Challenges of Released Fathers Analysis Essay

Introduction

There are many challenges related to reentry from correctional facilities. These challenges are not only momentous in scale but also complex to handle. Reentry refers to the process of transiting from prison into the community in this context and throughout the entire paper. In the US alone, correctional facilities admit and release over twelve million people annually. Of particular interest are the barriers that fathers encounter when they make reentrance from jail. Statistics show that fathers encounter uphill tasks of rebuilding their lives after incarceration (Albanes, 2012). Some of the challenges that they encounter include inability to secure employment opportunities and mental health illnesses. This paper seeks to explain the barriers that fathers encounter upon their release. It also seeks to explore various ways that correctional facilities can reduce the barriers especially for fathers. This is in lieu of the fact that fathers are in most cases the breadwinners of their households. To that end, the paper will provide recommendations that will enable correctional facilities to come up with programs aimed at minimizing these apparent challenges. The rationale is that correctional systems have become responsive to the needs of people released from jails.

Overview and Description of Research Problem

At the outset, it is imperative to recognize that majority of incarcerated people are men. In the US, over 69 percent of the jailed people are men. Of these, 76 percent are fathers. Undoubtedly, fathers play a significant role in the society and in their households. According to Weiman (2007), the society has defined gender roles in a way that men are always considered the breadwinners. Not only is their presence important in their families but also in the society. As such, families and societies risk losing productive members to jails. Being in jail threaten to breakup families especially when the father was the major breadwinner. In fact, statistics show that households whose fathers are in jail have an 85 percent chance of breaking up (Weiman, 2007). To this end, it is vital to pinpoint that many fathers risk a reentry into broken homes that may cause even more distress and agony. This is not only disturbing for them but also detrimental for their chances of making a positive reentrance into the society.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that like all prisoners, fathers experience mental related illnesses, drug and substance abuse and recidivism. This is among many other challenges that fathers face when attempting to rebuild their lives after incarceration. While it is almost true to suppose that many fathers had households prior to their incarceration, it is equally true that most of them end up without housing facilities upon their release. The rationale is that many of them cannot access an employment opportunity owing to their criminal records. As such, many of them end up living with relatives and family members. This distressing for many households and may not be sustainable. According to Weiman (2007), the manner in which prisoners reenter the society determines their propensity to repeat an offense and probably go back to prison. In fact, one out of every five (20 percent) prisoners released in jail find themselves back in prison soon after their release. Due to the increase of stressors that they encounter, most fathers out of prison have little if any resistance to substance abuse. As such, it is important for correctional facilities to ensure that they design a program that will reduce barriers that fathers face when making a reentry into the mainstream society. The research problem therefore aims at providing guidelines and recommendations that correctional facilities may use in an attempt to minimize challenges faced by the fathers upon reentry. This is in consideration of the fact that there is an apparent need for them to set up an effective reentry program. Geraghty (2004) asserts that these programs should enhance positive outcomes and ensure that the fathers cope with other challenges that they may face when out of prison.

Literature Review

From the onset, the lives of all people who find themselves in the cycle of being in and out of jail are unstable at their very best. From chronic substance abuse to mental health related illnesses, these realities are part of the lives of prisoners attempting to make a reentry into the community (Geraghty, 2004). In US, over three quarters (79 percent) of incarcerated people serve jail terms of less than two months (Neubauer, 2008). This implies that correctional facilities lack capacity or at the very least have no time to deal with the deep-rooted issues that could impede the ability of a prisoner to make a successful entry into the mainstream society. Weiman (2007) articulates that many communities lack organizations and programs that ensure that the released prisoners have a chance of achieving positive reentry outcomes. Hence, correctional systems lack a developed curriculum and program that prisoners ought to follow when reentering the societies (Weiman, 2007). Being in jail is in itself very traumatizing implying that many prisoners suffer from mental illnesses that might be mild or severe. According to Neubauer (2008), it is imperative to make a follow up on the lives of the released prisoners to avert the risk of recidivism.

Geraghty (2004) asserts that many prison and jail administrators have been ignorant about helping prisoners to transit from incarceration to community. The rationale is that many correctional facilities concentrate their efforts on taking care of prisoners while in jail and ensuring that their release is timely in line with the sentence. Although inmates’ reentry into the mainstream society was not a major concern for the correctional systems in previous decades, there has been a surge in awareness about the impacts of reentry (Lilly et al., 2011). Consequently, various correctional facilities have identified the need to ensure that every inmate is able to make a successful reentry (Weiman, 2007). This involves designing programs that suit the needs of the prisoners (Neubauer, 2008). While the offenses committed by different inmates vary greatly, it is important to design a program that target specific prisoners. For instance, a prisoner released from jail after committing a felony will encounter momentous challenges when transiting from jail to community. People might raise concerns about public safety. This is contrary to other prisoners who have committed petty crimes and misdemeanors. To that end, Lilly et al. (2011) say that correctional facilities ought to come up with programs that address specific issues affecting the inmates as opposed to a more generalized program that caters for the problem of all inmates.

