Abstract:

Introduction

            In 2017, Louisiana had the highest incarceration rate in the world with 1,420 per 100,000 people (US Census Bureau, n.d.). To address this issue, Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards signed the most comprehensive criminal justice reform in state history, which was a package composed of 10 bills that would revamp the state’s criminal justice system and release an initial wave of 1,900 individuals incarcerated for nonviolent crimes (Allen, 2017). Recent research highlights the importance of reducing incarceration rates and supporting individuals after release to lower recidivism rates and enhance public safety by providing opportunities for employment, housing, education and other opportunities (Bird et al.,2023). As a result, some of the reforms included strategies such as expanded opportunities for probation and parole, eliminating barriers to re-entry and reducing sentences for certain crimes such as nonviolent drug offenses (Allen, 2017). While these reforms were viewed as an accomplishment within the state legislature, public reaction from citizens within the community had been unclear. What emerged from this study were the perspectives of citizens from one community on their thoughts of these new reforms, which included the perspective of one individual within the community who had recently been released from prison. Research into this area provided insight into understanding not only how different communities of people viewed the criminal justice system, but also captured the personal thoughts of a justice-impacted individual.

Literature Review

The criminal justice system functions so that when an individual is convicted of a crime, depending on the severity of the charges, they can be punished in various ways, including jail, incarceration, community supervision, or fines. After an individual completes their sentence, they have paid their debt to society and can move forward with their lives. However, a criminal record can pose significant barriers to accessing housing, health care, counseling education, employment, health care, and other critical public benefits for stability and economic mobility (Hyde et al, 2022; Mohammad et al, 2023). These collateral consequences that impede steps to successful reintegration are not only hard on justice-impacted individuals and their families, but they also impact communities and undermine public safety efforts (Bensel & Craw, 2018; Berson, 2013; Doleac, 2018; NICCC, 2021).

Rational Choice Institutionalism

Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) is a theoretical framework that emerged in the late 20th century that examines how institutional rules change the behavior of  individuals within the policy process who are motivated by personal gain (Dudovskiy, 2013). Through the use of the RCI framework, researchers argue that institutions matter because they generate incentives that shape the objectives of lawmakers, political parties, and citizens, which in turn impacts social and political outcomes (Dudovskiy, 2013; Ostrom, 2007). Other theories such as transaction cost economics, negotiation theory, and game theory all fall under the broader umbrella of the RCI framework and provide additional insights into how actors navigate institutional environments. For instance, game theory, as highlighted by Tsebelis (2002), explores how policymakers act like players in a game, strategizing to maximize their personal gains while considering the behavior of others. The prisoner’s dilemma, which is a well-known concept under the game theory umbrella, examines how individuals, acting out of self-interest, may choose options that ultimately lead to less than desired outcomes for all parties involved (Tucker, 1983). This concept highlights the complexities of decision-making within institutions and the importance of rules in mitigating self-interests to ensure better collective outcomes for all.

While RCI has been used mainly within the political realm, a number of these elements are also applicable at the community level, in which the rules and incentives of the neighborhood impact attitudes, perceptions and behaviors (Sabatier, 2007). Because citizens have the power to elect public officials who will serve their personal interests, political leaders will often make policy choices based on the consensus of their constituents. Recent research on the RCI framework has sought to examine some of the barriers in distinguishing between behavior influenced by institutions and the institutions themselves. Institutions change overtime, so therefore there are limitations in understanding how they evolve, especially within the context of frequent political regime changes (Faundez, 2016).

Application of RCI Framework to Current Study

In the context of this study, the RCI framework was applied to analyze how institutional structures within Louisiana’s state and city governments contribute to and reflect policy choices in the criminal justice system. One of the key elements of RCI in this study is its focus on personal interests and incentives. Scholars have noted, institutions provide guidelines and rewards that impact actors’ decisions, often benefiting those who are in positions of influence (Caballero & Soto-Onate, 2015; Peters, 2014). In the case of the criminal justice system in Louisiana, policymakers may be influenced by institutional arrangements that prioritize certain political or economic interests, especially when it pertains to public safety. The incentives for these actors may include desires such as maintaining political control or securing funding, rather than pursuing reforms that would benefit marginalized communities.

