Free Term Paper About Post-Incarceration Problems Of The Former Prisoners Analysis

Abstract

The United States of America has one of the most dismal criminal rate statistics. Many thousands formerly convicted persons are released annually. For the vast majority of them, especially for those who served long terms, successful re-integration to the society is often positioned as a task of considerable complexity (Alexander, 2011).
This paper examines the problems commonly faced by the ex-offenders in the housing, employment, electoral rights and possibility of military service contexts. They consider that after their release from the penitentiary institutions they “are rejected by the society, “unjustifiably stigmatized” and “all opportunities for a decent, well-paid employment are blocked by their past, ill-conceived deeds”. The interviewees admitted that their post-release experience was even more morally painful that their stay behind the bars. Finding an employment was “virtually impossible”, while the landlords denied to provide accommodation to the “useless elements of our society”.
In the light of the growing prison population of the USA (it is expected to reach 9,3% of the population by the end of 2017 (Gottshalk, 2015)), the problems associated with post-release of the ex-offenders should receive adequate national attention.
This paper explores the problems faced by the ex-offenders in the employment, housing, political and military eligibility contexts. It operates a combined methodology (using extensive literature review and obtaining first-hand evidence from the recently released criminals) and provides recommendations, which can be applied to improve the situation nationwide. In particular, the paper emphasizes that the development of a single, streamlined national policy is required to redress these social inequalities.

Abstract 2

Introduction 5
Methodology 6
The Use Qualitative Data 6
Interviewing former convicts 6
Data Processing 7
Research Questions 7
Literature review 8
Results 12
Interpretation of the interviews 12
Housing Problems 13
Employment 14
Political and Military Issues 15
Summary of the Results 16
Discussion and recommendations 16
Conclusion 18
Annotated Bibliography 18

Appendix I 20

Works Cited 23
Introduction
The United States of America has one of the most dismal criminal rate statistics. Many thousands formerly convicted persons are released annually. For the vast majority of them, especially for those who served long terms, successful re-integration to the society is often positioned as a task of considerable complexity (Alexander, 2011). Indeed, their sentences created many insurmountable barriers for them, including availability of employment options, their electoral rights, housing alternatives and eligibility for military service. The origins of these problems may be both legal and social. To be more specific, although in some areas there are no legally established rules that former convicts may not be hired, the existence of at-will employment doctrine in the system of labor law of the United States give considerable leeway to the employers in terms of deciding whether someone should be hired on not (Gottshalk, 2015). In the light of this practice, formerly convicted people are usually not regarded by the prospective employers as potential candidates, although they may meet all necessary eligibility requirements.
Furthermore, many people were passed criminal background report that the face substantial difficulties when they try to socialize with other people. Their past criminal record act as a scarer for their acquaintances and many of them are doomed to solitude or to the company of people with similar criminal backgrounds (Selman & Leighton). These problems are the main reasons why former convicts engage in criminal activities again. Many criminological analysts discoursed that their violent response was the form of retaliation to the society for its unwillingness to accept them back. In the light of this theory, It is possible to hypothesize that if the community was more tolerant towards former criminals, the heinous today's criminal rates could potentially be much lower (41% of all violent crimes and 22% of property all crimes are perpetrated by the people formerly accused of similar deeds (Taibbi, 2014)). In other words, repeated perpetuation of the offenses is a natural response to the past criminals to the communal intolerance and unwillingness to extend them and understandable and helping hand (Wacquant, 2009).
The objective of this paper is to analyze the problems of the post-sentence period of the criminals life in terms of employment, housing, socializing and military eligibility contexts. To be more specific, the paper investigates what problems former criminals may potentially face and what is the effect of these problems on their correction and re-integration to the community. Besides, the paper discusses the most effective solutions developed by the international community to handle similar problems.
Methodology
As far as applied methodological approach is concerned, it is multifold in its essence and scope.
The Use Qualitative Data
Primarily, in order to understand the problem in general and to identify the main problems and trends of this issue, a profound exploratory literature review has been carried out. The main objective of this literature investigation was to understand the primary reasons behind these problems, the scope of these problems and their validity. In order to receive accurate and academically unbiased picture, different sources, representing different schools of thinking and approaches to criminology (psychological, social, biological and other main theoretical frameworks) have been consulted. Furthermore, recommendations for policy improvements or developments are prevalently found in the works of criminological scholars and analysts.
