Literature Review

Literature Review
Diego Reyes
California Baptist University
ENG 123
Prof. Alzen
Fall 2015

Literature Review

2
Literature Review

Incarceration is key in the U.S to control crime rates in communities. But, the issue with
mass incarceration, are the problems that are associated with those who are being re-introduced
to society after serving a sentence and preventing recidivism. In this literature review I will
organize sources with data on the current issues with re-entering society after serving a sentence
and recidivism by using sources by scholars who have researched the topic. Additionally, I will
introduce a brief explanation as to have did we get here and where to go from here with todays
current issue.
Samantha Hoke (2006) discussed a brief overview of recidivism of inmates in the U.S.
and exemplified that in a 15 state study proved that Four of 10 inmates released from prison are
re-incarcerated within three years. (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011). A 2006 study was also
conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons, which presented that half of those incarcerated have
been known to have been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness, giving an overview of the
implication of those who are being released without the proper care such as, medications or some
type of rehabilitation which can possibly prevent recidivism. (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011).
Samantha Hokes conclusion on the implications of recidivism is followed by The Bureau
of Prisons philosophy, which is that the preparation for release begins the on the very first day of
imprisonment. Showing that the responsibility of the Bureau is to provide inmates with the skills
needed to lead crime-free lives upon their release. There are currently over 700,000 individuals
being released each year from state and federal prisons, many whom receive little to no
assistance when reentering society (Federal Bureau of Prisons, 2011). Some of the many
challenges arise upon their release and include issues with social rejection, inability to obtain

Literature Review

public assistance, and rehabilitation programs which are some of the rights that are taken way
after incarceration.
Similarly, Matt Ferner (2015) from the Huffington Post describes comparable issues upon
the release of inmates and the few lifelines that are given to inmates during the rehabilitation
process. A 2014 report study conclude details of difficulties that prisoners face upon re-entry to
society. Some difficulties include, lower earnings, denial of jobs or work licenses, an inability to
vote, and ineligibility for public housing, student loans, food stamps and more (Ferner, 2015).
Ferner illustrated some of the solutions that are currently being implemented in some
states. For example, Louisiana state has the highest incarceration rate in all of the U.S.
(Ferner,2015) Louisianas solutions for recidivism is a re-entry court program, which allows for
younger inmates who are eligible to learn a trade upon their release. In the same way,
Californias San Quentin Prison solutions to recidivism is a program which offers college level
courses eligible inmates. A 2013 study was given by the (NCJRS) National Criminal Justice
Reference Service which found that in-prison education effectively lowered recidivism. The
study also found that those who completed a college-based prison education program stayed
crime free longer in the community compared to ex-offenders that did not participate in a college
program. (Ferner, 2015) Washington state showed to have similar results by providing human
services, which is a suite of programs to many ex-inmates. Providing assistance such as
substance abuse treatments, job training, employment training, and many other public services
aiding the re-entry process (Ferner, 2015).
There are many Scholars who share similar thoughts on the issues with the reintroduction to society after serving a sentence and recidivism. Jason Furman and Douglas HoltzEakin (2016) demonstrating the costs and the possible legislations which can possibly prove to

