Reentry Journal

"Negligent Hiring" is the Life Blood of Recidivism

2012-01-28T11:11:00.001-05:00

Much of the negative emotion I experienced upon encountering repeated denials in my search for employment dissipated when I learned of the real reason employers refuse to hire me. As with virtually all convicted persons who find difficulty landing solid employment opportunities, those rejections slowly, but surely, began to eat away at my self concept. While I had long embraced and processed my responsibility for my past criminal behavior, those most often non-verbal and non-responsive denials challenged the poise and confidence I had cultivated over the years, as I prepared for my release from prison. As a first-time offender, I naively believed that once I had served my time for my crime, my positive attitude, highly-developed character, and educational achievements would open doors for me. When that didn't happen as readily as I anticipated, I was essentially dumbstruck. Then I learned about "negligent hiring."

Negligent hiring is the legal doctrine that often renders employers financially liable for the misbehavior of convicted persons in the workplace. You'll find a recent article on the nexus between negligent hiring and the chronically high unemployment rate of convicted persons here. Once I understood negligent hiring, I understood that the primary basis for the exclusion of convicted persons from employment opportunities is legal, not moral. That epiphany, oddly, removed my consternation and rescued my sagging poise and confidence from the assault of self-doubt. Essentially, I realized that employers reject me, and those like me, because they just don't want to take the risk that something untoward will happen the workplace, and they will have to pay an exorbitant blood purse, simply because they hired someone with a criminal past.

Given the highly-litigious society in which we live, I can't blame any employer who simply refuses to even consider hiring a convicted person. Bottom lines are often very tenuous, and the "hit" of a successful lawsuit against any business could well spell the end of that business. But people like me, who have made criminal mistakes in the past, have to be able to make a living. The simplest truth is that it truly does cost to live. What are we supposed to do?

Sadly, and far too often, many convicted persons succumb to the dumbfounding consternation of systemic exclusion from equal employment opportunity with a recklessness birthed of the desperation of survival--or with a violence that bursts forth out of the accumulated stress and resentment that, alas, is only too human.

Our country is the greatest country in the history of the world. We still have some of the very smartest people on the planet. Surely we can find a way to relieve employers of the fear of excessive liability, so that those of us who have made serious criminal mistakes, and served the time for those mistakes, have a clear path to employment opportunities that enable us to contribute to the quality of life in our communities--and not to detract from it.

Targeting Recidivism?

2012-01-11T12:12:00.002-05:00

The governor of Tennessee has introduced a plan to reduce crime in his state. The Memphis Commercial Appeal published this editorial on the plan recently. Gov. Bill Haslem's plan focuses on increased criminal penalties for domestic violence, and on the larger issue of recidivism. On recidivism, the editorial reads:

As for parolees, too many are released from prison without the skills and support system to help them make it on the outside. Their parolee status makes it almost impossible for them to get jobs.In Tennessee, 40 percent of parolees find themselves back in prison for some type of parole violation or because they revert back to their criminal ways. Haslam's one-stop shop idea would provide a place where parolees could get help with job skills, GED preparation and medical assistance on a case-by-case basis.
Not every parolee will want help, but for those who want a fresh start, they could find the help and support they need.

I applaud Gov. Haslem for having the plight of parolees on his public policy radar. Parolees, as well as the many more persons convicted of crimes who don't go to prison, definitely need help with job skills, GED preparation, and with addressing medical needs. I'd like the god governor to know, however, that directing resources at these elements of the reentry experience only addresses half of the recidivism equation. The other half of that equation--the one not mentioned in the editorial, at least--is jobs.

Just as we can solve no mathematical equation without addressing both sides of the equation, the recidivism equation will remain an unsolved problem until we devote much more attention to the creation of job opportunities for persons with a criminal background.

And, for the record, most every parolee I know does want help; most of them just don't believe it is in the offing.

Recidivism: The Bottom Line

2012-01-09T18:20:00.000-05:00

A National Forum on Reentry and Recidivism was conducted in our nation's capital on last December 8th, under the auspices of the Council of State Governments (CSG). You can view a brief of the forum here. Partnering with CSG in this worthwhile event were an impressive and prestigious array of organizations, including, the Association of State Correctional Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Public Welfare Foundation, and the Pew Center on the States. The aim of the forum was to "build on the progress made over the last decade in the area of prisoner reentry." More specifically, the forum brought together corrections and criminal justice professionals from around the country to note recent reductions in recidivism around the country, and to share the results of recent studies indicating both effective and ineffective reentry strategies.

The major presentation at the forum, "What Works and What Doesn't in Reducing Recidivism: Some Lessons Learned from Evaluating Correctional Programs," (which you can download at the link above), after an extended treatment of criminogenic needs and risk factors, the length and intensity of reentry programs, and "dead horses"--a euphemistic moniker for outdated thinking--comes to a fairly simple conclusion: strategies and programs intended to reduce recidivism must be directed at those offenders at highest risk for re-offending. That is, while many reentry programs focus upon relatively low level offenders, more serious offenders should be viewed as a higher priority by correctional agencies, governmental entities, and community groups offering reentry services. Agreed.

The presentation makes no statement about why reentry programs set up to reduce recidivism should target the more serious offenders. The implication of the argument offered suggests that more serious offenders require more attention because they are more dangerous to the community; because they possess a more criminal mindset. I see it differently.

More serious offenders require more attention because the larger society is least interested in affording them the employment and career opportunities necessary to achieve self sufficiency.

While I applaud the attention that correctional and criminal justice professionals, other governmental entities, and community organizations, give to reentry programming, I lament the short shrift given to the importance of employment and career opportunities for persons with criminal backgrounds--even serious criminal backgrounds.

Look Inward, Part II

2012-01-02T17:16:00.001-05:00

Accepting responsibility for one's misdeeds means that one accepts the adverse consequences of those misdeeds. For convicted persons, that means that we must view the difficulties of the reentry experience as the direct consequence of our misdeeds that they truly are. That does not morally justify the systemic exclusion from employment and career opportunities that most of us never fully overcome. Morality, however, and reality, are two different things. We would do best not to confuse the two.

I spent a good amount of time in the law libraries of the various prisons in which I served my time. I also read a lot of case law, and a lot of legal briefs. I've experienced the roller coaster of emotions that many convicted persons do when appeals are meticulously researched, skillfully written, and confidently filed, only to be summarily dismissed or peremptorily denied. I've seen the devastating emotional toll overwhelm many convicted persons, inside prison, as the irrevocability of their sentence forces its way into their consciousness. I've watched grown men break under the strain, and become but mere shells of their erstwhile selves.

Outside of prison, a similar process often occurs. The euphoria of gaining release from prison ultimately gives way, in most cases, to a sense of dismay. I wrote about that transformation in a previous post, which you can see here. That sense of dismay becomes magnified, as the difficulties of the reentry experience, too, intrude upon our consciousness like a recurring nightmare--a daymare. We reach out for help in a near-frantic and desperate effort to demonstrate our commitment to responsible living. Yet, the mostly unspoken, but absolutely clear, message we get in return is that the freedom we doggedly survived the prison experience to achieve seems naught but an illusion, a mental mirage.

When we get to that point, though, we cannot surrender to the sense of powerlessness such a conclusion entails. We have to be mentally and emotionally stronger than that.