Interviewing former convicts
Secondly, in order to make this report valid and effective for the needs of practice, the findings of the secondary research should be always supported by the primary data. In order to understand whether the problems described by the scholars are real and whether the solutions currently utilized by the United States policymakers are effective, we conducted interviews with three former convicts, asking about the reasons for their conviction and encountered post-sentence problems. The participants have been chosen from different ethnic background to ensure completeness and coherence of our research findings.
Info about the interviews
Data Processing
The interviews have been conducted in the park, where the atmosphere was favorable psychologically. No one could eavesdrop the conversation, and the respondents felt comfortable. The interviews were conducted individually. Different questions about their experience in the penitentiary units, housing, employment difficulties and barriers to military service and political rights. The questions were open-ended, encouraging the respondents to give long, expressive statements. The questions can be found in the Appendix I to this paper.
The analysis was done with the use of conventional comparative approach. Similarities and differences in the respondents’ statements have been aggregated and interpreted.
Research Questions
This paper seeks to answer the following research questions.
What are the most common problems faced by the ex-offenders, released from the state and federal penitentiary institutions?
What is the gravity of these problems? How serious they are?
What methods may the policymakers apply to tackle them?
Literature review
The most modest estimates show that the United States of America remains an unquestioned leader in terms of the prisoner population (Uggen, Manza & Thompson, 2006). To be more specific, approximately 2.3 million people are reported to be held behind bars in 2010. Furthermore, the racial representation is disproportionate in this context, with 38% and 22% of the prisoners being Afro-Americans or Hispanics respectively (Katel, 2012). Despite the fact that the correctional federal and state penitentiary institutions in the United States of America are reported to be among the most effective once, still many released offenders regularly encounter different types of discriminatory attitude in their job seeking endeavors, housing prospects and other negative limitations connected with temporary suspension of their civic rights (Alexander, 2011). However, it is reasonable to assume that failure to get integrated into the societal structures again may result in recurrence of their criminal deeds (Wacquant, 2009). Current statistics demonstrates that 30% of the previously released criminals offenders end up back in jail again just within a year after they leave a prison (Richards, 2009). In order to minimize the chances of going off the beaten track once again, former criminals should constantly and successfully socialize, develop professionally and receive housing (and other) aid.
The first problem in this context is housing, which is often positioned as an immense difficulty for the newly released criminals. To illustrate, in 31 state seriously legal prohibitions to public housing opportunities are applicable to those, who have been convicted of a felony (Ugen, 2006). Contemporary development of technology made the possibility of checking rigorous criminal records easy and available to their public and private institutions across the country. Nowadays, because of ubiquitously granted access to the Internet connection anyone can check whether an applicant has been previously accused of anything against the law (Petersilia, 2005). In practice, the majority of landlords always investigate previous background of an individual seeking to rent a house, not to mention the fact that acquiring the sum sufficient for an advance payment and security deposition is often difficult for a newly released person. Furthermore, contemporary research indicates that although some information located in the FBI databases is not always accurate, it is nevertheless shared with the landlords (Petersilia, 2005). Consequently, a limited number of options become available for former convict, who cannot live in public housing because of all the existing legal or social barriers, and who do not have a family to live with (or whose family is not willing to accept him back). The situation is especially hard for those, who served very long prison sentences (from 20 to 30 years). The practice demonstrates, that all types of social connections are usually broken twinned them and outer world, and after the release they have neither friends nor a family to extend a helping hand to them (Richards, 2005). Correspondingly, inability often ex-offender to find a permanent residence negatively affects his ability to secure a job, primarily due to the fact that the majority of employers require an address and telephone number, or simply Institute employment policies, which prohibit hiring formerly convicted people (Richards, 2009).
