Fighting Recidivism in Rural Contexts
By: Jeremy Houle
Tags: Homelessness, Recidivism, Prison, Project Reconnect, Homeless

Photo by Stijn te Strake on Unsplash

There is evidence to suggest that reentry into a rural community may be more difficult than reentry into an urban community, especially when it comes to obtaining housing. A homeless survey revealed that 44 percent of suburban homeless had spent time in juvenile detention, jail, or prison, while 55 percent of homeless in central cities had served time, while nearly two thirds, 64 percent, of homeless individuals in rural communities had served time (Wodahl, E. J, 2006).

Reentry and recidivism affect all members of a society, whether they are a criminal, victim, or otherwise. In 2009, nearly 2,000 convicts were released daily(Anderson-Facile, 2009). This is a significant number when “nearly two-thirds of released prisoners are expected to be rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within three years of their release,” (Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon and Michelle Waul, 2001.). This means hundreds of thousands of crimes are expected to be committed annually by currently existing criminals alone, not counting first time offenses. Such a high rate of recidivism is very detrimental and costly to society.

Literature Review

Reentry into a rural context is much different than an urban context and offenders face several unique challenges. Rural residents are less likely to have the same level of access to both private and public services, such as health care, drug abuse treatment, and government assistance, as those living in urban contexts (Wodahl, 2006). Therefore, rural residents must often travel, sometimes great distances, to urban areas to seek or receive help. If they are unable to travel, they must find alternative resources, or else forego the assistance they may be eligible for. Being unable to seek or receive assistance negatively affects the possibility of reintegration into society.

Fewer Types of Employment

Rural communities tend to be less varied economically than their urban counterparts, sometimes having only one dominant economic activity, such as farming or oil drilling (Wodahl, 2006). This may be difficult for reintegrating offenders as they may not be qualified for the relatively small number of jobs a rural community offers. Even if a convict does find employment, rural jobs generally pay less than urban jobs (Wodahl, 2006).

Acquaintance Density

Rural communities generally have high levels of acquaintance density when compared to urban communities (Wodahl, 2006). Wodahl provides the following definition for acquaintance density: “the average proportion of the people in a community known by the community’s inhabitants”. This means that residents of rural communities tend to know more people than those in urban communities.

Effects of Higher Acquaintance Density

High acquaintance density has several massive implications for the offender reentering into a rural context. Positively, the individual will be entering a community where they know other individuals from whom they may seek help, whether it be emotionally, mentally, financially, job placement, or otherwise.

However, there are negative aspects of high levels of acquaintance density too, such as a stronger stigma. Whereas in an urban context where a convict, as long as he or she is not infamous, may reasonably travel without fear of being recognized and retaliated against, this may not be a luxury afforded to convicts reentering rural communities. This may discourage them from seeking the help they need, whether it is counseling, health care, or otherwise.

Unique Difficulties in Finding Employment in Rural Settings

The greater acquaintance density may also cause employers to be hesitant to hire ex-convicts. Employers may fear a wide-spread social stigma or even boycott from hiring the convict, especially in service-oriented industries that have high amounts of contact with customers. Additionally, employers working in small businesses, such as those often found in rural settings, rely more on their own personal discretion, which is often harsher than large companies with a dedicated hiring team (La Vigne, Solomon, Beckman, & Dedel, 2006). This means convicts in a rural setting may face higher prejudice than their urban counterparts.

Other studies have quantified how reluctant small business employers are to hire ex-offenders (Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A, 2002). One study indicated that employers are more reluctant to hire ex-offenders than any other group of disadvantaged workers (Holzer, 2002). The same study indicated that fewer than 40% of employers surveyed indicated that they would definitely or probably hire ex-offenders into their most recently filled non-college job. Table 1 illustrates that surveyed employers are strongly opposed to applicants with a criminal record, even when compared with other types of individuals with a stigma (Holzer, 2002).

Overcoming Substance Abuse in Rural Communities

Additionally, greater acquaintance density may also lead to rural convicts having more difficulty overcoming substance abuse than their urban counterparts, since they generally know more people, some of whom are likely to be individuals with whom they associated in the past and may encourage continuing criminal activity or substance abuse (Wodahl, 2006).

