Barriers to Prisoners Reentry and Social Costs of Recidivism by Weiman - Article Example

‘Journal Article Critique: Barriers to Prisoners’ Reentry and Social Costs of Recidivism’ Overview The article, titled “Barriers to Prisoners’ Reentry into the Labor Market and the Social Costs of Recidivism”, sets out to evaluate the impact of a prison record/experience on former inmates’ opportunity of getting employed in high-end or low-end labor markets. The author puts forth arguments from the demand and supply sides of the labor market paradigm to demonstrate the barriers that former inmates’ face in their quest to reenter into the job market, as well as how these barriers contribute to increased cases of criminal recidivism. The author also demonstrates how some policies serve to harden low-level inmates into more serious offenders (Weiman, 2007). Clearly, the article demonstrates the importance for all stakeholders to embrace effective reentry programs for former inmates, with the view to enabling them find employment and hence reduce recidivism because the labor market is integral to the successful integration of released inmates into their families and communities. Description of the Research Problem The underlying research problem which the author attempts to address is the misalignment between current reentry policies and practices as illustrated within the United States criminal justice system and the opportunities available for former inmates to reenter into the labor market, hence minimizing recidivism (Weiman, 2007). Research Methodology The author does not conduct a primary research but rather uses primary sources (mostly surveys) to conduct a quantitative empirical analysis of the barriers to prisoners’ reentry into the labor system as well as the social costs of recidivism. Contributions to the Literature This article makes important contributions to existing literature. Apart from clearly analyzing the problems that affect former inmates as they attempt to get absorbed into the labor market, the article provides a breakdown of total social costs of recidivism to include (1) additional harm from post-release activity, (2) administrative costs associated with subsequent activity due to recidivism, (3) years of life lost during imprisonment, (4) disruptions to and burdens on families, (5) attrition of neighborhood social capital, (6) political estrangement, and (7) distrust of public authority (Weiman, 2007). Another important contribution is that the War on Drugs policies have done more harm than good, particularly in turning an increasing number of small-time drug offenders into repeat hardcore offenders. This view has been reinforced by Krontiris and Walter (2010), who argue that the 1973 Rockefeller Drug Laws have helped to not only fuel an unprecedented growth of individuals imprisoned in the U.S., but also to harden small-time offenders. Still, the author rejects the claim made by a number of scholars that a prison record is a trajectory to secondary labor market; on the contrary, the author suggests that a previous criminal record or experience acts as “a profound institutional barrier that prevents those on the socioeconomic margin from getting their foot in the doors that lead out of the secondary labor market” (Weiman, 2007 p. 597). This view receives support from Wikoff et al (2012), who suggest that many employers in the formal labor market view a prison record as an end rather than a means to a career prospect for inmates, irrespective of level of educational achievement. Article Critique As already mentioned, the researcher relied on conducting an empirical analysis on other primary sources to investigate the topic. A more befitting method, however, would have been for the researcher to conduct an original primary research with all the parameters needed not only to enable him focus on specific issues of interest, but also achieve a higher level of control over how the information was to be gathered to answer the study’s primary objectives. Overreliance on secondary sources of information often leads to biased and invalid results. The author’s approach to supporting the thesis did make some sense, though he failed to effectively demonstrate how the problems in supply and demand sides of the labor market were related to instances of recidivism and the policies already put in place to fight recidivism. Indeed, although the article is robust in its attempt to demonstrate how problems in supply and demand sides of the labor market complicate issues for released prisoners as far as securing employment is concerned, it is weak in connecting these problems of reentry to policies that have already been put in place by various agencies to ensure successful reentry. In their seminal work on prisoner reentry process, Bahr et al (2005) demonstrate how problems within the supply side of the labor market (e.g., deficits and challenges in behavior, lack of educational background and work experience, and negative stereotyping by neighbors and community) could be successfully dealt with by exposing inmates pending release to induction programs to prepare them morally and psychologically on what they are to experience once released back into the society. To better prepare prisoners in the context of these challenges, Gottschall & Armour (2011) advocate for local- and state-level corroboration, effective offender risk assessment, and graduated responses to criminal activity, whereas Pinard (2010) emphasizes the development and implementation of correctional facility reentry units that will permit returning offenders to better prepare for release close to their communities. Similarly, the author illustrates how supply side problems to the labor market, including employers’ negative reactions to prison record and complex legal environment requiring firms not to employ people with prison records, continue to negatively influence chances for released prisoners to get employment, hence increasing recidivism (Weiman, 2007). However, the author fails to connect these problems not only to their effects on recidivism, but also to the alternatives available to deal with them. Luther et al (2011) acknowledge that many small-time offenders are driven back into crime by a society that is so unresponsive to their needs, including the need to be employed. On his part, Pager (2006) opines that crime and recidivism are social constructs fueled by the same processes and systems that have been put in place to eliminate them. For example, while some correctional policies stress the importance for society to absorb released inmates into the labor market, other policies instruct managers not to entrust former inmates with particular jobs in the formal sector, implying that former prisoners will forever be relegated to low-skilled labor market (Gottschall & Armour, 2011; Weiman, 2007). Such an approach obviously leads to recidivism. Moving on, it is clear that the researcher employed the methods for doing secondary research correctively. The researcher, in particular, acknowledges the sources of his information and also attempts to explain what he did with the data in the process of analysis. He also rightly separates the sources as surveys, audit reports and agency data, among others. The researcher has ably followed the traditions for doing secondary research. However, he fails to elaborate where he got the sources from as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria used. Conclusion Overall, the article is an eye-opener in terms of evaluating the problems that act as barriers to inmates’ reentry into the labor market from the demand as well as supply domains of the equilibrium. References Bahr, S.J., Armstrong, A.H., Gibbs, B.G., Harris, P.E., & Fisher, J.K.F. (2005). The reentry process: How parolees adjust to release from prison. A Journal of Theory, Research & Practice about Men as Fathers, 3(3), 243-265. Gottschall, J., & Armour, M. (2011). Second chance: Establishing a reentry program in the northern district of Illinois. DePaul Journal for Social Justice, 5(1), 31-69. Luther, J.B., Reichert, E.S., Holloway, E.D., Roth, A.M., & Aaisma, M.C. (2011). An exploration of community reentry needs and services for prisoners: A focus on care to limit return to return high-risk behavior. Aids Patient Care and STDs, 25(8), 465-481. Krontiris, K., & Walter, C. (2010). Rethinking prisoner reentry in Harlem. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 16(1), 73-84. Pager, D. (2006). Evidence-based polices for successful prisoner reentry. Criminology & Public Policy, 5(3), 505-514. Pinard, M. (2010), Reflections and perspectives on reentry and collateral consequences. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100(3), 1213-1224. Weiman, D.F. (2007). Barriers to prisoners’ reentry into the labor market and the social costs of recidivism. Social Research, 74(2), 575-611. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA168397567&v=2.1&u=lirn99776&it=r&p=GPS&sw=w Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D.M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among participants of a reentry program for prisoners released without supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289-299. Read More