This study also utilizes the RCI framework to highlight how institutional rules can be resistant to change due to the vested interests of those who benefit from the status quo. In this case, the existing policies and practices within the criminal justice system as it pertains to keeping certain populations incarcerated, may persist because this benefits certain political actors or groups. Using the RCI framework can also help to explain the relationship between institutional rules, actor behavior, and policy outcomes, which allows for a nuanced analysis of the relationship between institutional constraints and individual decision-making. This not only sheds light on how policy choices are made, but also who ultimately benefits from them.

The central research question of this study was seeking to capture the thoughts and perceptions of citizens on the criminal justice system and the reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals back into the community. This study in conjunction with the RCI framework, provides understanding into the impact of rules and incentives on perceptions, behaviors, personal interests, and preferences, which impact policy choices. This study also highlights the importance of how institutions must shape criminal justice policy that is comprehensive in addressing the needs, preferences, and interests of citizens in all communities.

Conclusion

Rational Choice Institutionalism provides a great foundation for understanding how institutions influence individual behavior and shape policy outcomes.  In the context of this study, RCI is used to examine how institutional arrangements within the criminal justice system contribute to policy choices and outcomes and how these outcomes reflect and reinforce the current beliefs, attitudes and perceptions of citizens. By analyzing the incentives and constraints faced by policymakers, this study was be able to demonstrate how personal interests and institutional rules interact to shape policy decisions that have far-reaching social, political, and economic implications for justice-impacted individuals and their reentry back into the community.

Methods

In order to understand the challenges of the participant central to this manuscript, it is important to first provide a framework by discussing the overall research study, design, methodology, data set, analysis and emerging themes. In sharing the overall findings, this information will provide further context so that the reader can understand the perspectives of the single participant within the broader context of the entire study, participants and overall findings.

The research question that guided this study was: What are the perceptions of citizens regarding institutional disparities and practices within the criminal justice system and the reintegration of previously incarcerated individuals who have been convicted of nonviolent offenses back into the community? Utilizing methods such as interviews, thematic analysis, narrative analysis, coding and field notes in this study to measure perceptions allowed for the researcher to better understand how participants experienced and interpreted their realities and offered a more nuanced view of perception as it pertained to reintegration practices within the criminal justice system.

Data Collection/Analysis

This study received IRB approval (02-15-18-0471755) before data collection began. Data collection methods included interviewing 22 participants in a semi-structured format utilizing purposeful sampling. Participants were all over the age of 18, representing a mix of ethnicities, and resided in various communities within one parish. The participants in the study worked in different professional fields that included business, secondary and postsecondary education, the military, college athletics, health care, the legal system, law enforcement, and others. Participants’ interpretation, understanding of, and reactions to multiple concepts and ideas were explored, including criminal justice reform, the importance of community, volunteerism, incarceration, drugs, crime, socioeconomic equality, institutional racism, public policy, disparities in sentencing, arrests, and convictions, current legislation and the impact of media

Recruitment was conducted through neighborhood associations and social media, with participants reaching out directly via email or phone. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, ensuring confidentiality and explaining the study’s purpose. The interview protocol included 14 open-ended questions that lasted between 15 minutes to an hour and were conducted in libraries or conference rooms. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed, with thematic saturation occurring after the 14th interview. However, all 22 scheduled interviews were completed.

The data was analyzed and coded by using NVivo software. Utilizing a pre-coded framework for participants’ responses allowed the researcher to determine patterns in the participants’ narratives and establish certain categories to understand common themes better. The research question and coding design also consisted of a review of emerging themes, topics, categories, and sequences followed by a reorganization and redefining of these themes and interpreting new patterns of meaning within the broader context of the data (Creswell, 2013; Nowell et al, 2017).