Moreover, finding some form of employment is one of the essential priorities of the ex-offenders. Typically, it is mandated as a condition of a parole, because an ex-convicted person who received some form of employment is usually thought to be less prone to return to criminal activities again (Katel, 2012) . Together with unwillingness of the prospective employers to hire former convicts, a common problem for them are inadequate professional skills and experience, literacy problems and legally established limitations to occupy certain positions (e.g. in pharmacy, education, security services or firearms industries). As a result, only low-paying and unskilled job opportunities became available to this category of citizens. Consequently, the are opportunities in terms of career growth, job security and training are significantly limited in comparison with their competitors with no bust criminal background. Statistically, approximately 60% of the formerly convicted persons do not have permanent employment (Petersilia, 2001). Furthermore, legally a felony record may impose a temporary disqualification for licensed professionals to be engaged in the industries they had been trained for (Petersilia, 2001). Several studies demonstrated that the employers are more predisposed to hiring radiates with no previous professional experience, then taking the risk of employing an ex-criminal with the successful pre-conviction professional record. Today, around 65% of all employers admitted that they would not hire an ex-criminal, and certified percent confirmed that assumption that they had checked previous criminal history of the staff members they hired recently (Petersilia, 2001).
An important problem in this regard is the unavailability of the state programs designed to address this issue and legislatively remove the barriers intentionally created by the employers and professional associations. In particular, it is suggested that former criminals should receive adequate, governmentally or stately sponsored and supported professional and educational training to become fit for these positions. Despite the fact, that some enhancement legislative initiatives are in the pipeline of the United States Congress, still they remain undebated by the Congressman (Katel, 2012). On the state level some groundbreaking initiatives, for the establishment of 'ban the box 'bylaws and issuance of the certificates of rehabilitation have been taken to demonstrate to the prospective employers that former convicts pose no threat. Moreover, nowadays 45 states and the District of Columbia made the possibility of sealing off minor criminal deeds or violations perpetrated long time ago real (Katel, 2012). However, these initiatives are other exceptional in their nature and not commonly practiced. Furthermore, the provisions declared on paper are not always implemented practically, because of inability to update criminal databases timely (Wacquant, 2009).
As a result of these discriminatory practices, and inadequate system of informing the employers that a particular convict has been cleaned, the overwhelming majority of former offenders (and many of them create no real threat) are unjustifiably stigmatized, which substantially limit their future job opportunities (Katel, 2012).
Prospective electoral opportunities is not an important issue for the previous criminals. Nowadays, figures show that approximately 3.9 m of the United States citizens are not able to vote on a permanent basis because of their former felony convictions (Selman & Leighton, 2010). Despite the fact that this element of post-conviction resultant impacts is not associated with propensity to engage in criminal activities again, it is reported to be extremely discouraging to becoming a productive and participating member of the community again. In practice, it erodes an important feeling of communal engagement and reduces willingness to get involved in local activities and exercise an important form of social control. Theoretically, one of the most effective crime deterrent is communal collaboration and active engagement to the processes of single development (Petersilia, 2001). Providing electoral opportunities to the former convicts gives them some sort of community belongingness, which is tremendously important for the effective rehabilitation and correctional process. Furthermore, in the light of the increasingly high proportion of the former convicts in the United States population, restricting their voting rights may result in reshaping the electorate (Taibbi, 2014), which undermines constitutional foundations of the United States of America.
Finally, the prospects of a military career are commonly regarded by the former convicts as a viable alternative to achieve instability and resources for their future civil life. At the same time, joining the military is extremely helpful for cultivating disciplining and receiving valuable professional and educational training. In the past, former convicts did not have any opportunities to join the ranks of the United States Armed Forces or the national guards. Fortunately, the enlistment standards are continually evolving. Nowadays, in the light of the continual international conflicts, the Armed Forces of the United States require fresh resources, and for the convicts with no more than one misdemeanor or felony convictions, enlistment opportunities are insignificantly higher than among the rest (Richards, 2009). However, the decision to recruit a former offender is always left at the discretion of the draft board officer. For the offenders, who committed serious felonies, the military contract is not granted. However, in general, the practice of sending former convicts to the Armed Forces is a nice opportunity to streamline their discipline and educate them for further endeavors in civil life. Some scholars speculate about the fact that high number of former convicts within the ranks of the Armed Forces made reduce their combat capacities and discipline (Gottshalk, 2015), but if ex-convicts are mingled with the 'normal' records, the chances of these negative outcomes become seriously minimized.
