"Working to Build A Better Community"

HOME | MISSION | ABOUT US | PROJECTS | SCHOLARS | LINKS | CONTACT US

"The probability that we may fail in the struggle ought not deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just."
~ Abraham Lincoln

CORI &
EX-OFFENDERS

EX-OFFENDER HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
THE BIG PICTURE: REALITY IN THE U.S.
Prison Information
Addiction and Public Health
Impact on Families

THE REALITY IN MASSACHUSETTS

THE LAW IN MASSACHUSETTS

COMMUNITY RESOURCES IN MASSACHUSETTS

PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES

REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS 

HOW YOU CAN HELP

THE BIG PICTURE: REALITY IN THE U.S.
▼PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX / ▼HISTORY / ▼PRISONS ARE BIG BUSINESS / ▼PRIVATIZATION OF PRISONS / ▼RESPONSE TO PRISONER RE-ENTRY / GLOSSARY

We begin our discussion of ex-offenders’ access to housing upon re-entry with a discussion of what has been termed “the prison industrial complex.”  As paradoxical as this may at first seem, this perspective sheds light on the broad political and economic landscape that shapes the discussion of ex-offender re-entry and the struggle for housing.  The analysis of the prison industrial complex that follows suggests that public safety concerns may perpetuate a status quo in which large numbers of Americans are warehoused in prisons.  A concern with public safety may also drive public and private resource investment in the building of jails while much needed support for ex-offender re-entry is under-funded.

PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Beginning in the mid-1970’s, American incarceration rates began to climb.  Today, over two million people are incarcerated in United States prisons, the largest prison system in the world.  Although the U.S. population is five percent of the world, the U.S. incarcerates 25% of the world’s prisoners.  The statistics reflect the disproportionate number of Americans imprisoned compared to other Western democracies.  According to the American Bar Association, based on current incarceration rates, one in every fifteen people who were born in this country in 2001 will spend some time in prison. 

Politicians often claim that the justification for this increase, and consequently the growth in the number of prisons being built, is the fight against crime.  This is evidenced by the consistency of legislation from Democrats and Republicans alike, in regard to public safety and hard-on-crime policies.  Political and social climates focus on public safety and matters of crime and justice.  While the goal of public safety is important, there is evidence that public feelings of fear and vulnerability are being reinforced by “tough on crime” stances. 

It is difficult for those who are not already involved in ex-offender re-entry to shift from a focus on public safety to the perspective of the ex-offender re-entering society after completing his or her prison sentence.  It is however critical to consider how public safety interests are not served well by post-release policies that deprive ex-offenders of necessary access to re-entry support services.

How do politics and economics drive prison construction and the investment of greater resources in prisons than in re-entry services?  The construction of new prisons is a very profitable venture.  The persons, corporations, and industries that benefit from those interests are in some ways also capitalizing on society’s fear of crime.  During the 1980’s and 1990’s, approximately 1,000 new U.S. prisons and jails were built.  The ugly underbelly of new prison construction is the fact that increased prisons ultimately produce increasing numbers of ex-offenders.  Again, the interests that drive the production of new prisons seem to have very little interest in facilitating the process of prisoner re-entry for ex-offenders who have served their time.

▲Top of Page

Walpole Prison

History
Fear of crime has been used by politicians to attract voters as well as to spur the growth of the prison system.  There is evidence that attitudes towards crime were less harsh concerning the punishment of those who broke the law in the 1970s than in succeeding decades.  In 1970, Congress voted to eliminate most federal mandatory-minimum sentences for drug offenders, a move that experts have associated with a softening of harsh retributive attitudes towards punishing criminals.  Likewise, at the time, drug addiction was considered a health problem calling for therapeutic intervention more than a criminal offense requiring jail time. 

However, in January of 1973, the governor of New York declared that every drug dealer would be punished with a mandatory prison sentence of life without parole.  Many politicians began to use fear of crime and public safety to propel themselves into office and labeled their opponents as being “soft on crime.”  Almost a decade later, coinciding with the crack epidemic of the 1980’s, President Reagan launched the War on Drugs.  This national campaign introduced harsh new drug laws that justified the criminalization of the poor and people of color.  The prison industry flourished as a result. To read more about the links between the prison system and the economy, please click here.

▲Top of Page

Prisons are Big Business
Prisons are often built in rural communities where economic downturns have had great impact.  The building of new prisons creates a flow of capital to these economically depressed regions.  The actual construction of a prison facility pulls in state money for local construction and the hiring of service providers.  Once prisons are built, they create job opportunities for area residents.  In addition, prisons are said to be “recession-proof,” since levels of prison staff and inmates often increase during economic declines.

