Recidivism refers to the likelihood of a formerly incarcerated person to reoffend. Factors such as housing, employment, and mental health can impact recidivism rates. Upon release, if a person does not have access to secure housing or mental health resources, the likelihood of them re-entering the prison system is high. Some states are experimenting with programs to help the transition from a carceral life to reduce the rate of recidivism.
Incarceration is a significant social determinant of health because imprisonment can create barriers for individuals once they are released. For example, over 80% of people who are released from prison do not have access to health insurance or lose their access due to their conviction.
Previous Policies
In the past decades, various states have implemented programs intending to reduce prison recidivism rates.
- Maryland created educational programs and partnered with state agencies to provide medical services to individuals after they were released from prison. From 2000-2012, the state saw an 11% decrease in the rate of recidivism. State prison officials accredited the declining rate of reentry to their focus on the academic and health services provided.
- Michigan was one of the first states to create a re-entry initiative program. Coined the Michigan Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (MPRI), the program focuses on housing, employment, mental health, and substance abuse services. The MPRI led to a 28% reduction in recidivism between 2000 and 2008.
Current policies
In Boston, Massachusetts Mayor Michelle Wu proposed a budget increase of 1.38 million for the Office of Returning Citizens (ORC). Before Mayor Wu’s proposal, the office operated on an annual budget of $500 thousand. The Office of Returning Citizens is in charge of assisting formerly incarcerated individuals through transitional housing, health services, employment opportunities, and record expungement. The ORC helps an average of 3,000 people per year from the state, local, and federal prisons, and has been steadily increasing its capacity since 2017.
Arguments for supporting Boston’s ORC Budget Increase
- Investing in re-entry programs has been cost-effective for other states. In Michigan, the MPRI has allowed the state to save over an estimated $1 billion in its efforts to reduce prison populations since 2000.
- As of 2020, over 54.4% of U.S citizens obtain health insurance through their employers. Thus, focusing on employment opportunities for people released from prison could increase their chances of having access to healthcare.
- Giving formerly incarcerated individuals supportive services such as healthcare, employment, and housing will allow them to have greater success in assimilating back into the community. Thereby reducing the likelihood of people returning to crime.
Arguments against investment in recidivism programs
- Without changing policies that will make it easier for individuals with a convicted felony to obtain employment, the extent to which these programs can assist people is limited.
Currently there is a lack of research on the effectiveness of re-entry programs. As argued by David Muhlhausen, the former director of the National Institute of Justice, without randomized controlled trials, it is difficult for programs like the ones in Massachusetts and Michigan to be considered evidence-based.