Classifying inmates in line with crime committed is an important way of ensuring that inmates receive a therapy that fits their mental stressors (Luther et al., 2011). However, other characteristics of prisoners ought to guide correctional systems during the process of designing a reentry program for inmates. At the outset, gender is a characteristic that should help in classification of prisoners across the world. The roles that different genders play in the society are varied and as such, the programs should take into consideration the fact that such categories of the society as mothers and fathers should be the entry points for designing an effective program (Weiman, 2007). Luther et al. (2011) point out that the society has bestowed roles and responsibilities on both genders. Fathers in particular face unparalleled challenges owing to the roles they play in their families and households. Primarily, fathers experience family instabilities due to their absence. According to statistics, fathers whose children were less than fourteen years during the time of incarceration face huge challenges that include lack of acceptance from their children (Gottschall & Armour, 2011). Besides, family experiences many challenges related to reintegrating a member of the same from jail. Fathers also face a barrier to employment opportunities that could tear up their families even more. The rationale is that many public and private institutions have reservations of hiring people who have criminal records (Krontiris & Walter, 2010).

Due to the intensity of the problems and challenges that are specific to fathers who intend to make a reentry, many of them end up abusing alcohol and other substances. This does not only escalate the problem of reentrance but also diminish the few chances they had of entering the labor market. According to Krontiris & Walter (2010), it is important to address the barriers associated with reentry in a holistic manner. Programs aimed at ensuring that the reentry process of the fathers achieves positive outcomes by involving their families, relatives, organizations, private sector and public institutions. All the stakeholders ought to reflect in the program. This will ensure that the fathers are able to continue with their lives and are reintegrated into their community (Gottschall & Armour, 2011). It is worth mentioning that increase in awareness about the reentry process across the entire society has been the major point of reference for many programs. Gottschall & Armour (2011) say that a myriad of programs, organizations and individuals that have come up in support of reentry programs especially for prisoners that have households. This is encouraging for correctional facilities that have tailored their reentry programs to match the emotional, physical and psychological needs of inmates.

Being a Father from Behind Bars

Being a father from behind the bars is not an easy task even for the most ‘loved’ dads in the society (Mays & Winfree, 2009). It is important to underscore various facts that await fathers upon their release. First, studies have shown that prisoners who retain connection with their families stand a better chance of making a successful reentry than prisoners who do not retain the connection (Mays & Winfree, 2009). While that is the case, it is critical to point out that many families that have had their fathers incarcerated have a relatively low chance of maintaining the connection (Luther et al., 2011). In other words, statistics show that 57 percent of fathers in jail confess that they have never had their children visit them in custody (Mays & Winfree, 2009). Hence, it becomes difficult not only for the father but also for the rest of the household to maintain the familial relationship that was present before the imprisonment. The studies therefore reveal a staggering reality that 57 percent of the inmates making a reentry will not experience successful reintegration into the society.

Further, it is important to highlight that the impact of an incarcerated father on the children is negative. Studies indicate that most violent criminals are males who were raised without fathers (Krontiris & Walter, 2010). In addition, over ten million children in US have had at least one of their parents jailed for a long jail term. As such, a father from behind bars experiences pressure about their children’s welfare. This is not consoling enough owing to the fact that children who grew up when their father was in jail have a high likelihood of perpetuating the same incarceration cycle. In addition, households that depended on the father as the main breadwinner prior to incarceration have a high risk of disintegrating due to the increase of family stressors (Pager, 2006). For example, a father incarcerated for not less than five years and was the breadwinner will experience many challenges when returning home including poor child development, family breakup and mental illness. At this point, the father may not be able to seek for a decent employment opportunity, rehabilitate his children and mend the family fabric. This may lead to depression and other mental conditions that could affect the physical abilities of the father (Singh, 2008). This implies that fathers encounter insurmountable barriers when attempting to gain acceptance in the mainstream society.

Family, Community, and Non-Profit Organizations’ Support

In the recent years, there has been a rise in the number of programs targeting reentry process of inmates (Krontiris & Walter, 2010). At the outset, it is imperative to ensure that families of the inmates are central in ensuring a successful reentry into the mainstream society. The role of the family is very important in the process owing to its position in the entire society (Singh, 2008). The family plays the role of socializing new members of the society. Besides, family is the social institution that experiences most impacts of incarceration. To that end, many reentry programs target the family as the main entry point when reducing barriers that limit successful reentry.