Overall Results and Themes

The results found that citizens’ perspectives on releasing previously incarcerated individuals back into the community depended on common themes such as the impact of political, educational, and socioeconomic systems. From the participants’ perspectives, these systems were important mechanisms that would ultimately determine the success of justice-impacted individuals returning to the community (SAMHSA, 2023). Specifically, topics such as environment and family support were the most prominent themes mentioned by research participants similar to items that have been mentioned in similar research studies on the importance of support in reentry (Mathlin et al, 2024). One participant who currently works in the juvenile justice system discussed that the impact of family and the environment that individuals come from often produces a learned behavior of criminal activity that continues into their adult lives. They noted that a “generational cycle of seeing your dad, brother, uncle, and cousin going into jail at the age of 8, 9 years old is all you know because that is all you see.” This perspective was similar to another participant who serves as a law enforcement officer. He noted that in his experience with individuals who were formerly incarcerated, many generally get back into trouble because of who they were “hanging out with.” Still, an additional participant who serves as a police detective for the violent crimes unit at the state agency discussed the political nature of policy, agendas, and self-interest and how these preferences play a role in policy choices but that they often were not “in the best interests of the individuals who would be most impacted by them.” He noted that the “general public doesn’t want those people [ex-offenders] out, and if they do get out, they can go live somewhere else, but not in their community.”

In considering the research question and combining the common themes that emerged throughout the study, the perceptions of citizens on individuals returning to the community after a period of incarceration were shaped by the overarching theme of the quality of life to which individuals would return. When discussing the quality of life in this context, it refers to the needs of justice-impacted individuals’ economic, social, educational, and psychological needs being met. The response by these participants is supported by research that points to a number variables as critical for reentering society (Agan & Makowsky, 2023; Batastini et al, 2021; Eren & Owens, 2024; Mathlin et al, 2024). If needs impact individual decision-making, then this central theme is important in understanding the needs of justice-involved citizens as they re-enter society. This factor is especially evident in the last interview participant, who will be the focus for the remainder of this article.

Themes From a Single Participant

The research participant that will be discussed was selected because he was the only participant in the study who had previously been incarcerated and had a criminal history that included multiple misdemeanors and felonies. While maintaining his identity for confidentiality purposes, the participant describes himself as an African American male between the ages of 28-35. He resides in a community in Louisiana that is high in poverty and crime and has lived in that area for almost 30 years. His education includes a GED at the time of this study and he mentioned that several family members and friends have previously been involved in the criminal justice system.

The main themes expressed in the following section by the participant do not encompass all of the challenges faced by individuals who return home after incarceration. However, they are part of a bigger picture of concepts that from research collectively summarize many of the barriers that justice-involved individuals face as they re-integrate into society (Agan & Makowsky, 2023; Batastini et al, 2021; Eren & Owens, 2024; Mathlin et al, 2024). Therefore, this participant’s perspectives and lived experiences are central to understanding this study.

Community Resources and the Environment

During the interview, the participant touched on several themes regarding his post-incarceration experience of returning to the community. He commonly referred to the availability of resources and the environment, which, in this context, referred to family, friends, and the socio-economic challenges within the community as major influences on his ability to successfully reintegrate and stay out of prison. He also touched on the importance of access to community resources such as housing and government assistance and how they are critical in returning to society. Specifically, he mentioned that “individuals should at least be able to have some assistance to help to rebuild themselves. Imagine you’ve been incarcerated for over a decade, and you come home to nothing?” The needs of individuals leaving incarceration are often highest immediately following release, which may include a combination of social services, education, transportation, housing and referrals to community-based programs and clinics as they transition into communities (Nordberg, 2022). Failure to being able to access these resources can result in individuals falling back into the same habits that led to their incarceration.

Employment

The participant also frequently referred to employment as a resource necessary for successful reentry. When asked what some of his frustrations had been regarding employment, he noted the challenges with filling out job applications and having to discuss his criminal background:

It’s hard because you go to these companies and try to do applications, apply for jobs and  a lot of these people shy away because of your background. A lot of these companies don’t look for people like “us” and they often have rules and policies on that. (Participant 22, personal communication, March 16, 2018)

The participant then touched on the struggle of living day to day and how this can lead to individuals resorting back to the criminal activities they were engaged in prior their incarceration:

It’s wrong in a sense because you have people that’s struggling, trying to survive,  and if   you can’t make it, you end up going out and committing crimes and all other type of stuff just to get to stay afloat. (Participant 22, personal communication, March 16, 2018)

Studies have shown that employment opportunities for those with a prior criminal record can improve long-term job retention and decrease the chances of recidivism (Batastini et al, 2021; Kolbeck, 2022). Yet, justice-impacted individuals frequently encounter obstacles such as barriers to employment, education, housing and accessing government resources (Hwang, 2022).