Literature Review

be cost effective. But, the law of diminishing marginal benefits applies by adding inmates to
prisons or years to sentences. However, by increasing prisoners or years to a sentence can both
pose to be harmful. Furman and Holtz-Eakin state that studies have shown that by adding years
to an inmates sentence increases the likelihood of re-offending by 4 to 7 percent. Additionally,
Furman and Douglas Holtz-Eakin state that there are more than $80 billion dollars being spent
on corrections. The authors demonstrate that the average adult imprisonment cost is $30,000 and
$110,000 for juveniles, which is much higher than a year of college tuition. Statistics show that
the prison budget has grown to 1,700 percent from 1980 to 2010.
Sarah Childress (2014) wrote in an article of an interview conducted in 2013 with Todd
Clear, author of Imprisoning Communities: How Mass Incarceration Makes Disadvantage
Neighborhoods. Todd Clear specializes in the study of criminal justice and articulates the many
studies that have been conducted which demonstrate the results with mass incarceration and
recidivism. Which has proven that once the number of people being locked up from
neighborhoods will increase to a certain point and those incarcerated will have to be replaced
making up for what that person contributed in. Making it harder for those departing from and
returning to society from prison, which makes it much harder for neighborhoods to be safe. As
Todd clear expressed in the article In these neighborhoods, they have high rates of people
leaving and high rates of people returning, and both of those mechanisms make it harder for
those neighborhoods to stay stable, safe places. (Clear, 2014)
Robert D. Crutchfield a professor from the department of sociology at the University of
Washington and Gregory A. Weeks a retired judge for the Fourth Division of the Superior Court
of North Carolina. (2015) emphasized on article titled The Effects of Mass Incarceration on
Communities of Color and exemplify that mass imprisonment should not always be the

Literature Review

solution. The author states In poor and disadvantaged communities, there may well be a tipping
point at which rigorous crime policies and practices can do more harm than good. (Crutchfield,
2015) The scholars state that imprisonment can potentially contribute to some collateral
consequences primarily in poor communities. (Crutchfield, 2015) Both authors use concepts
from criminologist that suggest that mass incarceration can be harmful and have side effects
from mass imprisonment. Such as, a rise in crime rates, victimization, criminalization of the
community populace, and the lack of community resources. Studies show that the majority
whom were incarcerated often had drug, alcohol, or mental problems and that jail became a
dumping site for those with mental complications. The authors state . Both the negative effects
of imprisonment to individuals and to high-incarceration communities can be mitigated if those
returning are aided by having stable housing, their families are supported, and they are assisted
in finding and holding employment. (Crutchfield, 2015)
As a result, to the increasing rates of arrests and conviction over the last 30 years. The
solution of mass incarceration has shown to have implicated issues upon the re-entry to society
for inmates and a danger to recidivism. Currently there are legislations awaiting to be
implemented, such as the proposed Uniform Collateral Consequences of Criminal Convictions
Act, which would have the collateral benefit of pressing policymakers to seek out a means by
which they might mitigate the negative consequences. Today, there are several states, such as
Vermont, New York, Maryland, and Oregon, as well as the U.S. Virgin Islands, that have also
endorsed or presented bills that contain similar elements of the model bill. The benefits of the bill
will allow for states to opt out from some federally mandated collateral consequences for some
convictions and will implement the availability of public assistance for those who have just been

Literature Review

released from incarceration. Allowing for individuals who have been released to obtain support
from public programs.

Literature Review

7
References

Federal Bureau of Prisons. (2011). About the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Retrieved
from www.bop.gov/news/PDFs/ipaabout.pdf
Ferner, Matt, These Programs Are Helping Prisoners Live Again On the Outside. The Huffington
Post. September 09, 2015. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/if-wewant-fewer-prisoners-we-need-more-compassion-when-they-re-entersociety_us_55ad61a5e4b0caf721b39cd1
Furman Jason & Holtz-Eakin, Douglas, Why Mass Incarceration Doesnt Pay. The New York
Times. April 21, 2016, retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/opinion/whymass-incarceration-doesnt-pay.html?_r=0
Crutchfield, Robert D. & Weeks, Gregory A. The Effects of Mass Incarceration on Communities
of Color. Issues in Science & Technology, Vol. 32 Issue 1, p46-51. 6p.(2015)
iker, C. S. (2014). Mass Incarceration: Causes, Consequences, and Exit Strategies.
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 9(1), 1-6
Contact Reporter, Pass the U.S. Sentencing Reform Bill to Rein in Mass Incarceration. The Los
Angeles Times. February 17, 2016. Retrieved from
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-criminal-justice-20160215-story.html
Childress, Sarah, Todd Clear: Why Americas Mass Incarceration Experiment Failed. Senior
Digital Reporter, FRONTLINE Enterprise Journalism Group. Retrieved from

Literature Review

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/todd-clear-why-americas-mass-incarcerationexperiment-failed/