Additionally, families ensure that the inmates receive much needed emotional, psychological and physical support. In fact, Krontiris & Walter (2010) articulate that various aspects of reentry can only work in the context of the family. Particularly, studies show that over 80% of prisoners have no housing facilities after their release and as such, many of them reside with their relatives and family members (Singh, 2008). Besides, Singh (2008) argues that all reentry programs for fathers ought to involve the family in the sense that the family should be the first to undergo therapy. This way, the family plays the prime role of ensuring that the inmate does not encounter instances of discrimination and stigmatization within the neighborhood. It is also imperative for the families to get integrated into the reentry programs to remedy the effects of incarceration on the members of the family.

While family is the most important institution that a reentry program ought to target, it is equally important to elucidate that family exists in a community. As such, it is important to have a program that targets the community in order to address such issues as discrimination and stigmatization. Besides, it is within a community that labeling of deviants occurs. This implies that lack of community involvement may lead to lack of acceptance and ultimately, negative outcomes. For instance, a person that had been incarcerated for major crimes such as homicide will experience more challenges in a community than in the family context. According to sociologists, criminals tend to ‘prove people right’ due to the process of labeling elucidated by Caesar Lombroso (Krontiris & Walter, 2010). As such, if the community does not participate in the program, there is an apparent risk of the released prisoner to go back to their criminal activities in an attempt to prove the community right. Lombroso pointed out that when a society labels an individual a deviant, chances are that he or she will turn out to be a criminal in future (Gottschall & Armour, 2011). To avert the risk of labeling and eventual recidivism, it is important to underscore the role of the community and neighborhood in the entire reentry program.

Due to the severity of the effects of reentry process, numerous nonprofit organizations have emerged to address the problem. In fact, Albanes (2012) says that nonprofit organizations have played an important role of ensuring that the released inmates are able to cope with realities of life. Particularly, they support correctional facilities to set up programs that help in reducing the barriers that inmates face during the reentry process. It is important to mention that various nonprofit organizations have programmed their services to suit the needs of a specific social group. Organizations such as National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) concentrate their efforts on helping fathers to make a successful reentry into the society by ensuring that the fathers receive all possible and available support (Gottschall & Armour, 2011). They have programs tailored for fathers who are intending to reenter the society. To that end, it is important to ensure that families, communities and nonprofit organizations are a part of all reentry programs especially those that target fathers.

Barriers to Employment and the Labor Market

One of the major challenges for fathers making reentry into the community is accessing an employment opportunity (Weiman, 2007). At the outset, modern business environment dictates that employees ought to have high ethical and moral standings. In other words, a criminal record acts as a counterforce for fathers from behind bars (Weiman, 2007). The labor market has already profiled the characteristics of suitable employees for all markets. Indeed, Bernstein & Ellen (2000) say that such characteristics as incarceration reduce the chances of accessing a decent job in a considerable way. The rationale is many corporate organizations aim at ensuring that their workforce reflects integrity and decency (Irwin, 1985). Besides, other aspects of the released father may complicate the situation even farther. For instance, in a labor market that is typical discrimination against race, fathers may encounter an uphill task to secure a job. The reason is that a released father may be black in a labor market that discriminates against blacks (Pinard, 2010). Additionally, the private sector has the main objective of maximizing on profits and reducing expenses especially those associated with labor.

Other external factors could act as barriers to employment in the contemporary labor market. They include high rates of unemployment that has made many people especially in the US and Europe to lack employment opportunities (Pinard, 2010). This does not only reduce the possibilities of the released father of getting a decent job but also deprives him a competitive edge over other job seekers (Albanes, 2012). Fathers who have served a lengthy jail term may find that their skills have become redundant. Increased pace of technological change requires that every employee ought to upgrade his or her skills periodically. Upon release therefore, fathers encounter many barriers that act against their efforts. Worse still, statistics show that over 40% of male inmates in US jails have no competitive skills that employers are looking for in the job market (Bernstein & Ellen, 2000). Pinard (2010) asserts that it is important to underscore the fact that private sector has not reviewed its laws and regulations regarding the potential employment opportunities for incarcerated members of the society. As such, it is in the best interest of the incarcerated fathers for correctional systems to synergize and collaborate with the private sector during the process of designing reentry programs (Irwin, 1985).