Studies on callbacks from employers, have found that individuals, in particular minority males with a felony background, are less likely to receive callbacks for interviews for entry-level work (Pager, 2003; Western & Sirois, 2019), while other studies have highlighted the relationship between unemployment and recidivism, which can include higher rates of mental health challenges and substance abuse (Grace et al., 2023; Lee et al., 2023). Holistically, keeping individuals with a criminal background out of the workforce also impacts the US economy at an estimated annual 80-billion-dollar cost in Gross Domestic Product (Bucknor & Barber, 2016; Hopkins, 2017, NELP, 2024). While employment is not always the determining factor in influencing recidivism, having a criminal record can perpetuate an endless cycle of intergenerational poverty, which can increase recidivism and impact public safety.

A felony or misdemeanor conviction can also automatically disqualify a person from working in specific industries and stifle any chances of economic mobility (Lau, 2020). These variables can also impact recidivism rates as studies have shown how changes in labor market conditions such as minimum wage and earned income tax credits coupled with having a criminal background can increase the probability of individuals reoffending (Agan & Makowsky, 2023; Eren & Owens, 2024; Fachilla, 2023 & Fahmy, 2021). This detail was specifically addressed by the participant who in his opinion felt that due to the barriers that he faced with finding employment, felt that the only option to survive was to commit crimes. While a lack of resources and stability does not excuse the actions of criminal behavior, the perspectives of this participant due to his lived experiences underscore some of the obstacles and frustrations that justice-involved citizens can face post-incarceration.

Stigma

              The participant also talked about the shame of incarceration. He mentioned that “when he was in jail, he didn’t want to call nobody” and shared the experience of  having to “hear the hurt in his mom’s voice on the phone, due to his situation.” He also touched on how he felt that “the judicial system is messed up all the way around” regarding what crimes they choose to charge you with and that with social media and the internet, “everyone can find out that you got locked up.” The embarrassment of incarceration also brings the scarlet letter of having a criminal record. (NICCC, 2021). Without the benefit of a record clearance or expungement, the ability of this information to be easily accessible to the public can have long-lasting implications for individuals trying to move forward with their lives.

Environment and Family Involvement in the Criminal Justice System

The participant shared that the community he comes from, his family and the individuals that he surrounded himself played with a major role in the choices that he made:

I’ve been incarcerated, I’ve had a couple of family members that’s been incarcerated. I have two family members now that are incarcerated. I believe people can change, but when you grow up in the streets, that is the only life that you know. So, to take that step and try to change your environment, that, to take that step and try to change your environment can be scary. (Participant 22, personal communication, March 16, 2018)

Coming from an environment in which poverty is rampant, survival is common. Impoverished communities often face a number of challenges such as crime, substance abuse, low education, homelessness and more (Grinspoon, 2021). For returning citizens coming back home with the barriers, strained family dynamics and peers who are also in and out of prison, trying to change environments can be challenging. Faced with so many obstacles, these additional challenges can further perpetuate an endless cycle of generational poverty, recidivism and incarceration (Hwang, 2022; Lau, 2020).

Discussion

A study of recidivism finds that many individuals will return to custody. The Bureau of Justice Statistics found that 44% of individuals who left state prison were arrested at least once in their first year after release, and within nine years of release, 5 of 6 of those previously in state prison had been rearrested (Alper et al, 2018). While arrests may not be the best indicator of failure, it is the most consistently measured and reported indicator of reengagement with the criminal justice system and highlights the importance of reentry. The personal struggles that the participant shared during the interview regarding accessing resources, strained family dynamics, and challenges finding employment is a story that is familiar to the thousands of formerly incarcerated citizens who return home to their communities and can explain why some ultimately end up back in prison.