I'll end with a chess metaphor. Many of us learned the game in prison, and I continue to play on my smartphone. That phone's cpu is having its way with me, too, I'll tell you. Yet, I keep challenging it. Sometimes I'm so frustrated by my inability to win consistently that I really want to smash that thing to pieces. But I don't. I keep going back for more. Conceptually, I know that there's a process at work. That if I thoughtfully and diligently engage that process, my capacity to learn will ultimately prevail, my skill level will rise, and I will overcome the obstacles to my success well enough.

Enough said.

Look Inward

2011-10-12T10:21:00.000-04:00

One of the things that really bothered me about the reentry programs I engaged when I came home from prison was what seemed to me an excessive amount of attention reentry workers placed on the attitudes of convicted persons. I sensed that those reentry workers exerted a lot of time and energy insulating themselves against the inevitable difficulties and disappointments program participants would experience in their pursuit of employment and career opportunities. Reentry workers know well that most convicted persons ultimately fail the reentry challenge. So, it seems, even reentry workers often develop negative expectations of those who turn to them for help. This theme has remained a dominant feature of my reentry experience--both as a support seeker and support provider.

While many reentry workers seem to work hardest at insulating themselves against any fallout from the inevitable frustrations of their clients--and any suggestion of their own ineffectiveness, incompetence, or essential indifference--their behavior finds mitigation in the reality that many convicted persons do need a lot of personal work. We do need to get serious about the mountainous obstacles that lie before us. We do need to understand that most of the folks we will encounter in our quest for employment and career opportunities will seize the least justification to deny us any consideration whatsoever. We do need to understand that we cannot allow ourselves to become emotionally undone by a ubiquitous societal predisposition to marginalize or demonize us.

That said, we also have to maintain our inner resistance to both marginalization and demonization. I will pick up on that next time. Stay positive!

Thanks ALR!

2011-09-20T15:04:00.000-04:00

My thanks to the kind folks at American Law Radio for their recent invitation to me to appear on their weekly radio broadcast. Regrettably, I had never even heard of American Law Radio until a couple of days before I received their invitation, via telephone. Sara and I subsequently spoke, and exchanged emails, several times before the taping of the show. She came across as a very nice person, and I made it clear to her that I had no qualms about participating on the show. While I don't necessarily go out of my way to speak about my criminal background, I have no problem doing so, when appropriate. I believe that more convicted persons should, likewise, thoughtfully speak to and about their criminal backgrounds, when doing so might prove helpful in raising the consciousness of the larger community regarding the difficulties of the reentry experience--not merely as a complaint or lament, but with an eye on the big picture.

The big picture of which I speak? Somewhere between 25% and 33% of all adults in our country have a criminal background, and that number continues to grow. These convicted persons almost always become members of a demographic group banished to the periphery of our nation's economic mainstream. This demographic group, ultimately, becomes a virtually endless drain on the increasingly limited economic resources of relatives, friends, and government. Homeless shelters overflow with members of this demographic group. The great majority of the growing number of beggars on our streets, too, belong to this increasingly marginalized population. While members of this outcast group suffer from a whole host of ills, most of those ills would most likely improve if the reentry road weren't so strewn with both overt and covert obstacles occasioned by a societal ostracism that has grown to virtually unscalable heights.

So, keeping the big picture in mind--a personal strength that kept me same during my time in prison--I know that the only way to positively impact this societal mindset against convicted persons is to put a human face on this reentry experience. Most convicted persons have both the will and capacity to yet live positive and productive lives--if allowed the opportunity to do so. My responsibility to myself, and to the larger society that continues to reject me, is to represent my interests--the interests of all convicted persons--as decently, credibly, and consistently as I can.

Alas, the interview. Thanks to Sara, David, and Sam, for a very welcoming experience.

Reentry vs. Prison Reform

2011-06-24T10:52:00.000-04:00

In recent years, increased attention has focused on the importance of prisoner reentry in public policy. Lots of time, energy, and money, has gone into lots of research by lots of academics and criminal justice professionals. Much of that research has created lots of information documenting, and re-documenting, the myriad obstacles to successful reentry faced by an increasing number of convicted persons. Note the use of "convicted persons," as opposed to "formerly incarcerated persons." Only a relatively small percentage of persons convicted of felony offenses actually go to prison--but that's a story for another blog post.

A common refrain among the above mentioned horde of reentry researchers suggests that societal interest in successful prisoner reentry must start on the front end of an offender's engagement with the criminal justice system. That is, as soon as the offender enters the system, the system should begin to lay out a path for that offender's successful reentry into the community after the satisfaction of all appropriate criminal sanctions. While I definitely support that line of thinking, I suggest a huge qualification.

Notwithstanding the logical connection between successful prisoner reentry and the need to begin a path toward the same as soon as possible once an offender enters the criminal justice system, we must remain mindful of the dichotomy between the prison experience and the reentry experience. While I support the movement for prison reform, prison reform and prisoner reentry constitute two different issues. In legalese, "conditions of confinement" issues have very little to do with the employment and housing discrimination convicted persons almost always encounter during the reentry experience. Sentencing reform, often included under the umbrella of prison reform, also presents a set of considerations that, while tangentially connected to prisoner reentry, involve and invoke a fundamentally different set of issues and concerns.

My point? Much of the resistance and rejection convicted persons experience in their reentry directly connects to the notion of punishment. Reentry advocates must focus on separating--in the social mind--punishment from reentry. In the vast majority of cases, punishment must end when reentry begins. Merging prison reform with prisoner reentry perpetuates the mental connection between punishment and reentry, and countermands efforts to enhance opportunities for convicted persons to overcome obstacles to successful socio-economic reentry.

Mike Jones explains his good work at Breaking the Cycle, Inc.

2011-06-05T12:12:00.000-04:00

Thank You, Chicago Sun-Times

2011-03-09T00:46:00.003-05:00

Thanks to the Chicago Sun-Times for its progressive editorial, "Honest Work Beats Ex-Cons on the Dole." While many media outlets have made the case, in recent months, for removing barriers to employment for those all-too-human of us who have transgressed the law, none have made it more directly and unequivocally, as evidenced in the editorial's very first two sentences:

     The fastest way to make sure an ex-con turns to crime again is to deny him any chance
     at a job. If he can't get honest work, nobody should be surprised when he returns to
     dishonest work.

Such simple reasoning most often goes unacknowledged in the peripatetic public discussion about the outrageously high recidivism rates throughout the country. Apparently, most of us would rather preserve the option of routinely dumping our accumulated bile upon those we can habitually impugn with near-universal approval, than support the sound public policy of fair employment and career opportunities for ex-offenders.

In a society that purportedly values the acceptance of responsibility, and trumpets the dignity of work, the systemic exclusion of ex-offenders from the economic mainstream amounts to an irresponsible denial of the dignity of those most fallible of mortals among us. Among a people that insists on the power and necessity of faith, and redemption, the disconnect between the real and the ideal belies our most humble words of prayer.

Reentry Case Study

2011-02-13T11:01:00.001-05:00

I met Mary almost two years ago, while volunteering at a program that helps ex-offenders in their job search. When I ran into her the other day, I really didn't remember her. Something about her seemed familiar, though, as we made eye contact. When she subsequently approached me, and prodded my memory a bit, I began to recognize her spirit. No, I still didn't quite remember her, per se. I did remember her spirit. That's because Mary has a very special spirit. I'm not easily impressed by most people but Mary has the sort of sweetness that overwhelms. Mary also has a conviction for felony-five drug possession, and it has ruined her life.

She got involved with a guy who, apparently, moved around in the drug culture. When the police showed up at her door one day, Mary made the mistake of allowing them in, and consented to a search of both her residence and her person. A minute amount of cocaine turned up in a closet, along with a very limited amount of associated paraphernalia. Ultimately, Mary received three years probation for her first, and only, offense--at the age of 52.