Adhering to Probation Conditions and Avoiding Recidivism

A high number of prisoners released from incarceration have to adhere with certain probation conditions in order to prove to the society that they have truly reformed (Wodahl, 2006). However, it is not surprising that recidivism is a reality since at least 20% of the released prisoners end up back in jail (Wodahl, 2006). Fathers in particular have a huge task of adhering to probation conditions owing to the fact that they experience many stressors upon reentry. First, adhering to probation conditions does not only facilitate stigmatization within communities but also increases the stressors faced by released fathers. Psychologists argue out that adhering to probation conditions may be a major cause of recidivism (Wodahl, 2006). This is true in communities where ex-prisoners have not gained acceptance. Stigmatization becomes rife and the only solace that the fathers get is in alcohol and other drugs. Second, adhering to probation conditions may delay the reentry process since many members of the society treat such conditions as community service as a part of incarceration (Singh, 2008). In other words, they still have the perception that the released inmates are still within the confines of a correctional facilities. With such discouraging perceptions and views, the society plunges the released prisoners into a higher risk of recidivism.

Wodahl (2006) points out that reducing recidivism is not the role of the released prisoner only. The reason is that research has demonstrated that a supportive environment is important for an ex-convict. It involves all stakeholders that include the correctional facility, family, community and organizations. They should work in harmony during the process of reintegration. In a case study that involved a released father, Pager (2006) pinpoints that, the father had the mental strength to restart his life. However, he found out that his wife had remarried and living with both of his children. Upon return to his house, he found that it had been auctioned and the neighbors were not willing to accommodate him. He could not find an employment opportunity since he had no decent job prior to his arrest. He committed another major crime and found himself behind bars. In an interview, he exquisitely pointed out that he preferred being in prison to being released. To that end, a collaborative effort of the family, correctional facility and the community was apparently lacking leading to recidivism.

Findings and Recommendations

In the above research, various key findings are pertinent to the process of reentry. First, the process of reentry has not been effective, as it ought to be. This is despite numerous efforts that various stakeholders have put in place to mitigate the effects of reentry on the family and community. Second, the research has shown that family, correctional facilities, communities and all organizations ought to work together to reduce barriers of successful reentry. Third, ex-convicts experience many challenges relating to employment and the labor market. Fourth, fathers experience more challenges during the process of reentry. Fifth, adhering to probation conditions is a challenging task for fathers and may lead to recidivism.

Therefore, it is critical to make some recommendations for correctional systems to reduce barriers that impede successful reentry for fathers.

• Correctional facilities ought to design programs that target fathers and mobilize resources in order to achieve positive outcomes. This is in lieu of the fact that many programs that have been in existence fall short of efficiency.
• Correctional facilities ought to ensure that all stakeholders play a participative role during the process of designing reentry programs. Families, correctional facilities, communities and organizations ought to work together.
• Private sectors ought to become more aware of the challenges facing ex-convicts in order to allow them back into the labor market.
• Correctional facilities should reduce the periods of probation in order to reduce recidivism.
• All stakeholders ought to work in synergy to increase awareness on reentry process.

Conclusion

In essence, released fathers experience many challenges during the process of reentry into the society. They include reduced opportunities, mental illnesses, alcohol and substance abuse among many others. In order to reduce these barriers, it is imperative for correctional facilities to include all stakeholders when designing reentry programs. This will go a long way in reducing recidivism and the propensity of the father to commit crime.

References

Albanes, S. (2012). Demystifying Risk Assessment: Giving Prisoners a Second Chance at Individualized Community Confinement under the Second Chance Act. Administrative Law Review, 64(4), 937-1020.

Bernstein, J. & Ellen, H. (2000). Crime and Work: What We Can Learn from the Low-Wage Labor Market. Washington, DC: Sage Publishers.

Geraghty, F. (2004). Prisons and after Prison. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 94(4), 1149-1189.

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.

Irwin, J. (1985). The Jail: Managing the Underclass in American Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Krontiris, K. & Walter, C. (2010). Rethinking prisoner reentry in Harlem. Harvard Journal of African American Public Policy, 16(1), 73-84.

Lilly, R., Cullen, F. & Ball, R. (2011). Criminological Theory. Boston, MA: Cengage.

Luther, J., Reichert, S., Holloway, D., Roth, M. & Aaisma, M. (2011). An exploration of community reentry needs and services for prisoners: A focus on care to limit return to high-risk behavior. Aids Patient Care and STDs, 25(8), 465-481.

Mays, G. & Winfree, L. (2009). Essential of Corrections. Belmont: Cengage.

Neubauer, W. (2008). American Courts: and the American Criminal Justice System. Boston, MA: Cengage.

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.

Singh, K. (2008). Fundamental of research methodology and statistics. New York: New Age International Publishers.

Weiman, F. (2007). Barriers to prisoners’ reentry into the labor market and the social costs of recidivism. Social Research, 74(2), 575-611.

Wodahl, E. (2006). The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry from a Rural Perspective. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 32–47.