"Working to
Build A Better Community"
"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
EX-OFFENDER HOUSING DISCRIMINATION
THE BIG PICTURE: REALITY IN THE U.S.
THE REALITY IN MASSACHUSETTS
Current
Re-entry Programs
Sample Re-entry Pathways
Recidivism
Homelessness
Social/Legal
Barriers
Personal Barriers
COMMUNITY RESOURCES IN
MASSACHUSETTS
PROGRAMS IN OTHER STATES
RECIDIVISM
▼OVERVIEW
/ ▼THE
ROLE OF SUPERVISION IN PREVENTING RECIDIVISM
/
▼COMPARATIVE
DATA ON HOUSING /
▼CONCLUSION
/ GLOSSARY
Overview
Post-release
re-arrest or re-incarceration is known as “recidivism.” There is no single
cause for recidivism. For any given individual who re-offends there are
likely many personal
and
social
factors that shape that particular individual’s decision to re-offend.
While the causes of recidivism certainly cannot be reduced to any one
factor, it is well-established that the more successfully an ex-offender
reintegrates into the community, the less likely that person is to re-commit
crime.
Housing is a fundamental aspect of ex-offender re-entry; having a home provides stability for the ex-offender and better enables the ex-offender to find a job and conduct all other aspects of his or her life. While there is no data available to directly correlate the lack of housing for ex-offenders with recidivism in Massachusetts (in fact, such a definitive analysis may not be feasible), we explore the research that supports the claim that housing and recidivism are associated below.
Data. According to a three-year study of inmates released from Massachusetts Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities in 1997, 20% were re-incarcerated after one year of release, an additional 14% after two years of release, and an additional 8% after three years of release, totaling a recidivism rate of 41% over the three-year period. The study looked at the correlation between recidivism and the following factors: type of offense, age at incarceration, race, gender, marital status, prior address and military discharge. The most common offenses for re-arrest were property offenses (stealing motor vehicles, possessing stolen property, burglary, larceny, etc.). The nature of these crimes (theft) indicates that recidivism might be due, at least in part, to financial difficulties ex-offenders face as they re-enter mainstream society. These financial difficulties may be attributable to difficulty finding a job, and jobs are much more difficult to obtain without housing. It is also noteworthy that the greatest risk of recidivism is during the first year post-release, when an ex-offender is most likely to be in need of a job and most desperate for stable housing. For more information about the role of employment in re-entry, please view the reports about ex-offender re-entry, CORI, and employment by clicking here.
|
According to a three-year study of inmates release from Massachusetts Department of Corrections facilities in 1997, 20% were re-incarcerated after one year of release, an additional 14% after two years of release, and an additional 8% after three years of release, totaling a recidivism rate of 41% over the three-year period. |
Another 1994 study of inmates across the U.S. shows that within three years of release, 51.8% of ex-offenders were back in prison. (Causes for re-imprisonment included new sentences, arrests for new crimes, and technical violations of terms of release.) The study concluded that recidivism is most strongly linked to arrest history. Those who have committed more crimes were also most likely to re-offend. While one could explain this result by assuming that those with longer arrest records were in fact “career criminals” somehow predisposed to re-offend, another plausible inference is that, where an ex-offender’s criminal history is known, those with longer arrest records will have greater difficulty in finding jobs and housing necessary to become productive law-abiding members of society.
Contributing factors. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, studies of recidivism report that "the amount of time inmates serve in prison does not increase or decrease the likelihood of recidivism, whether recidivism is measured as parole revocation, re-arrest, reconviction, or return to prison." This evidence suggests that an ex-offender’s experience of re-integration has great bearing on recidivism rates. It also suggests that declines in recidivism will not be achieved by allocating greater resources to incarceration but rather to re-integration.
Studies indicate that the majority of crimes committed by ex-offenders after their release from prison took place in the same state in which they were originally released. This suggests that re-entry programs in the states in which ex-offenders are released have a great interest in addressing the needs of ex-offenders at risk of re-offending. Research also indicates that ex-offenders predominantly return to a small subset of communities within states.
The state bears the consequences of unsuccessful re-integration and thus has a strong interest in facilitating the re-integration of ex-offenders upon their release from prison.
The Role of
Supervision in Preventing Recidivism
Re-entry data.
Of prisoners released from Massachusetts
Department of Corrections (DOC) facilities in 1999, 56% were released to the
streets with no terms attached to their release (i.e., with no post-release
supervision), 29% were released on parole, and 15% were released to another
authority. Given the likelihood that ex-offenders released in Massachusetts
will remain in the state, the high percentage of ex-offenders released to
the street without ongoing supervision raises concerns about the role of
post-release supervision in facilitating successful ex-offender re-entry.
Supervision and recidivism. The data collected by the Massachusetts DOC on the role of supervision in preventing recidivism is mixed. Of those inmates who were re-incarcerated within one year of release, 31% of those released on parole recidivated compared to 18% of those who finished up their sentence prior to release. Of those inmates who were re-convicted for a new offense, those on parole recidivated at a lower rate than those who had wrapped their prison terms. (39% compared to 53%). This data seems to indicate that those released on parole are more likely to recidivate on a parole violation whereas those released without parole are more likely to recidivate by committing a new offense. It is important to note, however, that parolees may be more likely to be captured in these statistics than re-offenders who are not supervised.
The DOC provides pre-release planning for all inmates,
regardless of whether they are on parole or completing their terms. Lisa
Jackson of DOC’s Re-Entry Unit observed that inmates released without
supervision are less likely to avail themselves of transitional support
programs, preferring to “stay under the radar.”
Future needs. The DOC is moving forward to follow up on the re-entry progress of ex-offenders who are released with no supervision. However, this goal is complicated because it is difficult to get the ex-offender to agree to participate and because an ex-offender may not readily admit to DOC if he or she is having problems.
Proponents of post-release supervision programs argue that supervision can help an ex-offender reintegrate into the community “by both monitoring the ex-inmate and requiring him or her to take advantage of the services he or she needs.”
In contrast to the perception that ex-offenders would be resistant to re-entry programs supported by the DOC, some ex-offenders perceive that the state does not adequately support their search for housing. An ex-offender interviewed at a non-profit community outreach program involved in assisting ex-offenders in their search for housing explained that in his view “Parole should be doing this work!” Ex-offender attitudes towards this and other aspects of re-entry vary. This variation highlights the importance of including ex-offenders in decision-making processes about re-entry programs and the allocation of re-entry program funds. Haywood Fennell of the Stanley Jones Clean Slate Project asserts that ex-offenders must “be at the table when decisions about re-entry are made” and suggests that this is necessary if those processes and programs are to have legitimacy among ex-offenders and be effective in achieving program aims.
Comparative Data on
Recidivism and Housing
Studies produced elsewhere in the world have linked ex-offenders’ lack of
housing to recidivism rates. One study noted that:
“The danger is that ex-offenders are thrown into a vicious circle, whereby a criminal record prevents them from accessing secure housing, their insecure housing situation precipitates re-offending, which further restricts their opportunity to access secure housing and increases the likelihood of homelessness.”
Similarly, discussion in the British parliament has referred to data showing that “prisoners released homeless are twice as likely to re-offend as those who have a home.”
Conclusion
Recidivism rates are higher in
the first year of re-entry, pointing out that stability, including housing,
employment and social services, play a key role in preventing re-offending.
Moreover, ex-offenders released from Massachusetts prisons are likely to
remain in the state. This highlights the fact that re-entry programs may be
an efficient and effective expenditure of state dollars. If funded, these
re-entry programs should focus on enabling ex-offenders to participate in
this work.