Results
Interpretation of the interviews
For the needs of this research, we have interviewed three individuals (Juan, 26 years of age, Hispanic origin, Wes, 20 years of age, Afro-American and Jeff, 36 years of age, white American Protestant). All of them served one year or more in the federal or state penitentiary institutions. All respondents declared that their former criminal past significantly inhibited their employment opportunities and housing prospects. These two reasons for the primary concerns of all three convicts, who declared that the necessity to find a permanent residence and receive stable, regular income was the most important concern for them after the release. The prospects of joining the military were regarded by the first two interviews while the third one was preoccupied with active involvement in the community life through passive participation in the political process. All of them unanimously agreed on the fact that if they never engaged in criminal activities in the past, all their communal, professional and housing aspirations would be easily satisfied.
The analysis of collected Primary and secondary research findings demonstrate that previous criminal conviction imposes serious social, legal and professional hindrances on the ex-offenders (Katel, 2012), which in the light of the large criminal population of the United States is a social concern of tremendous importance. Primarily, the number of former convicts in the United States society is large, and this proportion is exponentially increasing. Up to date, approximately 8.5% of the entire number of citizens and legal residents on the territory of the United States served some form of a criminal sentence. Consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that the interests of this part of the population may not be neglected by the policymakers, and, therefore, effective affirmative course of action should be developed in order to redress the existing social inequalities (Uggen, Manza & Thompson, 2006).
Housing Problems
The first major problem encountered by the ex-offenders is housing. In general, the majority of landlords are expressly and willing to provide accommodation for those, who experienced some forms of crime-related problems in the past. Despite the fact there no legally imposed limitations (Taibbi, 2014) (except for the temporary or permanent injunctions issued by the judicial authorities in individual cases), the number of unmotivated refusals to enter into rent agreements with the former convicts is huge. Juan admitted, “all landlords denied his requests, when they figured out that he has been just released”. Jeff stated that he was “virtually treated like a mongrel”. Wes related that:
“Every landlord inquired about my past first. Realizing that I was brought to criminal liability, they simply told me that no accommodation options were available. Finally, an old man agreed to rent a flat to me. When I asked him, he simply told that he had served a sentence for robbery in 1972 and knew, how hard funding a house may be for the newly released guys.”
Moreover, under the standard lease agreements terms, the tenants are always required to place a security deposit and advance payment for the first month of their occupation. Juan and told that they
“ I didn’t have a single dollar in the pocket, when some cash could have easily helped me to save many problems. Our penitentiary officers gave us valuable instructions on how to get adapted to normal life, but I would prefer some dollars instead.”
Wes added that
“ I could hardly buy some food. In prison you do not care about such things. And the most painful is to see other people dining in restaurants, visiting cinemas and football games. Treating us this way is unjust, although we did some wrong deeds in the past.”
Because of the fact that the overwhelming majority of past criminals have serious financial problems, this opportunity becomes unrealistic for them. The situation is further aggravated by the fact that in many cases family relationships between the ex-offenders and their relatives are broken, and family reunions are exceptionally rare in these instances. The cases with those, who served long prison sentences, are especially hard.
Employment
Secondly, employment problems are the second hugest concern among the ex-offenders. Prospective employers do not hire formerly convicted people because of (a) apprehensions that they will not comply with their professional responsibilities effectively and (b) because legal prohibitions exist. Moreover, many former convicts do not possess sufficient skills or professional qualification to satisfy professional requirements. Wes told, that once he tried to get a position of a sales clerk, the HR officer informed him “that their shop was not the right place for those, who had conflicts with the law”. Jeff explained that his qualifications were “ridiculed by anyone”.
Juan admitted that the employers in the most well-paying sectors are biased towards national minorities. The fact of incarceration aggravates the problem further.
“When I appeared in the office of a security company to apply for a job as a guardian in a supermarket, they started to ask questions whether I belong to any Latin gang. When the HR officer found out, that I served a sentence, he simply told that I every Latino is a criminal from his cradle”.
The problem of skills is one of the most important in this regard. The scholars commented that, when while serving in the penitentiary institutions, the inmates risk to miss recent technological developments (Richards, 2009). As Jeff told
“I was not even able to operate Microsoft Office software package. When I was incarcerated, no one even heard about it. Now it is everywhere, and when I was in prison, no one told me that such a wonderful solution has been developed”
Besides, the scholars carefully examined professional training provided in the penitentiary facilities, and concluded that it is not consistent with the needs of the economy. The instructors train them in applied professions like sewing, tailoring or carpeting, where the competition is very high (Richards, 2009). Furthermore, the wishes and wants of the inmates are rarely taken into consideration.