Despite a long and steady work history, Mary has found it impossible to find a job since her conviction. She's bright, articulate, computer literate, and a joy to engage. She rises at 5 o'clock every morning, exercises, prays, and conducts job searches online, and on foot. After over 300 job applications, Mary finds herself alone, penniless, and near-homeless. Her "reentry" experience has proven quite traumatic, and she appears extremely vulnerable to possible exploitation by predatory elements that seem to lay in wait for people like her.

I have met many Marys during my own reentry experience. Perhaps you have, too. Doesn't it make you sick? Doesn't your spirit swell within you, every time you come across someone like Mary? If you answer "yes" to those questions, I have another question for you: How long will you ignore the prompting of your spirit to make a difference for all the Marys--and their male likenesses--drowning in the sea of callous indifference that slowly but surely smothers the life out of them?

Michael Vick and The White House

2010-12-28T15:54:00.000-05:00

Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Michael Vick has certainly vindicated the decision of the NFL team to allow the convicted dog abuser a second chance to make a living as a professional football player, at the highest level of the sport. Vick has had an outstanding season this year. But for the even better season turned in by New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady, Vick would probably earn the league's Most Valuable Player award. He should certainly win the league's Comeback Player of the Year award, and a place in the Pro Bowl. Maybe Vick and the Eagles will play well enough in the playoffs to make an appearance in the Super Bowl--even win it.

More importantly, though, Michael Vick has stayed out of trouble, and conducted himself with an earnestness and humility befitting someone who has learned from his previous mistakes, and appreciates the opportunity granted him by the Eagles, and NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. Vick's success speaks to the larger issue of the systemic exclusion of millions of former offenders in our country from the social and economic mainstream because of their criminal past. Yes, Michael Vick has become the latest poster boy for successful prisoner reentry.

Two recent posts at The Huffington Post, however, demonstrate the good and the bad of the current conversation concerning Mr. Vick. The first post, two days after Christmas, reported that President Obama, in a phone conversation with Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie, complimented Lurie for allowing Vick the opportunity to resume his football career in Philidelphia. The second post, later the same day, reported the statement of a White House spokesman downplaying the significance of the president's reported comments to Lurie. The writer of that second post suggested that the White House wanted to dispel the notion that President Obama "was willing to forgive" Vick's crimes.

While I applaud the president's support for second chances, I lament the political squeamishness over the issue.

A Fundamental Disconnect

2010-12-01T10:39:00.001-05:00

I usually avoid weighing-in on issues pertaining to conditions of confinement in the nation's prisons. While those who study reentry rightfully make the case for the importance of reentry planning while an inmate remains inside prison, reentry issues must not be conflated with issues pertaining to conditions of confinement, or sentencing reform--which happens far too often. In conflating these related but distinct issues, we do not adequately focus upon the ongoing, real time, struggles of the hundreds of thousands of persons struggling in their reentry experience on any given day in this country. The California prison crowding case currently before the United States Supreme Court, however--and the political posturing related to it--presents an opportunity to highlight a very important variable in our nation's continuing failure to properly process the nexus between reentry and recidivism.

In the case at issue--which you can read about here--California has appealed a lower court order to reduce the number of prisoners in it's woefully overcrowded prison system by 44,000 inmates, over two years. The union representing California's prison guards, perhaps surprising to some observers, agrees with the prisoners--and the lower court--that overcrowding in the nation's most overcrowded prison system has resulted in an unconstitutional denial of adequate medical care for California's prisoners. The case will most likely turn on the Court's interpretation of the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, regarding whether or not the courts have the authority to intervene in the state's operation of its prison system. Not surprisingly, 18 states have filed briefs supporting California's challenge to the court order. Power concedes nothing without a struggle.

Opponents of the prisoner release order have reached for the panic button, claiming that the forced release of such a large number of prisoners would pose an unacceptable risk to public safety. To buttress this claim, those opponents cite California's 70 percent recidivism rate. In merely citing the rightfully alarming recidivism rate in this way, however, opponents of the release order perpetuate a fundamental disconnect in societal thinking concerning reentry and recidivism. To wit: unacceptably high recidivism rates are not merely the consequence of the incorrigible criminal-mindedness of released prisoners. Unacceptably high recidivism rates result, moreso, from the systemic exclusion of persons with criminal backgrounds from legitimate opportunities to work, have careers, adequately support themselves and their families, and pay taxes, like everyone else.

Opponents of the prisoner release order propose to release fewer prisoners, and build more prisons. I submit that Californians would do better to take the money it might use to build more prisons and invest it in incentives for businesses who provide work opportunities--at a living wage--for those released prisoners. Such an approach would change the failed reentry paradigm that remains one of the most pressing, yet solvable, public policy issues in our country.

Several Thoughts

2010-09-30T18:01:00.000-04:00

Somewhat ironically, I'm always energized and rededicated in my commitment to improving the odds for successful reentry whenever I engage other former offenders about their reentry experience. An email exchange with a fellow returnee from prison today led us to the importance of persistence. "Mark" has a very good education, with almost 30 years of successful business experience. Unfortunately, "Mark" also has a conviction for child pornography. The facts of the case, as I understand them, suggest that "Mark" continues to get an extremely raw deal from his judge, parole officer, and from employers to whom he has applied.

I encouraged "Mark" to remain persistent and innovative, and to embrace responsibility not only for his past behavior but also for the way that past behavior gets communicated to potential employers. At this stage in his reentry experience--18 months out of prison, innumerable rejections, surviving on unemployment benefits, and completely traumatized by the entire ordeal--he has no one to turn to who can better serve his needs than himself. He's smart, personable, and articulate. He has to believe in his redeeming qualities as a human being, and continue to put one foot in front of the other as deliberately as he can.

I know that I gave him good advice and encouragement. I do, however, share his sense of futility. The spirit is willing but the flesh is certainly weak. Still, even a willing spirit often grows quite weary ...

That reminds me of a recent message I received in my inbox from the folks at Just Sell containing a quotation attributed to Teddy Roosevelt: "When you find yourself at the end of your rope, tie a knot and hold on."

Moving on ...

The Pew Charitable Trust's just-released report, Collateral Costs: Incarceration's Effect on Economic Mobility,
reports this curious fact:

After release, former male inmates work nine fewer weeks annually and take home 40 percent less in annual earnings, making $23,500 instead of $39,100. That amounts to an expected earnings loss of nearly $179,000 through age 48 for men who have been incarcerated.

I'll have to read the methodology of the study to understand how the study reached that conclusion. I've been home over three years and I haven't earned $23,500 in those combined three years.

Finally ...

I'm heartened by an investigation into employment and housing discrimination against former offenders in Kansas City, MO, which you can read about here. I don't think that very many people, including employers, realize that it is actually illegal to refuse to hire persons solely on the basis of a criminal background. This investigation heartens me because I believe more vigorous emphasis on the illegality of this yet-ubiquitous discrimination would do much to open more employment and career opportunities to persons with criminal backgrounds.

Where are the law and order folks when you need them?

Hail, New York!

2010-07-25T13:35:00.005-04:00

New York governor David Patterson recently signed into law a provision allowing for the modification of child support orders against incarcerated parents. The new law adds to New York's credentials as the state most supportive of successful prisoner reentry. The New York State Assembly justifies the legislation this way:

Parents returning to their communities after incarceration face myriad
obstacles to their successful re-integration, including,in many cases,
overwhelming judgments for child support arrears that accrued while
they were incarcerated. These arrears accrue because in New York State,
judges have no discretion to modify any prior order or judgment of
child support due to a reduction in income caused by incarceration.
As a result, noncustodial parents frequently accumulate massive debt
during incarceration, typically owing child support of $20,000 or more
upon release. This overwhelming debt discourages legitimate employment
and parental responsibility.