Earlier, it was noted that in the overall research findings, the perspectives from all 22 participants on the ability of previously incarcerated individuals to return to the community successfully depended on the political, educational, and socio-economic systems. These systems were the mechanisms that were necessary for meeting the needs of returning citizens. However, the participant discussed having to survive day to day in accessing these resources due to the stigma of having a criminal record. This means that the same support systems that the participants said were necessary for successful reintegration and having a good quality of life were, in fact, inaccessible for the participants with a previous criminal history.

Annually, over 600,000 justice-involved citizens are released from prison both state and federal prisons within the United States, and many of them face barriers on the outside similar to those of the participants due to their criminal history (US Department of Justice, n.d.). The socio-economic constraints of having a criminal background can be far-reaching and impact not only individuals but also families, communities, and the economy. With spending in the corrections system totaling more than $80 billion annually, there are questions about where taxpayer resources should be invested and what the return on investment would be if they were utilized appropriately (Wagner & Rabuy, 2017; Prison Policy Initiative, 2024). The intersection of increasing incarceration costs, poverty, reduced prison populations, and challenges with accessing resources have heightened the need for increased reentry services.

Legislation

Despite the number of barriers facing justice-impacted citizens, there are opportunities for change. Initiatives like the Second Chance Act passed by Congress in 2008 represent a federal investment in strategies to reduce recidivism, increase public safety, and reduce corrections costs for state and local governments (The National Reentry Resource Center [NRRC], n.d.). These policy actions have resulted in millions of federal grant dollars to state, regional, and tribal government agencies and nonprofit organizations to fund initiatives and programs to address these goals. Employment-wise, programs such as the Federal Bonding Program, Work Opportunity Tax Credit, and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act provide additional incentives to employers to hire individuals with a criminal history (Hillyer, 2016; National Hire Network, 2017; Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act [WIOA], n.d.).  The sequence of arresting, incarcerating, and releasing individuals have proven to be costly to communities. For this reason, increased federal funding to those non-profits, job readiness centers, and other organizations that offer workforce development programming for justice-involved citizens is critical for successful reentry. Continuing these investments that address the root causes of crime on the front end could lead to reduced crime and an improved economy.

Other legislative solutions that must be considered include the elimination of employment-related collateral consequences so that there is a more linear connection between the duties and responsibilities of a particular job and the current public safety risk that could be triggered by a person’s past conviction (Justice Center, 2021). Increasing the work opportunity tax credit time for employers who hire justice-impacted individuals and providing tax credits to housing tenants would also be beneficial to addressing employment and housing. Other policy strategies include enacting clean slate federal legislation laws similar to the Clean Slate Act of 2021, that would assist in sealing or eliminating altogether eligible criminal records, which could open up better job opportunities for the justice-involved and increase their earnings (Dimon, 2021). Finally, critiquing or removing some of the long-standing policies and laws that incarcerate people who have nonviolent offenses, should also be a priority.

Louisiana

A year after the reinvestment portion of Louisiana’s 10-bill criminal justice reform package passed that released thousands of formerly incarcerated individuals, Louisiana leaders announced that there was $12.2 million in savings after the first year of the state’s criminal justice reform package (Toohey, 2018). The money was reserved and utilized for programs to reduce recidivism, support victims, and improve public safety. According to legislators, 70 percent of the $8.54 million earmarked from criminal justice reform savings was distributed across the five parishes within Baton Rouge and New Orleans that contribute the highest number of inmates in prison, with future plans to expand funding in other areas within Louisiana (Toohey, 2018). While these measures were positive steps in the right direction, attention must now be geared toward not only assuring that justice-impacted citizens are provided the necessary education, resources, training, workforce development, and rehabilitation services critical to re-entering society, but also toward easing the barriers to accessing them and promoting awareness that these services exist in the first place.

Policies that provide opportunities for justice-impacted individuals to have an improved quality of life are a key component of social change (Visher & Eason, 2021). The data collected in this research illustrates that many social, political, and economic challenges and obstacles related to inconsistencies within the criminal justice system must be addressed at the community, regional, and national levels.

