB (and/or other research approval system that is required to formally approve research)? Mark all that apply.
No, I confirm that my site does not have an internal IRB or other research approval system that is required to approve research at the site.
Yes, my site has its own IRB.
I am a Walden faculty/staff member using Walden data or participants so I will be obtaining approvals from both the IRB and the Research Data Permissions Committee. (Selection this option will result in this form being automatically forwarded to the RDC to request permission for the study.)
Yes, my site has an internal research approval system other than an IRB. (Describe below.)
RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES
8a. Indicate which recruitment procedure(s) will be used. (Mark all that apply).
MINORS AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
9a. Select the response that describes the role of minors in your study.
I understand that minors (people 17 and under) may not be unknowingly recruited into an adult research study so I will take reasonable measures* to ensure that I don’t accidentally recruit minors into my sample.
My research design specifically requires the participation of minors so I will design procedures for obtaining parent consent.
9b. So that we can provide guidance on how to protect vulnerable populations, please mark whether your research design specifically requires the recruitment of vulnerable adults in any of the categories below.
the researcher’s own patients
the researcher’s subordinates
the researcher’s students
individuals with an emotional disability
individuals with a mental disability
individuals in crisis (e.g., people in an emergency room)
residents of a facility such as a prison, nursing home, or rehab center
individuals that are less than fluent in English
individuals that are 65+
individuals with economic disadvantages
military personnel (either civilian or active duty)
none of the above– My sample might happen to include vulnerable adults (without my knowledge) but I will not be specifically seeking any individuals in these vulnerable categories to provide data for my study.
FOR VULNERABLE PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT: This is the last page to complete on this form.
NEXT STEPS: The IRB will be in touch within 10 business days with tailored directions regarding how to secure ethical approvals. In the meantime, you can start working on your next ethics form if you would like. Your responses indicate that your study requires data collection from vulnerable individuals. If the IRB confirms that this is appropriate, you would be using  and possibly  as well. You will receive confirmation of which additional forms and documentation are needed after the IRB reviews your responses in this form. If you have questions as you are working on these forms, please visit  or email IRB@waldenu.edu.

Your responses to the previous questions indicate that you are seeking approval for data collection that specifically requires recruitment of one or more vulnerable populations. To submit this application, please confirm.

 
Yes, I confirm and hereby submit this application.
No, I will need to redo this form to accurately describe my study.
Discussion Questions for Oral Defense
1. What is your study about and why did you choose this topic?
2. How did your research question evolve during the research process?
3. How did you design your study and why did you take this approach?
4. What were the main shortcomings and limitations of your design?
5. How did your findings relate to the existing literature?
6. How did your findings relate to the research question?
7. Were there any findings that surprised you?
8. What biases may exist in your research? 9. How can your research findings be put into practice?”
9. What is the difference between “Identifying a Research Gap” and “Creating a Research Gap” within a Lit Review?
!0. How can I discuss and interpret the results of questionnaire? Should I make graphs (knowing that I used graphs and tables when I analyses them)? please answer my questions

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.

Need this assignment or any other paper?

Click here and claim 25% off
Discount code SAVE25