The Council of State Governments' Report of the Re-entry Policy Council,
a document stemming from a series of meetings among 100 of the most
respected workforce, health, housing, public safety, family, community,
and victim experts in the country, found that "child support policies
that are responsive to parents with a recent history of incarceration
and unemployment or low-wage jobs can increase the prospects that such
individuals will maintain steady employment, regular support payments,
and contact with their children." While realistic financial and child
support obligations can reinforce responsibility, increase parental
engagement with children, and result in needed financial help to chil-
dren and communities," excessive debt does the reverse, "increasing
pressure on recently released people to quit low-wage jobs and return to
the underground economy a choice that can harm families and communities
in ways that go far beyond a lack of financial support."

New York, judges have no discretion to modify any prior order or judg-
ment of child support to reflect a reduction in income caused by incar-
ceration, and therefore no ability to set realistic child support orders
for incarcerated parents. As a result, about half of incarcerated
parents have open child support cases, and are responsible for ongoing
payments in the range of $225-$300 per month that accumulate during
their incarceration (and cannot be paid down with no steady source of
income). Compounding this problem, upon their release from incarcera-
tion, up to 65% of non-custodial parents' net income can be automat-
ically deducted from their paychecks to, repay support arrears. High
withholding from low-wage checks acts as a disincentive to legal employ-
ment. It creates pressure on recently released people to quit on-the-
books, often low paying jobs and return to the underground economy, a
choice that harms families and communities.

By permitting courts to modify support obligations during a period of
incarceration, and thus reduce the potential accrual of massive arrears,
this legislation encourages noncustodial parents' financial and inter-
personal involvement in the lives of their children and their steady
participation in the legal labor market after release from incarcera-
tion. It also increases the likelihood that New York State will be able
to collect ongoing child support payments. These outcomes will help
strengthen communities, reduce recidivism, and promote public safety.


I'm loving New York!

Congratulations Connecticut

2010-07-02T11:14:00.003-04:00

Kudos to the Connecticut state legislature for voting to override governor M.Jodi Rell's veto of the "Ban the Box" measure previously approved unanimously by state lawmakers. http://www.middletownpress.com/articles/2010/06/26/news/doc4c268f3c1a254695857985.txt Almost 30 jurisdictions nationwide have now approved similar provisions, which remove The Question from public employment applications.

The Question takes many forms:

Have you ever been convicted of a felony?

Have you ever been convicted of a felony or misdemeanor?

Have you been convicted of a felony within the past 7 years?

The removal of these and similar questions from employment applications constitutes a huge step in support of successful prisoner reentry. Researchers have long pointed out the direct connection between more employment opportunities for persons with criminal backgrounds and less recidivism. Less recidivism, virtually everybody knows, provides much-needed budgetary relief to increasingly cash-strapped state and local governments. Less recidivism, too, leads to greater public safety, and stronger families and communities.

Considering the above, one would think the adoption of "Ban the Box" provisions a no-brainer. So, why did Governor Rell veto the measure in the first place? I won't attempt to speak to that. I will only say what I often do when blatantly unreasonable things happen: You can't make sense out of nonsense; nonsense means non-sense ... without sense.

Jurisdictions which have passed "Ban the Box" provisions include: Boston, Chicago, Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota, the state of Minnesota, Cambridge and Worcester in Massachusetts, Baltimore, the city of Austin and Travis County in Texas, Berkeley and the city and county of Los Angeles, and Alameda County (the Oakland area) in California, Norwich, New Haven, Hartford and Bridgeport in Connecticut (and now the state of Connecticut), Seattle, Providence in Rhode Island, Kalamazoo and Battle Creek in Michigan, Multnomah County (the Portland area) in Oregon, the city and county of Philadelphia, and Hawaii. Lawmakers in Detroit, Nebraska, and Ohio have proposed versions of the measure.

Related Links:

New State Initiatives Adopt Model Hiring Policies Reducing Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records

Major U.S. Cities and Counties Adopt Hiring Policies to Remove Unfair Barriers to Employment of People with Criminal Records

Assessing My Competency

2010-06-19T17:22:00.004-04:00

In an effort to employ a bit of creativity and innovation in my job search, I recently took a competency assessment offered by PRADCO (Personnel Research and Development Corporation). PRADCO,(http://www.pradco.com), has done personnel research and evaluation since 1955, providing " low-cost, efficient and customized methods to evaluate and describe people." The Competency Index:

measures 17 dimensions that indicate how individuals respond to situations and people. There are 85 items, and candidates choose between two statements that describe their behaviors. The Index uses a forced-choice format, and all of the questions are positively worded. This makes it difficult for candidates to "fake" or distort their answers to present a falsely favorable image.

Upon completing the assessment, I received a report of my "High Five": the five areas in which I rated highest.

1) Improvement
You demonstrate a strong orientation toward continuous improvement and
learning new skills. Action is taken at work to identify learning opportunities,
seek feedback and carry out self development efforts. Score: 97th percentile

2) Initiative
You succeed at work by being a self-starter who moves ahead when action is needed
without having to be told. You get things done independently and voluntarily take
charge of situations. Score: 93rd percentile

3) Assertiveness
You can handle situations where one must speak up and persuade others to see things
differently. You get people's attention easily, share opinions in a direct manner and present
ideas convincingly. Score: 93rd percentile.

4) Flexibility
You can be expected to adjust to change and adapt to new situations. New assignments are
handled easily and you can effectively juggle multiple priorities and make use of new methods.
Score: 91st percentile.

5) Results
Generally a hard worker, you focus on your objectives and use time productively on the job. You can be counted on to finish tasks, deliver more than expected, meet work commitments and achieve goals. Score: 85th percentile.

These results have already opened doors for me. While I still haven't achieved my goal of a full time job with a steady and decent income, with benefits, I must say that PRADCO's assessment results have energized and empowered me in my reentry. Former offenders must go the extra mile, in the competition for limited opportunities. Assessments such as those offered by PRADCO could go far to alleviate the reticence of many employers to hire persons with criminal backgrounds.

Results of Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative

2010-06-04T11:15:00.004-04:00

In 2003, the National Institute of Justice, of the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/, commissioned the Serious and Violent Offender Reentry Initiative (SVORI). 69 agencies in 14 states received a total of $100 million over three years to create 89 programs targeted at adult male and female, and male juvenile offenders with serious and violent criminal backgrounds. Several other federal agencies collaborated in the funding of the program, including the Departments of Labor, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services. The architects of the program, understanding the obstacles to successful reentry faced by all former offenders, knew that persons with serious and violent criminal histories have the most difficult challenges during the reentry experience. The underlying logic of the initiative held that targeting this cohort of former offenders with supportive reentry programming, beginning before release from prison, and continuing for a specified period of time (15 months) after release, should produce measurable improvements in reentry outcomes, in housing, employment, substance abuse, and mental and overall health. Ultimately, too, SVORI programming should result in lower re-arrest and recidivism rates. The official evaluation of the initiative, accessible at http://www.urban.org/uploadedpdf/412075_evaluation_svori.pdf, found SVORI's impact on those outcomes statistically insignificant, or inconclusive.