Limitations

Limitations to this study include these findings only represent a small proportion of the population in City N Parish and can’t be generalized to the entire state of Louisiana or other regions in the United States. Limitations from the researcher that also arose from this study  included their own racial identity as an African-American male and personal biases regarding perceptions on disparities in the criminal justice system. To address these limitations,  triangulation methods included utilizing multiple data sources to cross-check findings held to reduce the impact of individual biases and ensured that the results were not reliant on a single perspective. Other strategies to address these challenges including maintaining a journal to reflect on the researchers own background, perspectives, and potential biases that could have influence the research process, data collection, and interpretation. The author also involved participants by sharing preliminary findings with them and asking for feedback to validate interpretations to ensure that the researcher’s biases did not overshadowed participants’ voices. Externally involving colleagues who were not directly involved in the research to review the data, methodology, and interpretations to provide an external check and mitigate researcher bias was also utilized. Despite the limitations presented, the results of this study may provide a broader spectrum on the perceptions of citizens who reside in City N Parish on the criminal justice system and the reintegration of justice impacted individuals. Future quantitative research in this area could benefit from conducting online or telephone surveys, which would add more privacy for participants who are of different races.

Conclusion

Reentry is a critical part of individuals’ transition back into society and should begin from the first day one enters incarceration. This idea is not new to criminal justice administrators, but action steps must be taken to move forward. Criminal justice reform is a process that involves the collaboration of community partners, leaders, practitioners, researchers, administrators, and legislators. Justice-impacted citizens, like the participants in this research study, must be given a second chance. Failure to take systemic action will continue the current generational cycle of poverty, recidivism, and incarceration we see in our country. Assisting justice-impacted individuals is not only a benefit to the individual but also to our communities, economy, and society. A person’s past should not define their future, but that is often the reality for many individuals. Creating actual systemic and social change will require better public policy. We will be better and safer as a nation when everyone is provided equal access and opportunity to be successful.

References

Agan, A. Y., & Makowsky, M. D. (2023). The Minimum Wage, EITC, and Criminal Recidivism. Journal of Human Resources, 58(5), 1712–1751. https://jhr.uwpress.org/content/wpjhr/58/5/1712.full.pdf

Allen, R. (2017, June 15^th). Gov. Edwards signs criminal justice overhaul into law, in what some laud as historic achievement. Baton Rouge Advocate.  http://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/politics/legislature/article_168c6d6e-5089-11e7-a0d6-7f67135f59a4.html

Alper, M., Durose, M., &  Markman, J., (2018). Update on prisoner recidivism: A 9-Year Follow-Up Period (2005-2014), Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2018, https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014.

Batastini, A. B., Leuty, M. E., Davis, R. M., & Jones, A. C. T. (2021). Individual and situational factors predicting employment status among revoked community-released offenders. Psychological Services, 18(4), 454–463. doi: 10.1037/ser0000403. Epub 2019 Dec 19. PMID: 31855016.

Bensel, T & Craw, M. (2018). Neighborhood is key factor in recidivism rates for ex-offenders in Arkansas. University of Arkansas Little Rock.  https://ualr.edu/news/2018/04/24/neighborhood-recidivism-rates-ex-offenders-arkansas/

Berson, S. (2013). Beyond the sentence — Understanding collateral consequences. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/241927.pdf

Bird, M., Nguyen, V., & Grattet, R. (2023). Recidivism outcomes under a shifting continuum of control. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 48(3), 808–829. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12103-022-09686-5

Bucknor, C. & Barber, A. (2016). Center for economic and policy research. “The Price We Pay: Economic Costs of Barriers to Employment for Former Prisoners and People Convicted of Felonies.” https://cepr.net/report/the-price-we-pay-economic-costs-of-barriers-to-employment-for-former-prisoners-and-people-convicted-of-felonies/

Caballero, G., & Soto-Onate, D. (2015). The diversity and rapprochement of theories of Institutional change: Original Institutionalism and new Institutional economics. Journal of Economic Issues (M.E. Sharpe Inc.), 49(4), 97-977. doi:10.1080/00213624.2015.1105021

Council of State Governments. (2021). Removing structural barriers to employment playbook for every state. https://csgjusticecenter.org/publications/removing-structural-barriers/national-playbook/

Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.