Prisons not only help to enhance local economies, but they also increase the profits of big businesses.  For example, phone companies capitalize on the fact that prisoners have no provider options and are often forced to make expensive collect calls from prison.  A single prison pay phone can generate up to $15,000 a year.  As prisons continue to move capital and create profit as they enter into health care, food-service, building maintenance and security contracts the spotlight is less on the prisoner and his or her ability to ‘reform’ and more on the services and jobs that go into maintaining his or her incarceration.  Therefore, there is little to no attention paid to the process of re-integration.  Prison administrations are generally not concerned with what happens to people after they are discharged.  The ex-offender is not provided with support for a housing search prior to release, partly because state prisons have little contact with housing authorities, which mostly exist within urban communities while prisons are often located in more remote areas.  Ex-offenders, then, must fend for themselves upon release, which means finding shelter, staying with family if possible, or re-offending and landing back in jail.  Without support services, re-offending becomes a very viable possibility.  It is estimated that in Massachusetts “42% of inmates discharged from prison on parole … return to prison or jail for either a violation of release conditions or for committing a new crime.”  For the full text of Returning Inmates: Closing the Public Safety Gap, click here.

▲Top of Page

Privatization of Prisons
History.  The privatization of prisons and the prison-building boom in the 1980s corresponded to the privatization of other public services under the Reagan and Bush administrations.  Privatization has served as yet another means of producing prison-based profit.  The innovation of private prisons has also been justified as a means of addressing the problem of overcrowding in prisons that are state run.  Scholars attribute the popularity of privately owned prisons to the profits that they yield based on the increasing numbers of prisoners they are able to accept into the corrections system.  Critics have noted that the innovation of privatized prisons has created a new form of subsidized housing and an ongoing supply of tenants.  The creation and existence of prison-based housing creates the need for tenants to fill prison cells.  This goal may be in tension with a view of corrections work that focuses on both punishment as well as reform.  

Effects.  Privatizing prisons also has a pernicious effect on individual prisoners, which likely has a negative impact on their re-entry into society after serving their sentences.  Private-prison cells in southern and southwestern states operate under a “rent-a-cell” system.  Private prisons employ “bed brokers” who take on prisoners coming from overcrowded, out-of-state prisons and facilitate the transfer of these prisoners to their own local sites.  Those prisons then charge a daily rate for each inmate they house to the initial prison that housed the offender.  This transfer of prisoners to and from out-of-state facilities is detrimental to the ability of prisoners to maintain contact with their families and other resources they may have in their resident state.  Upon release, prisoners involved in this “trafficking” are transported back to their home state where local release protocol is followed.  

The prison industry has utilized the distance between inmates’ families and prisons' locations to create another money-making endeavor through organizing various forms of transportation.  The distance not only has a detrimental effect on the prisoner’s support system, as it becomes nearly impossible for families to visit, but also the soon-to-be released offender has no connection with the parole board in his or her home state, further disconnecting him or her from social services.  Re-entry and re-integration become challenges that the ex-offender must undertake on his or her own. 

▲Top of Page

Response to Prisoner Re-entry
Prison Release Today.  While the prison industry attempts to maintain occupancy rates in order to yield higher profit margins and utilize prison labor, many more ex-offenders were being released in 2002 than in prior years.  In 2002, about 600,000 individuals - approximately 1,600 a day – were released from state and federal prisons.  While more individuals are being released from prison, however, a higher percentage of Americans are spending time in jail and for longer periods.  The average time an inmate serves in prison in the U.S. has “increased from 22 months in 1990 to 28 months in 1998.”  Fewer prisoners are being released through parole boards (39% in 1990 and 26% in 1998) which means that more prisoners are being released after “maxing out” their time in prison and reaching their mandatory release dates (29% in 1990 and 40% in 1998).  In addition, there are fewer pre-release job-training or educational programs to assist ex-offenders in preparing for release.  The lack of these programs further exacerbates the ex-offender’s ability to re-enter society.  The fact that employment and housing are intrinsically linked for the ex-offender during re-entry makes it extremely difficult for ex-offenders to become independent and productive members of society.

Re-entry efforts and challenges.  Problems that the issues discussed here pose for prisoners themselves have been recently acknowledged at national and state levels.  During fiscal year 2001, Congress appropriated $100 million to fund various partnerships to address prisoner re-entry; the Council of State Governments created a Re-entry Policy Council; and the American Bar Association established a Task Force on Collateral Sanction to assess the legal barriers ex-offenders face upon release.  Legislators appear to be looking beyond the profit margin that undergirds the prison industrial complex and are recognizing the inevitable fact that the majority of incarcerated individuals will be released.  Legislators must respond to their constituents’ desires for public safety.  Doing so involves establishing stable housing, job-training programs, and other social services to assist an ex-offender’s re-entry.   

The question of how people end up in prison and the mandatory-minimum sentencing laws remain controversial.  Amidst the controversy, however, there appears to be a growing consensus among policy makers that issues of ex-offender re-entry must be addressed.  This consensus is based on perceptions that, if prison expansion has been justified in the name of controlling and stemming crime, the work of preventing crime must also address the issue of ex-offender re-entry.  The high rates of parole violations and recidivism have been linked to a lack of available re-entry services as well as an increase in legislative barriers that ex-offenders face upon release.  In 1980, 17% of incoming state prisoners were parole violators while in 1999, 35% were violators returning to prison.  There are many possible reasons for the increase in recidivism; yet, the focus on prisons as profit-driven entities, the dearth of pre-release programs, and the lack of resources and services for ex-offenders can support the conclusion that stability (i.e., housing, employment, support) is necessary for an ex-offender to have a better chance at successful re-entry.

▲Top of Page