I commend the folks who conceived the initiative, and I commend the federal government for ponying up the funds to pay for it. Nonetheless, I'm quite dismayed that such a potentially useful endeavor produced such under-whelming results. As someone with a serious and violent criminal background, I'm particularly disappointed and fearful that the unimpressive and uninspiring results of the initiative will only lead to hardened attitudes against further efforts to address the particular difficulties of reentry for persons with serious and violent offenses in their past. After $100 million, and 89 programs in 14 states involving 69 agencies, the considerable brainpower behind the initiative couldn't do better?

As someone experiencing the reentry process, and as someone who helps other former offenders navigate the obstacles to their successful reentry, I must reiterate what many researchers have concluded. The single most effective thing to do in reducing recidivism--the single most important reentry outcome--is open up more employment and career opportunities for former offenders. To that end, I submit that $100 million dollars spent engaging and influencing the business community would prove a far more successful initiative.

Question and Answer

2010-06-01T18:18:00.003-04:00

Question: How do we as educated ex-offenders educate and instruct others, without appearing as if we are just trying to make our own lives easier? It seems advantageous, our motivation for policy change, so how do we make clear our goals and commitments to the reentering culture as a whole, without hiding our own past?

Answer: The nature of our democracy affirms the legitimacy of whatever efforts we put forth to improve our condition, as a segment of the population that is marginalized, locked out, and routinely denied access to the traditional pathways to success. We have to work to educate our less-educated peers about the legitimacy of our grievances, and our rights to petition for redress of those grievances. We have to raise the consciousness among our peers, and in our communities, so that they also embrace a greater sense of possibility. We've got to push education, sobriety, and recovery, too. We've got to talk about social justice. We've got to speak to the notion of our nation as a land of opportunity for everyone else around the world but not for us. We've got to drive home the truth that we are all in the same boat; we can never fully overcome the barriers we face as a group, individually.

It is not about hiding our past. It is about strategically managing information about our past. In most instances, it is sufficient to say, "I am a former offender," emphasizing "former." Just like black folks have co-opted the stigma of the "n-word," we can and must co-opt and defuse the sting of "former offender," "ex-con," or whatever terminology is used to weed us out for exclusion or marginalization. We never invest such terms with anything other than a sense of responsibility and accountability for our misbehavior. Neither do we allow those and like terms to intimidate us into acquiescing to a permanent underclass status.

We've just got to do the work, one day at a time, one person at a time. Study. Know the work done in reentry nationwide. Process and communicate the research. Apply the lessons learned through developing and implementing programs that the research suggests will and do work. Speak to the budgetary implications. Speak to public safety. Speak to quality of life in our communities. Speak to the impact on families, and particularly on the children of parents with criminal backgrounds.

Yes, we have every right to strive to make our own lives easier. That's an integral part of what we refer to as the American Dream. As citizens, we have as much right to the pursuit of happiness as any other citizen. We have as much right, too, to organize in our legitimate self interest. We have as much right, too, to stand up and say, "Hey! I need to eat, too. I need to take care of my family, too. I need to keep a decent roof over my head, too. My children need me to make it. On the world stage, my country needs me to contribute in the global competition for limited resources."

We have to reject the notion of rejection. Michelle Alexander, in the new and powerful book, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, refers to the movement to remove entrenched institutional and societal barriers to successful prisoner reentry as the new civil rights movement. More than a civil rights issue, though, it is a human rights issue. We have to embrace our moral standing to stake our claim to greater opportunities. We deserve that. We have to know that we deserve it, and act accordingly.

Reentry: Recognition and Realization

2010-05-18T20:51:00.006-04:00

During a recent visit to a nearby prison, one of the inmates asked a question of me that I found surprisingly difficult to answer. To paraphrase it: "What is the most challenging aspect of your reentry experience?" As I thought about the question, and how I might answer it, I began to feel a bit uncomfortable. I felt uncomfortable because I couldn't bring myself to say that one aspect of my reentry experience outweighed all others. Yes, the job search is primary, but so is the disconnect between me and family members over my inability to tap into an income stream big enough to make all of us happy. Then, too, what about the territorialism and petty conflict between reentry programs and service providers that should instead operate collaboratively? Finally, there's the anguish and frustration of working hard to provide effective supports to others that nobody has been able, or willing, to offer me.

Now, words concerning reentry usually come to me without much difficulty. Not to say that I'm glib about it. I wouldn't say that glibness characterizes me at all, about anything. I do speak about reentry, however, with a passion that most often gets the attention of my audience. My comments include a healthy dose of the most relevant statistics regarding recidivism, the educational level, incidence of mental health issues, and substance abuse of prisoners. Inevitably, my comments include a heavy emphasis upon the importance of employment in the reentry process, and the profoundly problematic host of collateral consequences to a criminal conviction. The words flow, my passion fills the room, and my audience routinely grows still and quiet, all eyes fixated on me.

At that moment in my presentation, I normally pause for effect, pace about a bit, looking each member of the audience straight in the eyes. I stop, allowing the gravity of the moment to settle in, and read the expressions on the varied faces. What do I see? Perplexity. Consternation. Vulnerability. Confession of need, eagerness for direction, powerlessness, a nearly-desperate effort to remain hopeful. At that moment, my passion transforms into solemnity. My solemnity transitions into encouragement. Encouragement then morphs into engagement. Engagement leads to mutual respect and a sense of shared struggle.

In the course of the presentation, my audience evolves through individualism to community. In that sense of community, my audience begins to glean a consciousness of shared struggle that ameliorates the perplexity and relieves the consternation. The vulnerability is no longer vulnerability because we are all equally vulnerable. Likewise, the confession of need merely melds our spirits. For a brief period of time, powerlessness gives way to determination, the sense of direction grows within, and the nearly-desperate hope becomes confidence, an invigorated sense of possibility.

My discomfort at that simple question slowly faded into nonexistence, as my chest swelled with the mutual support that had taken center stage between me and my audience. My audience got me. They understood, in my non-answer, the unutterable obstacles to successful reentry. The essential challenges to reentry are, indeed, more problematic than I can adequately express. Our language, as descriptive as it is, doesn't begin to describe the holistic trauma of the reentry experience.

Hiring Former Offenders: Incentives and Imperatives

2010-04-07T11:36:00.005-04:00

Effective business leaders number among the smartest people in the country. Success in business requires a methodical intelligence particularly adept at connecting the dots between raw facts and logical conclusions. In most businesses, relying on emotional responses to marketplace behavior amounts to irresponsible and reckless mismanagement. In summarily dismissing the notion of hiring persons convicted of criminal behavior, however, I contend that many business leaders disserve their business and their community. Many business leaders disserve their business and their community by refusing to hire former offenders despite clear financial incentives to do so, and clear costs for not doing so.

Financial incentives for hiring former offenders include: 1) the Federal Bonding Program, and 2) the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. You will find information concerning the Federal Bonding Program at: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Quality/OJL_bonding.htm. You will find information regarding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit (WOTC) at: http://www.drc.ohio.gov/Quality/OJL_wotc.htm.

The costs associated with a blanket rejection of all job applicants with a criminal background extend far and wide. Growth in public expenditures for corrections markedly out paces growth in all other expenditures, sending ripples of stress throughout our economy, and our public life. Lack of career opportunities for former offenders--more than any other single factor--contributes directly to an outrageous and unacceptably-high recidivism rate, as more than half of all former offenders return to prison within three years of release from prison. With 8,000 persons released into our community from Ohio prisons each year, the unwillingness of local businesses to hire those folks negatively impacts public safety and the quality of life in our community.