Housing in Rural Communities

Furthermore, housing is often more difficult to obtain in rural communities than urban ones, since the regular restrictions apply, such as the requirement to not live within a certain distance of a school, swimming pool etc, and there are much fewer, and more competitive, housing opportunities than in urban communities (Wodahl, 2006).

Because of the difficulty in obtaining necessary assistance because of limited public transportation and distance to treatment(whether it be counseling, health care, or governmental financial aid),the nuanced social structure of rural communities, the limited economic choices, and the particular difficulty of finding housing, offenders reentering rural communities would be especially helped by participating in an effective reentry program suited to their unique difficulties.

Project Re-Connect

Project Re-Connect (PRC) was a reentry program with a novel approach– it offered financial assistance to eligible clients, though not by cash directly, with assistance generally coming in the form of gift cards or credit to specific stores or services (Wikoff, 2012). Clients decided for themselves how to use their allotted capital. PRC was intended for St. Louis residents who were convicted by the state circuit court in St. Louis and served their maximum prison sentence, therefore being released without parole (Morani, Wikoff, Linhorst, & Bratton, 2011).

Project Re-Connect was a six-month voluntary reentry program that gave clients access to $3,000 USD. A study of PRC included two groups of inmates (Morani et al, 2011). The first group consisted of 122 inmates who chose to participate during PRC’s run dates of March 7, 2007, and February 1st, 2008. The second group comprised the 162 inmates who elected not to participate.

The study done by Morani et al included two data sources. The first source was from databanks maintained by the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDC), and the second source was databanks maintained by PRC staff. MDC provided data on inmates such as date of birth, race, gender, level of education, the criminal offense for which they were admitted, and the most recent assessment scores for institutional risk, substance abuse treatment needs, and mental health treatment needs (Morani et al, 2011).

PRC staff maintained three databases. The first database included information regarding the entry and exit dates of clientele as well as their self-identified needs. The second database included information about expenditures made on behalf of program clients from their allotted amount of $3,000. The third database retained information collected by case managers regarding clients’ final outcomes in several areas (Morani et al, 2011).

Important to note, PRC did not utilize systematic testing for controlled substance use. Their substance abuse data was collected by self-reporting surveys or reports from family and friends of the clientele.

Findings from the Project Re-Connect Reentry Program

Between June 6th, 2006, and March 3rd, 2007, Missouri prisons released 269 inmates who were eligible for Project Re-Connect. Of the 269 who were eligible, 107 (39.8%) chose to voluntarily participate in PRC.

For this study, those who elected not to participate, 162 inmates, will serve as the control group.

On average, clients were 3 years older than the control group. They were three times more likely to be female and more likely to have at least a high school diploma or GED. They were also more likely to have been convicted of a violent offense (41.8%) than the control group (30.6%) (Morani et al, 2011).

Significant differences between clients and the control group did not exist in matters of race, institutional risk scores, or substance abuse scores.

Perceived Needs

Before being released from prison, clients were asked to identify reentry needs from a list provided by PRC. Over 99% of clients indicated they desired bus passes/gas cards, 95.1% indicated clothing, 92.6% indicated food, and 90.2% indicated housing (Morani et al, 2011).

Expenditures

The average ancillary expenditure for each client was $2,431.30. However, the amount of assistance received ranged widely, from $200-$3,895. All clients used some of the allotted assistance for food. 98.4% of clients received funding for transportation, at an average of $219.70. Data for transportation needs and expenditure would look vastly different in a rural setting, most likely costing far more than the amount used by clients in PRC in the urban context of this study (Morani et al, 2011).

Perceived Needs vs. Expenditures

Case managers at PRC reported that 86% of their clientele had a history of substance abuse, a number that coincided with numbers reported by the Missouri Department of Corrections. During PRC’s six month program, 34 clients (37%) were identified as having abused substances. 86% of clients indicated that they had a history of substance abuse, yet only 28.1% participated in substance abuse treatment. However, 61.8% of the 34 clients identified by case managers as having used controlled substances participated in treatment programs.

The data shows that inmates are able to identify their needs and appropriately use the assistance offered to them. This is important because it proves that PRC’s model of client-directed assistance can work.

Social Outcomes of PRC Clients vs. Non-Participants

PRC was a six month program. At the end of the program, 20.3% of the control group had been convicted of a new crime, while only 7.4% of clients had been reconvicted. Therefore, “Participation was associated with a 42.2% reduction is the overall conviction hazard rate.” (Wikoff et al, 2012).