Dimon, J. (2021, August 4th). If you paid your debt to society, you should be allowed to work

The New York Times Opinion Guest Essay. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/04/opinion/clean-slate-incarceration-work.html

Doleac, J. (2018). Strategies to productively reincorporate the formerly incarcerated into communities: a review of the literature. I Z A Institute of Labor Economics. http://ftp.iza.org/dp11646.pdf

Dudovisky, J. (2013). Institutional rational choice: application to Tesco packaging policy.  Research Methodology. http://research-methodology.net/institutional-rational-choice-and-its-relation-to-tesco-packaging-policy/

Economics of Incarceration (Aug 2024). The economic drivers and consequences of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/research/economics_of_incarceration/

Eren, O., & Owens, E. (2024). Economic Booms and Recidivism. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 40(2), 343–372. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370809031_Economic_Booms_and_Recidivism

Fachilla, F. E. (2023). Rebuilding from the vacuum: A qualitative study of people with a recent history of incarceration. Journal of Addictions & Offender Counseling, 44(1), 34–51. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:f86500e0-fb8d-42f4-be1c-afcaa8972290

Fahmy, C. (2021). First weeks out: Social support stability and health among formerly incarcerated men. Social Science & Medicine, 282, 114141,

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953621004731

Faundez, J. (2016). Douglass North’s Theory of Institutions: Lessons for Law and Development. Hague Journal on the Rule of Law, 8(2), 373–419. file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/s40803-016-0028-8.pdf

Grace, F. X., McNary, S. B., & Murphy, C. M. (2023). Employment status and recidivism after relationship violence intervention. Psychology of Violence, 13(2), 127–135. file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/EBSCO-FullText-2024-09-17%20(3).pdf

Grinspoon, P. (2021). Poverty, homelessness, and social stigma.  Harvard health publishing Harvard Medical School. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/poverty-homelessness-and-social-stigma-make-addiction-more-deadly-202109282602

Hillyer, H. A. (2016). Reducing the rate of prison recidivism in Florida by providing state cor­porate income tax credits to businesses as an incentive for employment of ex-felons, Barry Law Review, 21(1) 105-122.  https://lawpublications.edu/barrylrev/vol21/iss1/4

Hopkins, M. (2017). Chapter 789: Banning the box: the solution to high ex-offender unem­ployment? 49 U. Pac. L. Rev. 513. https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uoplawreview/vol49/iss2/17

Hwang, K. J. (2022). From prison to entrepreneurship: Can entrepreneurship be a reentry Strategy for Justice-Impacted Individuals? Annals of the American Academy of Political & Social Science, 701(1), 114–133. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00027162221115378

Hyde, J., Byrne, T., Petrakis, B. A., Yakovchenko, V., Kim, B., Fincke, G., & Bolton, R. (2022). Enhancing community integration after incarceration: findings from a prospective study of an intensive peer support intervention for veterans with an historical comparison group. Health & Justice, 10(1). file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/s40352-022-00195-5.pdf

Kolbeck, S. (2022). Is reduced contact with the formal labor market over time associated with heightened recidivism risk? Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 61(6), 337–356. https://doi.org/10.1080/10509674.2022.2093307

Lau, T. (2020). The misdemeanor system reinforces economic inequality. Brennan Center For Justice. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/misdemeanor-system-reinforces-economic-inequality

Lee, R., Brown, C., Hegarty, A. M., & Rowland, A. (2023). Second chance: The paradox of felony convictions. Psychological Services, 20(4), 973–982. file:///C:/Users/12258/Downloads/EBSCO-FullText-2024-09-17%20(4).pdf

National Hire Network, (2017). https://www.hirenetwork.org/content/federal-bonding-program

National Inventory of the Collateral Consequences of Conviction (2021).  https://niccc.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/

The National Reentry Resource Center. (n.d). Second Chance Act. https://nationalreentryresourcecenter.org/second-chance-act

Nordberg, A., Davis, J. B., Patel, M., Mattingly, S., & Leat, S. R. (2022). Towards a reentry mobilities assemblage: An exploration of transportation and obligation among returning citizens. Mobilities, 17(4), 517–528. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:aef7c76c-a836-44bb-a846-a029ff29212b

Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847

Mathlin, G., Freestone, M., & Jones, H. (2024). Factors associated with successful reintegration for male offenders: a systematic narrative review with implicit causal model. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 20(2), 541 580. https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:3da38594-bd37-44db-9308-d78d015dfac0

Mohammad S., Bahrani A., Kim M., & Nowotny, KM. (2023). Barriers and facilitators to health during prison reentry to Miami, FL. PloS One, 18(10), e0285411. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0285411

Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: an assessment of the institutional analysis and development framework. P. Sabatier & C. Weible (Eds.). Theories of the Policy Process, (2^nd ed.). (pp. 21-64). Boulder, CO: Westview Press

Pager, D. (2003). The mark of a criminal record. American Journal of Sociology, 108 (5) 937–75.

Peters, G. (2014). Implementation structures as institutions.  SAGE Journal, 29(2), 131–144. doi:10.1177/0952076713517733

Research supports fair chance policies national employment law project. Fact Sheet January (2024). https://www.nelp.org/app/uploads/2024/01/Research-Supports-Fair-Chance-Policies-1-17-2024.pdf

Sabatier, P. A. (2007). The need for better theories. In Sabatier P. A. (ed.), Theories of the Policy Process, 2nd edition. Westview, Boulder, CO, pp. 3–17.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA, 2023). Best practices for successful reentry from criminal justice settings for people living with mental health conditions and/or substance use disorders. SAMHSA Publication No. PEP23-06-06-001. Rockville, MD: National Mental Health and Substance Use Policy Laboratory. https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/pep23-06-06-001.pdf

Toohey, G. (2018, June 1). Law enforcement, community members take part in ongoing series discussing race and policing. Baton Rouge Advocate. https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/crime_police/article_8f44d788-65e5-11e8-b5b0-e3718a3fa4d0.html

Tsebelis, G. (2002). Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. Princeton: Princeton University Press

Tucker, A.W. (1983). The mathematics of Tucker: A sampler. The Two-Year College Mathematics Journal.14(3), 228-332. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3027092

U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Quick Facts. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/22033

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Prisoners and prisoner reentry. https://www.justice.gov/archive/fbci/progmenu_reentry.html

Visher, C., & Eason, J (2021). Changing prisons to help people change. A report by Brookings American Enterprise Institute working group on criminal justice reform. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/3_Better-Path-Forward_Ch-3-Changing-Prisons-to-Help-People.pdf

Wagner, P. & Rabuy, B. (2017). Following the money of mass incarceration. Prison Policy Initiative Publications. https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/money.html

Western, B., & Sirois, C. (2019). Racialized Re-Entry: Labor Market Inequality after Incarceration. Social Forces, 97(Issue 4), 1517–1542.

The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. (n.d.). United States Department of Labor. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/wioa.

Dr. Terrance Hinton

+ posts

Dr. Terrance Hinton is a faculty member within the College of Safety and Emergency Services at Columbia Southern. He also teaches an Inside-Out Corrections course through the Ohio Prison Education Exchange Project, integrating undergraduate and incarcerated students in a unique learning environment. As a practitioner-scholar, Dr. Hinton has held several leadership roles within the criminal justice field and the Columbus community where he has assisted over 4,000 justice-impacted individuals.

His research and scholarly focus center on reentry topics such as workforce development, education, recidivism and the barriers that hinder reintegration into society for justice-impacted individuals. His contributions have been featured in publications such as The Columbus Dispatch, Journal of Community Justice, Prison Journalism Project, and American Correctional Association magazines. Additionally, his work has been showcased on NBC4 WCMH-TV and WOSU Public Media Radio.

Dr. Hinton’s dedication to service has been recognized with the Excellence in Service Award from his alma mater Wingate University. He holds a Bachelor’s degree in Biology from Wingate University, a Master’s degree in Criminal Justice from Southern University and A&M College, and a Doctorate in Public Policy and Administration from Walden University.

• Workforce Development Consideration for Justice Involved Citizens

Areas: Criminal Justice
Categories: Corrections, Criminal Justice