I urge you to reconsider the incentives and imperatives associated with your business' policy pertaining to hiring former offenders. In this age of global competition and tight budgets, the financial incentives in employing former offenders could prove the difference between success and failure. In this age of heightened concern for public safety and the quality of life in our community, the imperatives associated with your policy decision loom large.

If your company, in the Northeast Ohio area, will consider hiring a former offender, please call the Northeast Ohio Reentry Coalition at (216) 421-1142.

Curtis Scruggs, Executive Director
James E. Walker Jr., Senior Program Manager
Northeast Ohio Reentry Coalition

A Nation of Second Chances?

2010-03-06T15:49:00.003-05:00

President Bush II coined a phrase in his 2004 State of the Union address that has gained much currency since. In proposing what has become the Second Chance Act, the president spoke to the importance of a renewed and more thoughtful focus upon the issue of prisoner reentry. From my prison bunk, I watched with great interest and a bit of surprise, as the president took the moral high ground with an impressive display of empathy and sound public policy thinking, iterating the list of obstacles former offenders face when they leave prison and return to their families and their communities. I felt a peculiar sense of gratitude and appreciation for those words of such direct import for me.

Today, almost three years removed from my one and only stint in prison--a very, very long stint at that--I yet marvel at the president's sensitivity and directness concerning the critical need for the nation to provide a real opportunity for former offenders to successfully reintegrate themselves into the life of their families and communities. I knew he was on to something that would really matter to me, when the time came for me to walk out of prison. I know even more so, today, just how impressively presidential those few simple words were.

My reentry experience, however, calls into serious question the truth of Bush II's claim that "ours is a nation of second chances." I have had virtually no success in obtaining and retaining a permanent, full-time job at a living wage. I've done virtually all of the reentry programs available in my area. I've served as a peer mentor and reentry resource for an uncountable number of fellow former offenders processing their own reentry experience. I'm college educated, computer literate, with great communication skills, and a team-player attitude. I'm particularly effective at communicating the difficulties of reentry to several groups of former offenders recently released from prison every month. I've achieved a good degree of success in helping other former offenders in ways that I haven't been able to help myself.

My family, by and large, fails to process the difficulty I continue to experience in my job search. The implication is that I, in some way, must not be doing the right things in order to find an employer willing to hire me. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm doing--I've done--everything anyone could reasonably expect of me. I don't even try to convince them of that, any more. They say I've alienated them. I feel that they have alienated me.

I often say to the many former offenders I speak to every month that I never had any respect for repeat offenders during my prison stay. Throughout my incarceration, I never could quite comprehend why so many guys returned to prison. Today, I know all too well why most of those who return to prison do so: the lack of real career opportunities. All the doors to financial stability and success--traditional or otherwise--seem not only closed but also locked. Dead bolted. Barricaded. Welded shut.

So, pardon me for this bit of skepticism: Mr. President, I beg to differ.

Child deaths: Give ex-cons chance to work | cleveland.com

2010-02-28T17:11:00.001-05:00

Child deaths: Give ex-cons chance to work | cleveland.com

Posted using ShareThis

Reentry Reform in Ohio?

2010-01-18T15:30:00.004-05:00

In December of 2008, the Ohio legislature enacted House Bill 130. Among other things, this legislation created the Ohio Ex-Offender Reentry Coalition (OERC), staffing it with 17 statutory members--all of whom are state government employees, and none of whom are former offenders. OERC, subsequently, selected 15 other persons to serve on the coalition as members-at-large, including one (1) former offender.

OERC's mission, as expressed on it's website www.reentrycoalition.oh.gov, is "to ensure successful offender reentry, reduce recidivism and enhance public safety." Toward that end, House Bill 130 mandated that OERC annually report to the legislature on ways to better achieve those worthy goals. OERC's initial report is still pending but I've learned something about the thinking of some on the coalition that disturbs me.

OERC has established an Employment Workgroup to consider the difficulties former offenders encounter when seeking employment. That Employment Workgroup is developing a proposal for what it terms "Employment Access Certificates." Fundamentally, such certificate provisions amount to good public policy, often providing legal protections for employers who hire holders of a certificate from lawsuits alleging "negligent hiring" when something untoward happens in the workplace involving a former offender. Also, certificate provisions often remove legal barriers in state laws to the employment of former offenders in any number of professions which require state licensure. I support and encourage the Employment Workgroup in its work to craft a fair and reasonable set of proposals for the certificates.

My concern, however, centers upon the issue of eligibility for the proposed certificate. The minutes of several OERC meetings, as well as the update presented at the December meeting, clearly indicate that some members of the Employment Workgroup hold an opinion concerning eligibility that I consider nothing less than outrageous. As a first-time offender who was convicted of a first-degree felony, I take great offense to the idea that all first-and-second-degree felons be excluded from any eligibility for the proposed certificate.

While I served 30 years in Ohio prisons for the most serious offense, at no time during that period of incarceration was I scored higher than a "1," on an ascending scale, in terms of risk to the community. For the vast majority of that time, my risk score was zero. I completed my bachelors degree (summa cum laude) while incarcerated. And, while my reentry experience has not been easy, I recently gained employment as a marketer of world-class information technology services. For most of the 32 months since I gained parole, I have worked and volunteered as a provider of reentry support services to others returning to our community from prison.

Without any doubt, steady employment, at a living wage, poses the greatest challenge for most former offenders. The single greatest thing the Employment Workgroup can do to support greater reentry success, reduce recidivism, enhance public safety, promote healthier families and better-balanced state budgets, is to recommend the state legislature pass a certificate proposal that allows all former offenders the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to rehabilitation, and which encourages them in that effort, and rewards them for it.

Require clear and concerted effort, yes, but do not deny mere eligibility for the certificate to any former offender who purposefully demonstrates a sincere commitment to rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the question before the OERC Employment Workgroup is this: will you move to expand opportunities for the successful reentry of the increasing number of former offenders returning to our communities from prison, or will you actually make reentry harder for a significant number of those persons?

Physician, first do no harm.

End of Year Reflections

2009-12-31T13:44:00.003-05:00

The year's end always occasions reflection of the year past and the year ahead. As I look back at my incarceration experience, though, I realize that my view of this time of year has changed from how I thought about it on the inside. During my time in prison, the New Year holiday quickly became my favorite. As the numbers on the calendar changed, I grew closer to the time of my eventual release from prison. For most people in prison--and particularly for someone serving a long time in prison--it's all about the number of the year on the calendar. Yes, as the numbers in the year change, hope and anticipation increase. So, while inside, I always greeted the new year with tremendous satisfaction.

Now that I'm on the outside, however, my view of the new year has become more philosophical. That is, it doesn't bring the quiet joy of times past. Yes, of course, I'm very happy to have my freedom again. Nonetheless, as readers of this blog know well, the joy of regaining one's freedom after prison soon gives way, for most formerly incarcerated persons, to a profound dismay caused by all of the unavoidable obstacles to successful reentry returning prisoners experience. Yes, I'd much rather be out here dealing with all of it but it hasn't been easy at all. If I were a man of lesser inner resources--and less support from family and friends-- I don't know how I would have managed to breathe as easily as I do. Two-thirds of former prisoners get re-arrested within three (3) years of their release from prison. Over fifty percent of them get sent back to prison within those same three (3) years. The third anniversary of my reentry is still a few months away.