Furthermore, 90% of clients indicated a need for housing prior to their release. PRC had data for 113 clients, and of those, only one client had not obtained housing by the end of the program (Morani et al, 2011).

Unique difficulties in Rural Communities vs. Urban Communities

Urban communities are affected by illicit drug abuse much more frequently than rural communities. However, alcohol abuse is much more prevalent in rural communities than urban ones (Wodahl, 2006). This is indicated by the fact that “the DUI arrest rate for cities of 100,000 or more was approximately 362 per 100,000 people, whereas the DUI arrest rate for rural counties was 835 per 100,000 . . .” (Olson, Weisheit and Ellsworth 2001:11).

Alcohol abuse is particularly problematic because it is legal. Therefore, unless abstinence is a part of a probation program, it cannot be legally stopped or prosecuted. Inmates must seek recovery for themselves and find motivation other than criminal prosecution for their effort in recovery.

Furthermore, finding treatment is often more difficult due to the fact that facilities and programs may not exist, or may exist at distances greater than inmates are able or willing to travel.

Implementing Project Re-Connect in Rural Communities

Since PRC’s model is to have financial assistance directed by clients, and since clients have shown the ability to properly assess their needs and use funds appropriately, PRC is one of the most versatile reentry programs.

The initial difficulty faced by implementing PRC in a rural setting is transportation in general and specifically, efficiently meeting with clients in distant rural communities. Many rural communities have too few offenders to warrant a physical office in that community.

However, transportation difficulties may be overcome in several ways. One, by clients receiving assistance for transportation, and therefore securing a means of transportation. In PRC’s urban program, over 98% of clients received assistance for transportation (Morani et al, 2011). If over 98% of clients in a rural program obtained transportation, this problem would be extremely mitigated. However, a second solution is also possible. Case managers may use an online video service to meet with clients, and financial assistance may be sent through mail or online. An internet capable device could be purchased for far less than a vehicle, and therefore may be preferred solution by some clients.

Rural communities tend to have fewer jobs, fewer types of commerce to engage in, and more competition than urban communities (Wodahl, 2006). Therefore, clients of a rural version of PRC may choose vocational training more often than their urban counterparts.

PRC took a very lax attitude towards substance abuse in the urban program. They did not perform regular substance tests, nor did they put any related restrictions on receiving assistance, even when clients continually abused illicit substances. A rural version of PRC would be dealing with relatively fewer clients abusing hardcore drugs than their urban program, yet they would likely have more clients abusing alcohol (Wodahl, 2006). As noted above, rural communities may have fewer resources and programs available to them for substance abuse. PRC would need to be more involved in assisting those looking for resources, since in urban contexts it is often a matter of choosing between services, not difficulty in finding even one. This issue may be addressed by starting PRC earlier than in their urban reentry version, while clients are still imprisoned, and therefore being in an urban setting and more easily able to seek programs and assistance. A further solution that may be studied would be for clients to remain abstinent from drugs/alcohol in order to receive funding.

Housing, as mentioned above, is another particular difficulty in rural communities, due to fewer and more competitive opportunities. For PRC to be of assistance in this area, PRC should offer to seek housing for the inmate before release, therefore allowing those reentering to have more time and opportunity to secure housing.

Conclusion

Ex-convicts reentering rural communities face the unique difficulties of sparse public transportation, which limits access to treatment and assistance programs, high levels of acquaintance density, relatively higher levels of prejudice in hiring, and fewer housing opportunities.

Project Re-Connect is one of the most versatile reentry programs due to its unique method of financial assistance and has been proven to reduce rates of homelessness and recidivism. With particular attention paid to transportation, additional help finding resources and employment, more involvement in substance abuse, and additional help finding housing, Project Re-Connect would be an effective and efficient reentry program to use in rural reentry.

References

Anderson-Facile, D. (2009). Basic Challenges to Prisoner Reentry. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 183–195. doi: 10.1111/j.1751–9020.2009.00198.x

Bumiller, K. (2014). Bad Jobs and Good Workers: The Hiring of Ex-prisoners in a Segmented Economy. Theoretical Criminology, 19(3), 336–354. doi: 10.1177/1362480614557307

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2010). Key facts at a glance: Correctional populations. Retrieved from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gOv/content/glance/tables/con:2tab.cfm

Burt, Martha R., Laudan Y. Aron, Toby Douglas, Jesse Valente, Edgar Lee and Britta Iwen. 1999. Homelessness: Programs and the People They Serve. The Urban Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.huduser.org/publications/homeless/homeless_tech.html.