All former convicts confessed that if they received employment with stable income, they would never commit any crime.
“Now my priority is to get some stability. Many my friends went off the beaten track just because we needed some money to buy food and support our families. The society left us without any alternatives. Now, when we get our punishment, we realize that we owe something to it. But it owes to create conditions for our corrections as well. Just give us the opportunity and we will become normal citizens” – Juan.
Political and Military Issues
Then, ex-offenders admit that they experience some sort of limitations in terms of their political and military rights. The first ones are especially significant for the adults, who consider active community involvement as an attractive option for rehabilitation and correction. Prospective military career is more important for the younger ex-offenders, who think that military discipline and training received in the Armed Forces will be helpful for their future professional accomplishments. Jeff admitted that
“Joining the military would be nice”, but I was afraid to be laughed off by the draft board”. Wes was more thorough in his statement, telling that:
“I know that I am not a military material. They need someone who has no problems with the law. If I come there, they will simply laugh at me, as they did with many of my friends”.
Juan discoursed that
“My military prospects were ruined by my past criminal experience and my ethnic background. Latinos are not welcomed in the Army, but they are accepted. But, for the Latinos with the criminal past the door is automatically closed. It could give me everything – money, profession and discipline. But, some idiotic rule, blocked all my intentions. I wanted to serve my country, and I would serve it well, but they denied all my requests”.
This statement indicates that wrong perceptions about possible military careers are popular among the former inmates.
Summary of the Results
In general, the main barriers faced by the previous criminal offenders can be broadly classified into the two main categories. The first deals with the existing legislatively imposed barriers, but in practice, these instances are insignificantly minimal. At the same time, the problems associated with the second issue (social stigmatizing) are more far-reaching. To be more specific, the findings indicate that many people treat criminals as unreliable and unprofessional persons simply because they engaged in illegal activities in the past (Katel, 2012; Wacquant, 2009; Gottshalk, 2015). There are no proofs that they are professionally incompetent or unreliable, except for this prejudiced and biased attitude towards them.
Discussion and recommendations
It is clear, that in the light of the egregiously increasing criminal population of the United States, the development of new governmental policies aimed at improving employment, housing and voting prospect of the former convicts is necessary. Nowadays, the vast majority of rehabilitation and correctional activities are the responsibility of the local state governments. Some of them are effective (as illustrated by the Maryland reentry partnership initiative 2010), while some of them brought virtually no positive results (2006 Texas Correctional Action). The majority of contemporary analysts agree on the idea that national intervention is required in terms of (a) monitoring, streamlining and improving correctional, and rehabilitation policies implemented by the states and (b) developing and exercising governmentally sponsored programs. Both, state and federal former convicts community reintegration programs should be focused on (a) removing social stigma from these people,(b) removing unnecessary and ineffective legal barriers, (c) providing vocational training to ex-offenders and (d) arranging financial help to them.
Removing social stigma is the task of primary importance in this regard (Petersilia, 2005), because this social barrier is the most difficult to overcome in the housing and employment contexts. As suggested by our research, the overwhelming majority of prospective employers deny job application requests from the former convicts because they consider them unreliable. In fact, it is a well-established standard that anyone, who was previously engaged in criminal activities, is automatically considered ‘unreliable’. However, there is no empirical proof for this fallacious assumption (Selman & Leighton, 2010). Obviously, it is impossible to remove this assumption by means of publicly orchestrated propaganda and social advertising. Legal mechanisms should be leveraged to inform the community that former ex-offenders are not necessarily dangerous. For instance, an effective tactic may be establishing pecuniary liability for the employers, who issue unmotivated job refusals to the ex-offenders. The similar rule may be effectively applicable to the dishonest landlords. Moreover, considering the fact that the population with previous criminal record is high, the government may demand large companies to provide obligatory employment quotas for former convicts, as it is now practiced for the physically disabled persons.
Secondly, some legal barriers to employment existing nowadays should be seriously reconsidered. For instance, the majority of former offenders are not qualified to occupy positions in specific industries like firearm trade or security services. It seems reasonable to establish a rule that not the fact of the offense should be criteria in this regard, but its nature should be carefully examined by the decision-makers. To illustrate, those convicted of financial fraud or trespassing should not be disqualified from working as bodyguards or salespeople in the armory shops. Similarly, those who have been caught committing serious legal malpractice should be prohibited from engaging in the legal practice. This categorization will be both just and appropriate.