Yes, my view of the new year has become more philosophical. I reflect over the difficulties of the past two-and-a-half years. I feel very fortunate to have the chance to live freely again, when so many of the people I did time with remain behind bars. I know that, as difficult as my reentry has been, it could have been--and still could be--much worse. That remains a very sobering reality check over my emotions. For many of my comrades in the reentering community, however, the mental and emotional balancing act that I may accomplish as a matter of routine often proves a hopeless endeavor.

That said, I do greet the new year with a good degree of hope and confidence. Ultimately, I refuse to surrender to even the intimation of failure. In perhaps my favorite movie, Glory, Morgan Freeman's character utters a very moving and memorable line, when he says that if he should fall in the battle of the next day, "Tell my people that I went down standing up." Failure in my reentry is just not an option. There is no hunger strong enough to drive me to behavior that takes me back to prison. None. I'll die of starvation first.

However hard the task before me, I believe in my ability to get it done, and in my ultimate success in doing so...the right way.

Focus

2009-11-30T23:26:00.004-05:00

When I began this blog a while ago I didn't know what I would write about. I hadn't focused upon any particular aspect of my reentry experience that would fuel a regular stream of ideas worthy of a dedicated readership. I have that focus now. I have decided to share my thoughts here about the clients that I meet, from day-to-day.

Everyday I see or speak to yet another formerly incarcerated person who has either just come home from prison, or who got out of prison a while ago but still needs help making progress toward self sufficiency. On most days, I meet several new clients. Their circumstances have their own nuances of particularity. Still, most of the stories ring very familiar. The two (2) biggest areas of need for my clients are jobs and housing. In the literature on reentry, employment and housing are, virtually always, ranked as the greatest needs, depending on the source. Most of us on the reentry front lines, though, agree that the number one need among the reentering population is employment. That is, once we get the job we can pay for the housing.

Now, a large number of landlords will not rent to someone with a criminal background. That often remains a problem for a reentering person because the housing choices don't always inspire the sense of satisfaction most people want to feel about the place in which they live. Nevertheless, if a reentering person has enough of an income to pay for a decent place to live, he or she can usually find such a place--unless that reentering person happens to have a sex offense. But then, unless you've paid no attention to the news in recent years, you already have some idea of the housing restrictions imposed upon former sex offenders. I will leave that discussion for another blog.

So, invariably, most of my clients report that their prime need is a job. With the country in the midst of the worst job market in almost 30 years, the job prospects for persons returning to our communities from prison have never been worse. So, what do I say to someone who comes to me, exasperated, desperate, and all-but-broken by the inability to earn even a minimum-wage income? That depends on what I glean about that person's individual circumstances, and upon what I understand about the presence or lack of options for that person in my community.

If the client has a living arrangement that allows him the opportunity for a more thoughtful approach to his predicament, I usually advise him or her to consider the one (1) local job readiness workshop that provides a good degree of supportive services, including help with transportation costs, tools, and clothing, once a job is found, until the client has the first pay check in hand. If, however, the client's living arrangements are more stressful--which is most of the time--my focus turns to the temporary agencies that have demonstrated some willingness to place my clients in temp work assignments. Most agencies don't want to deal with former offenders who have convictions for sex-related or violent crimes. Virtually all of the agencies that will place my clients have their own criteria regarding how old the crimes in question have to be, and how long the client must have been out of prison. In most cases, an agency won't touch a client who hasn't been out of prison for years.

Currently, an unemployed person without a criminal background remains out of work for an average of six (6) months. In contrast, over half of all formerly incarcerated persons remain without a job they can call their own for longer than a year--and, in many cases, much longer. If our economy is bad now, how much worse would it be if most unemployed persons remained unemployed for over a year? That calculation doesn't require higher math.

The next time the subject of high recidivism rates comes up, ask that question.

Making Jobs for Former Prisoners

2009-10-02T16:07:00.001-04:00

Making Jobs for Former Prisoners

Posted using ShareThis

Cash-strapped states revise laws to get inmates out -- latimes.com

2009-09-07T10:59:00.001-04:00

Cash-strapped states revise laws to get inmates out -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

Twenty Questions

2009-07-27T07:37:00.008-04:00

Any serious attempt to promote successful prisoner reentry must consider the following questions:

1) Why does our country incarcerate more of its people, both in raw numbers, and per capita, than any other country in the world?

2) Crime, overall, declined 25 percent between 1988 and 2008, and violent and property crimes have declined since the early 1990's. Why, then, has the U.S. prison population quadrupled since 1980?

3) Across the country, approximately 50 percent of the prison population consists of non-violent offenders. Why do we continue to send so many non-violent offenders to prison, and will the cost of doing so lead us to adopt alternatives to incarceration for that cohort of offenders?

4) Seventy percent of all prisoners nationwide are black. Black males are seven (7) times more likely to go to prison than white males. Are these statistics simply the result of higher rates of criminal behavior among blacks--particularly black males?

5) How much of the explosive growth in the prison population nationwide is attributable to media sensationalism and political pandering?

6) Most--if not all--prisons stress institutional order and control over all other considerations. Why have we largely abandoned a systemic emphasis upon rehabilitation?

7) Our prisons function as human warehouses, wherein we stash people until we let them back out into society. Why don't we, as a society, take a greater interest in how that human inventory is managed?

8) When ninety percent of all prisoners will eventually leave prison, why don't we, as a society, recognize that our best interests are directly related to preparing those prisoners for a better life after prison?

9) It has been said that a people get the leaders they deserve. Does it follow that a society gets the ex-prisoners it deserves?

10) Some thoughtful observers opine that less developed nations generally lock up fewer of their citizens because of their greater social emphasis upon community, in contrast to our preoccupation with individualism. What role, if any, does our preoccupation with individualism--and the capitalist impulse that feeds it--play in the essential failure of our prison system, in terms of high recidivism and heightened anxiety regarding public safety?

11) If you were asked to write a 30-second public service ad intended to communicate the relationship between public safety--a fundamental barometer of the quality of life in our society--and successful prisoner reentry, what would your ad say?

12) Several states and municipalities nationwide have embraced the so-called "Ban the Box" movement--which, essentially, precludes any consideration of a person's criminal background in hiring decisions for jobs totally unrelated to their past criminal behavior. The language, "Ban the Box," advocates the elimination of any question concerning an applicant's criminal background on the initial job application. How do the merits of this idea compare with its faults, if any?

13) Former President Bush once remarked that ours is a nation of second chances. Is this true?

14) What responsibility--if any--does government bear for providing former prisoners a fair chance to rebuild their lives after prison?

15) Given the high recidivism rate, successful prison reentry is more the exception than the rule. Is this acceptable?

16) Should local and state government provide more incentives for businesses to hire, and retain, former prisoners?

17) Should state and local government also create incentives for landlords to rent to former prisoners?

18) Should state and local government provide legal protections insulating businesses and landlords from unreasonable and counterproductive claims of liability for the former prisoners they hire or house?

19) Should state legislatures move to eliminate overly broad collateral sanctions that severely restrict opportunities for successful prisoner reentry?

20) At a time when 1 in 100 Americans are in prison, on probation, or on parole; when 1 in 18 men are in prison--and 1 in 32 Americans of both sexes--virtually everyone knows someone caught up in the criminal justice system. In light of this glaring fact, isn't our society primed to embrace a more holistic reentry support system, provided that thoughtful and responsible leadership rises to that challenge?