David Weiman and Bruce Western, New York: NY, Russell Sage Foundation.

Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism.” American Sociological Review

Holzer, H. J., Raphael, S., & Stoll, M. A. (2002). Can Employers Play a More Positive Role in Prisoner Reentry? The Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720922011–001

Holzer, Harry J., Steven Raphael, and Michael A. Stoll. 2001. “Will Employers Hire Ex-

Immerwahr, J., & Johnson, J. (2002). The Revolving Door: Exploring Public Attitudes toward Prisoner Reentry. The Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720932011–001

Impact of Incarceration on Families and Communities, edited by Mary Patillo-McCoy,

justice supervision. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

La Vigne, N. G., Solomon, A. L., Beckman, K. A., & Dedel, K. (2006). Prisoner Reentry and Community Policing: Strategies for Enhancing Public Safety: Reentry Roundtable Meeting The Urban Institute Washington, DC May 12–13, 2004. Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720222011–001

Leukefeld, Carl G., Egle Narevic, Matthew L. Hiller, Michele Staton, T. K. Logan, Wayne Gillespie, J. Matthew Webster, Thomas F. Garrity and Rick Purvis. 2002. “Alcohol and Drug Use Among Rural and Urban Incarcerated Substance Abusers.” International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 46(6):715–728.

Lipton, D. S. (1995). The effectiveness of treatment for drug abusers under criminal

Lynch, J. P., & Sabol, W. J. (2001). Prisoner Reentry in Perspective. Urban Institute, 3. Retrieved from http://webarchive.urban.org/publications/410213.html

Mears, D. P., Wang, X., Hay, C., & Bales, W. D. (2008). Social Ecology And Recidivism: Implications For Prisoner Reentry. Criminology, 46(2), 301–340. doi: 10.1111/j.1745–9125.2008.00111.x

Morani, N. M., Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Bratton, S. (2011). A Description of the Self-Identified Needs, Service Expenditures, and Social Outcomes of Participants of a Prisoner-Reentry Program. The Prison Journal, 91(3), 347–365. doi: 10.1177/0032885511409896

Offenders? Employer Preferences, Background Checks, and Their Determinants.” In The

Olson, David E., Ralph A. Weisheit and Thomas Ellsworth. 2001. “Getting Down to Business: A Comparison of Rural and Urban Probationers, Probation Sentences,

and Probation Outcomes.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 17(1):4–18.

Roman, C. G., & Travis, J. (2004). Taking Stock: Housing, Homelessness, and Prisoner Reentry. The Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720362011–001

Solomon, A. L., Johnson, K. D., Travis, J., & Mcbride, E. C. (2004). From Prison to Work: The Employment Dimensions of Prisoner Reentry: A Report of the Reentry Roundtable. The Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720262011–001

Travis, Jeremy, Amy L. Solomon and Michelle Waul. 2001. From Prison to Home: The Dimensions and Consequences of Prisoner Reentry. The Urban Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.urban.org/JeremyTravis.

Travis, Jeremy. 2001. “Prisoner Reentry Seen Through a Community Lens.” The Urban Institute. [Online]. Available: http://www.urban.org/JeremyTravis.

Uggen, Christopher. 2000. “Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A

Visher, C., Lavigne, N., & Travis, J. (2004). Returning Home: Understanding the Challenges of Prisoner Reentry: Maryland Pilot Study: Findings from Baltimore. Urban Institute. doi: 10.1037/e720382011–001

West, H. C., & Sabol, W. J. (2008, December). Prisoners in 2007 (NCJ 224280). Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Wikoff, N., Linhorst, D. M., & Morani, N. (2012). Recidivism among Participants of a Reentry Program for Prisoners Released without Supervision. Social Work Research, 36(4), 289–299. doi: 10.1093/swr/svs021

Wodahl, E. J. (2006). The Challenges of Prisoner Reentry from a Rural Perspective. Western Criminology Review, 7(2), 32–47. Retrieved from http://www.westerncriminology.org/documents/WCR/v07n2/wodahl.pdf