Thirdly, the government should provide instructional and vocational trainings for the past convicts, as well as it should arrange some form of financial assistance for them. One of the most important problems arising in the employment context is that the overwhelming majority of the newly released criminals do not have adequate professional orientation. When they receive a job offer, usually it is some sort of low-skilled and poorly-paid option. Therefore, creating special schools and training courses in the prisons should become an important responsibility of the government (Taibbi, 2014). The convicts should prepare themselves for future peaceful life while serving their sentences. This practice seems to be an effective solution for crime deterrence.
Conclusion
Annotated Bibliography
Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605(1), 281-310
This article examines the difficulties faced by the ex-offenders after their release. The author of the paper highlights different social inequalities they face in terms of housing, employment, political involvement and other important social contexts.
Operating quantitative findings, the article concludes that inability of the potential voters to exercise their electoral rights may negatively affect the foundations of American democracy.
Katel, Peter (2012).Criminal records and employment. CQ researcher, Volume 22, 349-376.
The objective of this article is to speculate about employment opportunities of the former convicts. Furthermore, this paper explores the impact of technological revolution on this issue. Nowadays, different crime databases are easily searchable online, which reduces the chances of the formerly convicted to finding decent employment.
Moreover, the article concludes that in some cases employment refusals are unmotivated. Former criminals are often considered ‘unreliable’ with no proof thereof.
Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360-375.
This article explores the effectiveness of the different re-entry programs. In particular, it evaluates its impact on political alienation, economic degradations and other negative issues associated with prior criminal record. In general, the articles concludes that the vast majority of this programs remain ineffective because of inadequate national involvement
Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow : mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York Jackson, Tenn: New Press,Distributed by Perseus Distribution. 
This work explores criminal situation in the USA, highlighting that the community requires fundamentally new approaches to treating the criminals. In particular, an important message sent by the author is the need of social propaganda, which will inform the community that ex-offenders do not stop to be people.
Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught : the prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
The main message of this book is the ongoing debate about prisons in the highest political circles of the USA Congress. This work summarizes the main arguments of the Republicans and the Democrats regarding the issue, concluding that democratic stance is more humane-oriented.
Selman, D. & Leighton, P. (2010). Punishment for sale : private prisons, big business, and the incarceration binge. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
This book examines the impact prison maintenance exercises on the USA fiscal politics and concludes that the development of private prisons is a viable alternative in this regard.
Wacquant. (2009). Punishing the poor : the neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham NC: Duke University Press.
This study has been completed to evaluate the role of economic inequality in the USA society in terms of direct relashionship between poverty and crime rates.
Taibbi, M. (2014). The divide : American injustice in the age of the wealth gap. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
This work supports the findings of Wacquant, concluding that with the increasing financial inequality, the USA population becomes more and more focused on violence. Furthermore, the work concludes that the released prisoners should receive proper financial protection.
Richard, J.I. (2009) Beyond Bars: Rejoining society after prison. New York: Penguin Group.
This study is focused on the hard times ex-inmates face once re-entering society. The challenge they have in finding shelter as their option are limited to where they could go, because ex-inmates cannot just live anywhere, especially where there is firearms (Richards, 2009).
Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67(2), 66-71.
The article states that the barriers of offenders to get into programs, housing and employment are more daunting. It provides general orientation to the problem, highlighting that ex-offenders face daunting challenges because of insufficient professional qualification, lack of resources and systematic social stigmatization.
Appendix I
Questions
1. Effects of incarceration
a. What was it like being in prison? What was your experience throughout this period? Any typical routine?
b. Was there anything you looked forward to on daily routine? Give examples. How did this affect your prison experience?
c. How did the experience in prison change you as a person?
d. How did other inmates treat you on daily encounters? Correctional officers?
e. Explain the interactions you had with others inmates in prison?
f. How do you explain the contact you had with friends/family on the outside world? How did help or hurt you as time went by?