A New Awareness

2009-07-07T01:35:00.004-04:00

For all the time I spent on the inside, I never understood why so many guys so often came back to prison. It truly boggled my mind. Like virtually everyone who has never experienced incarceration, I felt tremendous contempt for dudes with more than one "number." (A "number" connotes a separate instance of imprisonment. A prisoner gets a new number, most of the time, when he returns to prison with a fresh case. I say "most of the time" because sometimes the returned prisoner failed to complete the terms of his release on his previous case and he reenters prison on his old number.) Of course, I didn't go out of my way to make that contempt known. The last thing I needed was a throwdown--or worse--with a dude who felt he really had nothing to lose. Still, the longer I stayed inside, the greater my contempt became for those returnees. In my mind, I continued to languish in prison, to a real degree, because of those "idiots". That is, whenever I came up for release consideration, that consideration was inevitably colored by news reports of some former prisoners who went on to commit new and often heinous crimes after their release from prison. Indeed, societal backlash against repeat offenders led to the "Truth in Sentencing" measures of the late '80's and early '90's, which included the elimination of parole in many jurisdictions, and longer prison sentences in most. Consequently, I served 30 years for behavior--admittedly very serious--that I would have served half that time for, if my offense had occurred but a few years sooner So, the longer I remained in prison, the less reluctant I became to give voice to that contempt, if provoked.

While I remain quite at odds with the notion of anyone returning to prison after the good fortune of regaining freedom, I have learned, through my reentry experience, to withhold judgment concerning most repeat offenders. I know, so well, the unavoidable difficulties of reentry for most of us. I understand that, just as every man who enters prison will necessarily come to a reckoning with his sense of self, his truest character--his manhood--most every released prisoner will, likewise, inevitably find himself under siege by his conflicting and all-too-human emotional reactions to the firmly entrenched societal obstacles to his successful reentry that lie in wait for him, primed to pounce upon him, at any moment, to choke whatever desire and determination he may have to walk the straight and narrow right out of him.

Consider that life inside most--if not all--prisons entails an endless parade of dehumanizing and spirit-destroying experiences. For sure, the bulk of the dysfunctional behavior witnessed inside prison flows directly out of the feeling of entrapment in what one infamous former prisoner referred to as "the belly of the beast." The real struggle for survival inside prison is the struggle for the survival of the prisoner's humanity. Most prisoners don't fully realize this, and most don't care. It is enough to get through each day. The emotional weight of confinement, the feeling of being surrounded by an infinite variety of sociopaths, magnified by the all-too-often over the top behavior of prison guards and other staff persons combine to form a sort of perfect storm that wreaks havoc upon the psyche of many prisoners and leaves an indelible dark spot upon the soul of all.

Yes, I've been to some really dark places, inside of me; places that I had no idea existed. Indeed, the greatest fear I felt in prison didn't pertain to anything outside of me. My greatest fear, and my greatest motivation, lay in the perpetual threat of the annihilation of my sense of humanity. So, I determined early in my prison sojourn that I would not allow myself to become the embodiment of the thoroughly distorted and dysfunctional thinking and behavior that everything and everyone around me seemed to expect--no, demand--of me.

The utter truth is that my personal struggle to preserve my sense of humanity was a lonely one. Most of those around me grew to respect me for my studiousness, and my "solid" prison reputation. Moreover, many of my fellow prisoners admired me because I represented a hope that they seemed to have long since relinquished: the hope in the possibility of surviving the emotional terrorism of prison with a yet humane heart, an enlightened mind, and a spiritual sensitivity to the good and true. Of course, most of them couldn't express it like that--and wouldn't if they could. It remains an accurate assessment, just the same.

The point here is this: today I know why most of those who return to prison do so, and it has nothing to do with their incorrigibility, lack of intelligence, unwillingness to change, or anything of that sort. It has to do, totally, with a lost sense of possibility for any real and socially-accepted measure of success. In essence, our prisons turn out seriously damaged human beings, emotionally speaking, and our society adds the icing to that post-traumatic-shock-syndrome-like condition in its refusal to seriously and effectively address their basic needs and residual human aspirations.

I believe that we can do better than that. I have to.

Celebration vs. Dismay

2009-06-25T02:24:00.015-04:00

Everyday in this country, large numbers of prisoners leave prison to return to the free community. Whether we did long time or short time, the day of our release from prison inevitably ranks near the top of the list of the happiest days in our lives--often at the very top. Many of us spent our whole time inside locked-up in an emotional prison much more challenging than the physical reality of confinement. Some of us experienced so much inner turmoil in wrapping our minds around the cold facts of our personal sense of failure that we became oblivious of, and indifferent to, the actual bars and barbed-wire fences that enforced our banishment from society. We did our time in a daze, as if sleepwalking through a long, bad dream. For many of us, quite ironically, time stopped the day we entered the system, and it didn't start again until we walked out of prison. In the language and imagery of many of our slave forefathers and mothers at the time of their emancipation, though, we greeted our new freedom as our own Day of Jubilee. Hallelujah!

During my years inside, I watched that process play out more times than I can count. The unmitigated joy of so many of the folks I watched virtually skip and dance out of the prison I knew would hold me for some time longer lit up the whole joint. Some of those fellas never cracked the hint of a smile--or indicated the least suggestion of conscious engagement in the real-time world of mundane affairs--during the entire time they spent inside. Their happiness sometimes made me feel good but most often it left me curious. I wondered if, somewhere beneath the profuse and profound expressions of victory and celebration, my erstwhile comrades in confinement had any real notion of what awaited them on the outside.

As I've already acknowledged, I didn't fully comprehend the magnitude of the benign rejection that awaited me out here. I say benign because it most often occurs very quietly and casually--even stealthily. While many in our society have no problem telling us that they want nothing to do with us, most of the people out here who reject us when we seek employment, or even the support services that we, prima facie, qualify for, do not wax so bold or obvious in owning up to their disdain for us. They kill us softly. This process recalls the insidiousness of racism in the almost invisible way it works to deny our humanity and our potential for successful transformation.

Happiness and celebration should characterize our experience on the day we walk out of prison. The reality that awaits most of us out here, however, disabuses us of those feelings. Without a doubt, for the vast majority of us, joy ultimately surrenders to dismay. Not all of us survive that transition well enough to hold on to the precious freedom for which we so longed.

A New Beginning

2009-06-23T11:08:00.020-04:00

Image via Wikipedia

In times long since passed, the word reentry most commonly denoted the return of astronauts from space flights, i.e. their reentering our planet's atmosphere. That reentry process posed grave dangers for those returning explorers, and the ships in which they traveled. Indeed, if the angle of descent wasn't just right--or the speed of the spacecraft, or the quality and arrangement of the protective heat shields--both crew and ship would disintegrate during the maneuver. In this blog, I will write of a different, yet similarly challenging type of reentry: the return, to the larger community, of persons who have served time in prison.

I returned from my own stint in prison just over two (2) years ago. Many more years ago, as a 20-year-old neophyte, restlessness and impatience consumed me--as had my fondness for smoking marijuana. Having smoked my way out of college, the army, and a job, I acted on a reckless impulse to become a stick-up man. Free fall became rock bottom, with unbelievably tragic consequences. A shoot-out occurred. The other man died, and I became a dead man walking.

I ultimately served 30 years in prison as a first-time offender. I learned a lot during that time. In many ways, I became a man. I came home older, wiser, and determined to overcome the mistakes of my past. In the view of many, I served my time better, more constructively, than most of those who do time in prison. With a bachelors degree in hand, a clear and sharpened mind, a chastened spirit, and a commitment to personal excellence and redemptive community service of some kind, I left prison on a mission to gainsay the minimalist expectations of most formerly incarcerated persons. I knew my transition from prison to community would not proceed as smoothly as I liked. It has gone even less smoothly than anticipated.