2. Employment
a. Did you have a job prior conviction?
b. Did you have a job while you were in prison? What type of job did you hold/why did you not have a job? What was the pay? What did you do with the earn money?
c. How did you manage to get your prison job? Did you have to do anything in particular or exhibit good behavior in order to obtain the job? Did you apply? If so, what was that process like?
d. Were you able to participate in any programs to improve your skills in prison? Vocational training? Job programs?
e. How did these programs benefit you to obtain a job on the outside world?
f. When you were unemployed after your release, how did you make money for daily necessities?
g. What was your first job once release from prison?
h. How did that job obtain in prison compare to your first job upon release? (Wages, tasks, co-workers, environment, culture)
i. Do/did you experience discrimination in your job hunting? Explain. Why do you consider that you were/been discriminate?
j. How many jobs have you applied for since being release? How many callbacks or interviews did you get?
k. Do you have knowledge of if you were ever rejected for a job because of a background check been done by the employer?
l. Have you ever lied about your criminal history on job applications?
m. What are your upcoming employment goals in your life?
3. Housing
a. Did you ever live in transitional housing (halfway house) upon release? Do you think these halfway houses are helpful for ex-inmates? Why or why not?
b. Do/did you ever lived or tried to live with family or friends? Did they accept or reject you? How does this affect your relationship with them?
c. How long did it take you to find housing after been release? How did you manage to find the place you currently live now? Where did you live while you were you searching for this place? Were you ever homeless at any time?
d. How did your experience trying to find housing impact the rest of your life?
e. How did you manage to pay for your first place? Where/how do you pay the rent presently?
f. Have you ever been rejected from renting a place for been an ex-offender? Describe that experience you had?
g. Have you ever lied on a housing application or to a landlord in order to obtain the place to live?
h. Do/did you feel that you were restricted to certain neighborhoods or areas of the city? If so, how did you know?
4. Voting/Individual rights
a. Have you ever voted for any presidential election prior conviction?
b. Do you care that you lost the right vote as a citizen? How does it make you feel?
c. What rights did you lose following your conviction?
d. Which right(s) that you lost upsets you the most? (Firearm, parenting your children, military, federal jobs, running for political office)
e. Have you ever thought about going through the process of getting your rights restored? Why or why not?
f. Does losing your rights make you feel rejected by your community? Explain.
5. Military eligibility
a) Have you ever try to join the military prior conviction? Why or why not?
b) Does your conviction limit what branch of the military you can apply? How do you know this?
c) Does losing your rights to join the military make you feel rejected by your country/community? Explain. How did it make you feel?
d) What benefits were you trying to gain out joining the military? (Self-discipline, achieve good moral traits, planning on furthering your education).
6. Other
a. What was your education level before you were incarcerated?
b. Did you receive education in prison? Why did you pursue this or why not? How did this impact your experience in prison?
c. How do you feel about the federal govt. taking away financial aid for prison education?
d. How does it feel to have to answer to a parole officer? How does it affect your lifestyle?
e. Before this most recent time, were you incarcerated or on probation? How do these experiences affect your life to this day?
f. Does incarceration run in your family? How did this affect you growing up? If not, how did you get into this?
g. Do you feel you deserve a second chance in life? Why or why not?
Works Cited
Uggen, C., Manza, J., & Thompson, M. (2006). Citizenship, democracy, and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 605(1), 281-310
Katel, Peter (2012).Criminal records and employment. CQ researcher, Volume 22, 349-376
Petersilia, J. (2001). Prisoner reentry: Public safety and reintegration challenges. The Prison Journal, 81(3), 360-375.
Alexander, M. (2011). The new Jim Crow : mass incarceration in the age of colorblindness. New York Jackson, Tenn: New Press,Distributed by Perseus Distribution. 
Gottschalk, M. (2015). Caught : the prison state and the lockdown of American politics. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Selman, D. & Leighton, P. (2010). Punishment for sale : private prisons, big business, and the incarceration binge. Lanham, Md: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Wacquant. (2009). Punishing the poor : the neoliberal government of social insecurity. Durham NC: Duke University Press.
Taibbi, M. (2014). The divide : American injustice in the age of the wealth gap. New York: Spiegel & Grau.
Richard, J.I. (2009) Beyond Bars: Rejoining society after prison. New York: Penguin Group
Petersilia, J. (2005). Hard time: Ex-offenders returning home after prison. Corrections Today, 67(2), 66-71.